Kececioglu, Dimitri B. - Maintainability, Availability, & Operational Readiness Engineering Handbook, Volume 1-DeStech Publications (2003)

Maintainability,
Availability, &
Operational
Readiness
Engineering
Handbook
VOLUME 1
Dimitri B. Kececioglu, Ph.D., RE.

Department of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering
Tbe University of Arizona
DE Stech Publications
Maintainability, Availability & Operational Readiness Engineering
Handbook, Volume 1
DEStech Publications, Inc.
1148 Elizabeth Avenue #2
Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17601 U.S.A.
Copyright 0 2003 by Dimitri B. Kececioglu

All rights reserved
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a

retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,
without the prior written permission of Dimitri B. Kececioglu.
Printed in the United States of America

10 9 8 7 6 5
Main enby under title:

h-lahtainability, Availability & Operational Readiness Engineering Handbook, Volume 1
A DEStech Publications book

Bibliography: p.
Includes index p. 769
ISBN NO.1-932078-05-3
PREFACE
THE NEED FOR MAINTAINABILITY, AVAILABILITY AND

OPERATIONAL READINESS ENGINEERING, AND FOR
THESE HANDBOOKS
Maintainability, availability and operational readiness en-
gineering are very important concepts which are quantified and ap-
plied intensively in these handbooks. Maintainability engineering pro-
vides the tools whereby equipment downtime categories are identified
and quantified, their distributions determined, the downtimes that
comprise a significant percentage of the total downtime are singled out
and minimized by special equipment design-for-maintainability tech-
niques. From the downtime distributions the probability of completing
a maintenance action within a desired time, the maintainability, be it a
preventive or a corrective downtime, is quantified and maximized. As
these actions require spare parts and modules, their provisioning needs
to be quantified. This is accomplished in these handbooks and unique
techniques that optimize spares kits for key equipment are presented.
Anywhere from four (4) to 40 times the purchase cost of products
and equipment is expended to keep them operating satisfactorily dur-
ing their lifetimes through corrective and preventive maintenance. To
minimize this cost, prudent preventive (scheduled) maintenance needs
to be exercised. Sixteen such preventive maintenance policies (strate-
gies) are covered in these handbooks to quantitatively address this
very important problem. The end result is to minimize failures which
require corrective maintenance consisting of repairing the failed com-
ponents and replacing them with burned-in, broken-in or debugged
ones. Preventive maintenance ensures that components and modules
that reach a life at which the equipment’s reliability gets to be lower
that the reliability goal set for the next mission or function period are
replaced prior to the start of the next mission or function period. This
strategy results in very sizeable operational cost reductions, because
otherwise, corrective failures will occur which are much costlier to cor-
rect than the preventive maintenance cost required to avert them.
The reliability of preventively and correctively maintained equip-
ment is quite different than that of fresh ones; consequently, the oper-
ational reliability of equipment that undergo corrective plus preventive
maintenance needs to be quantified. This is done in these handbooks,
xxix
xxx PREFACE
including the use of the Markov chains approach with constant and
nonconstant failure and repair rates.
The combination of reliability, which may be quantified if the mean
time between failures ( M T B F )is known, and of maintainability, which
may be quantified if the mean time to restore the equipment to success-
ful function (MTTR) is known, yields the steady state availability of
any equipment. The availability of equipment is a very important mea-
sure, because it determines the percent of their uptime; consequently,
the percent of their operational time the equipment is available to give
the desired level of output or production. The overhead for equipment
being essentially fixed, the more available the equipment is to deliver
the required output or to manufacture a product, the lower will be the
overhead cost per unit of output or per unit of manufactured product.
The intrinsic, inherent, or instantaneous, as well as a great variety of
steady state availabilities, are quantified in these handbooks and their
applications are illustrated by numerous worked-out examples.
In addition to assuming that the equipment is available to provide
the desired function after the start of its operation, it has to be ready
to start to operate at a desired point in time, or when the call for it
to start to operate arrives. The concept that quantifies the probability
that the equipment will be ready to start its function, when called upon
to do so, needs to be developed and quantified. This is accomplished by
the concept of operational readiness, which is covered extensively
in these handbooks.
An all-encompassing concept which quantitatively combines op-
erat ional readiness, mission reliability and design adequacy is
system effectiveness. This concept needs to be developed to assure
that not only the equipment starts its operation when needed, it also
completes its mission, or function, satisfactorily and performs all of its
designed-to functions as specified. Methods for quantifying system
effectiveness are developed and illustrated in these handbooks for
quick implementation thereof.
After the equipment is designed and built, its designed-in maintain-
ability needs to be demonstrated. MIL-STD-471 gives many methods
of achieving this. These methods are covered in detail, and all demon-
stration models are derived and illustrated by many examples in these
handbooks.
To assure that the equipment will meet their maintainability goals,
methodologies need to be developed to predict their maintainabil-
PREFACE xxxi
ity, This is achieved by MIL-STD-472 which prescribes a variety of

maintainability prediction models which are covered in these hand-
books in detail and illustrated by examples.
To scientifically arrive at which equipment to buy, if several manu-
facturers provide a product that performs the same function, a quan-
tity needs to be developed whereby the right manufacturer’s equipment
is correctly selected. This quantity is life-cycle cost. A chapter is
devoted in these handbooks that gives numerous life-cycle cost mod-
els, depending on the type of equipment involved, their use and the
investment strategies considered. Another chapter is devoted to the
optimization of reliability and maintainability combined, to enable the
determination of the combination of M T B F and M T T R that yields
the minimum life-cycle cost.
Renewal theory needs to be used beneficially in maintainability
engineering, because it quantifies with relative ease the reliability and
availability of maintained equipment and systems. It is for this reason
that one chapter is devoted to renewal theory and its implementation
with many illustrative examples.
HOW TO USE THIS HANDBOOK
This handbook is the culmination of over 45 years of teaching by the
author in the unique Reliability Engineering Program and the Master’s
and Ph.D. Degree Programs at The University of Arizona, Tucson,
Arizona. He initiated the Reliability Engineering Program in 1963,
provided extensive consulting services to over 100 companies and gov-
ernment agencies internationally, put on over 400 institutes, training
courses and seminars worldwide to over 12,000 students, and indus-
try and government personnel, and published over 14 books and 152
papers and articles.
This handbook has been written to meet the needs of (1) his stu-
dents taking his course “Maintainability Engineering’’ at The Univer-
sity of Arizona, (2) those attending his “Annual Reliability Engineering
and Management Institutes,” conceived, initiated and directed by the
author since 1963; and (3) all present and future reliability, product
assurance, maintainability, maintenance, spare parts provisioning, de-
sign, test and quality assurance engineers, managers, and practitioners;
as well as serve as an engineering college textbook. It is the sequel to
the “Reliability Engineering Handbook” by Dr. Kececioglu, published
by DEStech Publications, Inc., 1148 Elizabeth Ave. #2, Lancaster,
xxxii PREFACE
PA 17601 - 4359, Vol. 1, 720 pp. and Vol. 2, 568 pp., and “Reliability
& Life Testing Handbook” by Dr. Kececioglu, published by DEStech
Publications, Inc., 1148 Elizabeth Ave. #2, Lancaster, PA 17601 -
4359, Vol. 1, 950 pp., 2002 and Vol. 2, 900 pp., 2002.
Each chapter has numerous practical examples, completely worked
out and necessary computer programs given. Problems to be worked
out by students and practitioners are given at the end of each chapter,
as well as complete references. It is recommended that those who teach
reliability engineering courses start by teaching out of the two-volume
“Reliability Engineering Handbook,” follow it by teaching out of the
two-volume “Reliability & Life Testing Handbook,” and then follow it
by teaching out of this, the two-volume “Maintainability, Availability
and Operational Readiness Handbook.”
Chapter 1 of Volume 1, of this two-volume handbook establishes
the objectives of this handbook, the overall benefits of an integrated
reliability and maintainability engineering program implemented in in-
dustry and government, and covers 22 case histories documenting the
actual benefits derived from the implementation of reliability and main-
tainability engineering.
Chapter 2 defines and quantifies system effectiveness, and gives
the relationship between reliability and system effectiveness. It also
defines reliability and maintainability comprehensively and provides
46 practical benefits of implementing reliability and maintainability
engineering.
Chapter 3 defines maintenance, preventive maintenance, cor-
rective maintenance;identifies and defines all types of corrective and
preventive maintenance downtimes and their relationship to all other
times associated with the life of equipment. It also covers maintenance
personnel factors and costs; maintenance personnel safety factors; and
maintenance support facilities and equipment.
Chapter 4 discusses 15 maintainability design criteria which mini-
mize equipment downtime, increase accessibility to critical, high failure
rate parts in equipment, provide better packaging; identify the correct
placement of labels which contain operating and maintenance instruc-
tions so that they can be seen easily, and the correct choice of fastener
design; provide for the correct identification of equipment check points,
numbering of parts, marking of connectors so that they are connected
to the correct receptacle, etc.
Chapter 5 covers downtime distributions, and maintainability en-
PREFACE xxxiii
gineering equations and their equivalent relationships to those in re-

liability engineering. It also discusses the lognormal distribution of
downtimes and the quantification of its parameters.
Chapter 6 presents the quantification of the maintainability given
the exponential, lognormal and Weibull times-to-restore equipment to
successful function distributions; of the repair rate, mean corrective
and preventive maintenance times; geometric mean time, maximum
repair time for a desired maintainability, and the maintainability for a
desired repair time.
Chapter 7 covers the quantification of the steady state mean time
to actively restore, repair and/or replace components in an equipment.
Chapter 8 covers the maintainability specifications and their appli-
cations, including MIL-STD-470 and 471. Eleven test methods are
discussed which enable the determination of the mean time to re-
store, the critical percentile of the maintenance time or man-hours,
chargeable maintenance downtime per flight, man-hour rate, combined
mean/percentile requirement, mean maintenance time and maximum
time for a desired maintainability, and the percentiles of corrective and
preventive maintenance times. All equations used in these methods are
derived in the appendices of this chapter.
Chapter 9 provides two preventive maintenance policies: Policy
I, age replacement, and Policy 11, block replacement. The corrective
failure rate and preventive replacement rate, average number of spares,
and the minimum cost preventive maintenance period are determined.
Chapter 10 covers Policy 111,the ordinary periodic replacement pol-
icy, and Policies IV, V and VI. Policy IV deals with a modified periodic
replacement policy with constant spares procurement lead time; Pol-
icy V deals with an age replacement policy with minimal repair, and
Policy VI deals with an age replacement policy with minimal repairs
and system idle time.
Chapter 11 presents modified block replacement policies; namely,
Policy VII, ordinary block replacement policy; Policy VIII, modified
block replacement policy; Policy IX, modified block replacement policy
with reconditioned spares use; and Policy X, multiple block replace-
ment policy with idle time cost.
Chapter 12 covers additional maintenance policies: Policy XI, op-
tional replacement policy; Policy XII, multistage replacement policy;
Policy XIII, opportunistic replacement policy: Policy XIV, preventive
replacement policy for capital equipment; Policy XV, optimal inspec-
xxxiv PREFACE
tion frequency with maximization of profit; and Policy XVI,optimal

inspection interval with maximization of equipment availability. Re-
cent developments in maintenance policies are also covered.
Chapter 13 discusses overhaul policies with finite and infinite time
horizons, including use of dynamic programming and optimal cost lim-
its.
Chapter 14 covers spares provisioning at a desired confidence level,
for a decaying population, when replacing units that fail by a pre-
scribed operating time; spares provisioning for the various preventive
maintenance policies presented earlier; spares prediction with growth
and warranty; spares provisioning with cost of spares consideration;
spares provisioning with cost of spares consideration that includes op-
timum spares kits; and spares provisioning with inventory costs con-
siderations.
Chapter 15 determines distributional test and repair times in a
test and repair facility using Monte Carlo simulation methods, The
outcome error bounds and the required number of Monte Carlo trials
are also determined.
Chapter 16 covers the Weibull process of repairable units, whereby
the conditional reliability of surviving a given operating time, given it
got repaired after the previous failure and the mean time between the
( r - 1)th and r t h failure given the times to the first (T- - 1) failures can
be determined, using the parameters of the Weibull process obtained
by graphical, as well as by the maximum likelihood, estimates. Also
the composite Weibull process is determined.
Chapter 17 determines the reliability of components with a policy
of replacing those that fail by a prescribed time with fresh ones.
Chapter 18 covers the reliability of maintained equipment while
keeping track of the ages of all components with exponential and
Weibullian times-to-failure distributions.
It is recommended that instructors teaching this course assign three
to five problems every week for homework, the specific number depend-
ing on the degree of difficulty of the assigned problems, to be handed in
within a week, After the homework is corrected, graded and returned,
it should be discussed in class and all subtleties in the solutions brought
out.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author thanks all of his many colleagues and friends for mak-
PREFACE xxxv
ing this handbook possible; Dr. Ernest T. Smerdon, Dean, College of

Engineering and Mines and Vice Provost, and Dr. Pitu Mirchandani,
Head, Systems and Industrial Engineering, both at The University
of Arizona, for supporting the Reliability Engineering Program; many
companies and government agencies he consulted for, who have enabled
him to gather the practical material included in this handbook; Mr.
L. Duane Dunlap, Jr., Division Manager, Process Design and Reliabil-
ity of ALCOA for securing a $10,000 challenge grant from the ALCOA
Foundation, so that if Dr. Kececioglu raised $20,000 they will match it.
Mr. L. Wayne Key, Chief, Reliability & Maintainability Engineering,
Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, contributed $5,000, Mr. Dennis
Hoffman, Director, Support Engineering Strategy and Tools, Defense
Systems & Electronics Group, Texas Instruments, contributed $10,000,
and Dr. Gordon Goodyear, President, International Power Systems,
contributed $5,000, thus meeting the requirements of the challenge
group of raising $20,000. Consequently, this grant raised a total of
$50,000, thanks to the efforts and generosity of these gentlemen. This
grant supported graduate students who contributed extensive mate-
rial to many chapters, and formulated and worked out the numerous
examples and problems in this handbook. In particular the author
thanks greatly Dr. Vladimir Crk and Dr. Feng-Bin Sun, for their
extensive contributions to this handbook, for keying the manuscript
in the BTEX language, preparing the drawings and tables and making
it camera ready, and Dimitri Dimou and Thomas Spachos for making
necessary corrections and finalizing the handbook.
The author is deeply indebted to his untiring and patient wife
Lorene June Kececioglu, his highly accomplished daughter Zoe Di-
ana Kececioglu-Draelos, M.D. in Dermatology, and his outstanding
son John Dimitri Kececioglu, Ph.D. in Computer Science, and Asso-
ciate Professor at The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, for their
excellent support and affection.
Dr. Dimitri B. Kececioglu, P.E.

Tucson, Arizona
Chapter 1
MAINTAINABILITY,
AVAILABILITY AND
OPERATIONAL READINESS
ENGINEERING
1.1 HANDBOOK OBJECTIVES

In this handbook, the following are presented, discussed and illustrated
by examples:
1. Concepts of, and defiiiitioiis for, Reliability Engineering, Main-

ta.inability Engineering, Maintenance, Maintainability, Opera-
tional R.eadiiiess, Reliability of Maintained Equipment and Sys-
tems and the -4vailability of Maintained Equipment and Systems.
and System Effectiveness.
2. Equipment times, including the various preventive and corrective

maintenance times, equipment downtime categories, equipment
uptime categories and their interrelationships.
3. hhintensnce personnel and safety factors. and support facilities

and ecluipnient .
4. Fifteen key maiiitaina.bility design criteria t o improve the acces-

sibility to critical units in equipment scheduled for maintenance.
a 11d iiii 11i in ize equip men t downtime.
1
2 M AIN TAINABILIT Y ENGINEERING
5 . Equipment downtime distributions, with emphasis on the lognor-

mal, Weibull and exponential distributions, and determination of
the distribution parameters and their statistics.
6. Maintainability quantification for a specified time to restore the
equipment for the lognormal, Weibull and exponential downtime
distributions. The word restore is used to mean maintain, and/or
replace and/or repair.
7. Determination of the time to restore the equipment for a speci-
fied maintainability for the lognormal, Weibull and exponential
downtime distributions.
8. A-priori and a-posteriori maintainability determination.
9. Analytical Maintainability Engineering functions that are analo-
gous to those in Reliability Engineering.
10. Mean time to actively restore units to satisfactory function, mean
maintenance man-hours to repair and replace equipment, and
mean time for corrective and preventive maintenance. The word
unit is used to mean any equipment, product or system.
11. Sixteen preventive maintenance policies, including policies of age,
block and other types of replacement of units; and the resulting
improvement in equipment reliability and MTBF.
12. Optimization of preventive maintenance schedules for minimum
total life-cycle cost of equipment.
13. Retention of the value of equipment through maintainability cost
considerations.
14. Spares provisioning at a desired assurance level.
15. Optimum spares kit determination at minimum cost for a desired
assurance level.
16. Synthesizing the times-to-restore distribution of equipment using
the following analytical tools:
16.1 Central limit theorem.
16.2 Moments generation.
16.3 Monte Carlo simulation.
17. Confidence limits on the predicted maintainability and time to
restore, based on the number of Monte Carlo simulations used
and the number of simulations to be used for a desired error on
the maintainability and the time to restore the equipment.
HANDBOOK OBJECTIVES 3
18. Reliability of maintained systems with redundancy using the

Markov chain process and the following three methods:
18.1 State transition.
18.2 State transition matrix.
18.3 Markov graph.
19. Reliability of components with a policy of replacing those that
fail by a prescribed operating time.
20. Availability of maintained systems using the Markov chain pro-
cess and the following three methods:
20.1 State transition.
20.2 State transition matrix.
20.3 Markov graph.
21. Availability of systems with p a r d e l redundancy.
22. Availability of systems with redundancy when repairs cannot be
made until complete system failure.
23. Availability of series systems.
24. Renewal theory approach to availability.
25. A-priori versus a-posteriori availability determination.
26. Steady state availabilities including the intrinsic, inherent, opera-
tional, use, general, achieved and other steady state availabilities.
27. System Effectiveness and Operational Readiness.
28. Availability improvement considerations.
4 MAINTAINABILITY ENGINEERING
1.2 RELIABILITY AND MAINTAINABILITY

ENGINEERING OBJECTIVES AND
BENEFITS
1. Implement an integrated reliability engineering and product as-
surance program in purchasing, engineering, research, develop-
ment, manufacturing, quality control, inspection, testing, pack-
aging, shipping, installation, start-up, operation, field service
and performance feedback, take corrective actions wherever and
whenever indicated, and incorporate the correct, complete and
comprehensive reliability and maintainability specifications into
all of the previous company activities that come in contact with
the product from its birth to its death.
2. Determine the optimum reliability and maintainability that should
be designed into equipment so that its life-cycle cost is the min-
imum and design these into the equipment.
3. Scientifically allocate the system’s reliability goal to its subsys-
tems, and all the way down to its parts.
4. Obtain the required times-to-failure and success-and-failuredata,
and prepare reliability bathtub curves where the failure rate of a
part or equipment is plotted versus its age. Such curves enable
the determination of the following:
4.1 The optimum break-in testing period and burn-in time.
4.2 The optimum warranty time and its cost.
4.3 The optimum preventive replacement time of key compo-
nents.
4.4 The optimum spares parts requirements.
5. Conduct failure modes, effects and criticality analysis (FAMECA)
to identify areas which should receive concentrated redesign, re-
search and development efforts from their maintainability point
of view.
6. Study the consequences of failures to determine the loss of adja-
cent parts and equipment, loss of production, profits, and human
life, as well as damage to the goodwill of the company.
7. Implement the design improvement recommendations resulting
from a comprehensive failure modes, effects and criticality anal-
ysis (FAMECA) effort.
ENGINEERTNG OBJECTIVES 5
8. Study the types of failures experienced by parts, components,

products and systems and their relative failure rates, and rec-
ommend design, research, and development efforts t o minimize
these failures.
9. Determine the times-to-failure distribution of parts, components,
products and systems to enable the calculation of the failure rate
and reliability.
10. Determine the times-to-restore distribution of the failed equip-
ment. These times should include all components of these equip-
ment downtimes, and the distributions of each downtime compo-
nent, such as active corrective, diagnostic, logistic and adminis-
trative downtime.
11. Determine the mean time and the variability of all downtime
components whose distributions were determined in the previous
item to identify problem areas which need t o be addressed, and
primarily reduce the mean time and variability of those mainte-
nance actions consuming a large proportion of the total down-
time.
12. Reduce the number of components used in the design of the
equipment.
13. Use reliabilitywise better component arrangements and equip-
ment configuration.
14. Determine the required redundancy (parallel or standby) to achieve
the specified reliability goal, if other methods fail.
15. Select better and more compatible materials.
16. Select the proper stress, strain, strength, and time relationships
in the design of the parts and components t o attain the optimum
design reliability goal.
17. Use reliability and maintainability engineering checklists in all
phases of existence of the equipment from birth to death.
18. Predict at the design state the reliability being designed into
parts and components via the stress/strength distributions’ inter-
ference approach and thereby optimize the designed-in reliability
to conserve materials and energy.
19. Establish a failure and maintenance reporting system to scien-
tifically gather the vitally needed reliability and maintainability
data.
20. Establish failure responsibility as to engineering, manufacturing,

purchasing, quality control, inspection, testing, packaging, ship-
ping, sales, field service, start-up, operation, user abuse or mis-
application.
21. Guide corrective action decisions to minimize failures, reduce
maintenance and repair times, and eliminate overdesign as well
as underdesign.
22. Determine through testing whether the changes made affected
the life, reliability and maintainability of the equipment in the
right direction and to the desired degree.
23. Undertake reliability and maintainability design reviews and im-
prove design, engineering, purchasing, manufacturing, quality
control, testing, burning-in, packaging, shipping, installation,
start-up, value engineering, and human factors practices, so that
the equipment gets designed and manufactured right the first
time.
24. Minimize design errors through design maintainability checklists.
25. Minimize manufacturing errors through manufacturing reliability
and maintainability checklists.
26. Minimize assembly, quality control, and inspection errors through
proper checklists and training.
27. Assure parts, components and equipment start-up by proper in-
stallation, good operation and maintenance manuals, and good
prescribed corrective and preventive maintenance practices.
28. Minimize improper equipment start-up by proper installation,
good operating and maintenance manuals, and good prescribed
corrective and preventive maintenance practices.
29. Determine the size and skill level of the maintenance crew and
the required skill levels for each type of equipment.
30. Determine the distribution of preventive maintenance times, their
mean and their variability.
31. Avoid user abuse of the equipment by providing warning labels,
and load and speed limiters and controls.
32. Minimize the potential of misapplication through correct equip-
ment performance specifications and proper training of the sales
and service engineers and personnel.
ENGINEERING OBJECTIVES 7
33. Prepare and implement reliability and maintainability growth

curves to ascertain that the right design, manufacturing, purchas-
ing, quality control, sales, and service efforts are being expended,
to predict if the target equipment reliability and maintainability
will be attained by the time full production will commence or by
delivery time to the customer.
34. Implement an effective reliability and maintainability field data
collection, reduction, analysis, feedback, and corrective action
system.
35. Monitor the field performance of the equipment and calculate
the maintainabilities and repair rates of the failing parts and
components, and if these maintainabilities and repair rates are
lower than their designed-in goals take immediate corrective ac-
tions substantially in advance of the surfacing of major equip-
ment problems.
36. Conduct trade-off studies among reliability, maintainability, cost,
weight, volume, operability and safety to determine the most
cost-effective combination.
37. Determine the best test plan and test sample size to use to evalu-
ate and verify the maintainability and the MTTR of equipment.
38. Determine the optimum, minimum cost, high confidence level
spare parts provisioning for equipment and thereby reduce in-
ventory costs.
39. Reduce warranty costs by reducing in-warranty repairs, replace-
ments and product support costs.
40. Promote sales by advertising the facts that the product needs
minimal maintenance and support cost, because it has been de-
signed with maintainability uppermost in mind.
41. Quantify the availability of the equipment and maximize it, to
maximize the production volume and the time the equipment is
operational.
42. Promote sales by advertising the very high availability of the
equipment for production or use, thus reducing production costs
and the cost of operation of the equipment.
43. Increase customer satisfaction and goodwill by marketing prod-
ucts that are easier to maintain and more available for produc-
tion.
44. Increase sales as a result of increased customer satisfaction and

goodwill.
45. Increase profits, or for the same profit provide even more reliable
and easier to maintain products.
46. Reverse the present trend of spending over 90% of the reliability,
maintainability, and quality costs in industry to correct product
reliability, maintainability and design inadequacies and defects
after they have occurred, while spending less than 10% to design
and make the products right in the first place.
1.3 BENEFITS DERIVED FROM THE

IMPLEMENTATION OF RELIABILITY AND
MAINTAINABILITY ENGINEERING
1. In 1958, only 28% of all United States satellite launchings were
successful, whereas today over 92% are successful and this relia-
bility is increasing every year.
2. During the Korean War less than 20% of the combat airplane
electronic gear was operational. Today this has been increased
to over 85%.
3. The advanced solid state Minuteman missile has attained a reli-
ability of over 95% through reliability engineering applications.
4. One electronic instruments manufacturer through the application
of reliability and maintainability engineering has reduced service
costs by about 70%, even though the sales were increased by 25%
at the same time.
5. An airplane hydraulic pump when first introduced had a mean
time to overhaul of 1,200 hours. As a result of continued field
monitoring of failures and failure modes, design changes improv-
ing reliability and maintainability were made which increased
this time to 4,000 hours and in some cases to 5,800 hours.
During a four-year period (1959 to 1962) the cost per hour of
operation for the time between overhauls decreased by a factor
of 4 to 5 11, p. 3401. Based on 4,000 hours between overhauls,
the savings were as follows, per overhaul per airplane:
Old - (4,000 hr/overhaul)($0.63/hr) = $2,52O/overhaul.
New - (4,000 hr/overhaul)($O.l7/hr) = $680/overhaul.
SAVINGS: $1,84O/overhaul.
EN GINEERZN G BENEFITS 9
6. A reliability improvement program was implemented on the T-38

airplane and in its first three years accounted for 441 specific doc-
umented changes resulting from 2,262failure investigations. The
cost of the reliability effort was approximately $1,500,000and
resulted in savings over the three-year period of 1960 to 1962
of approximately $32,000,000. The savings included less main-
tenance, greater availability, fewer accidents and fewer spares [2,
pp. 65-70].
7. A reliability improvement study was conducted on the Minute-
man missile system. During the study, all major subsystems were
considered. A total of 66 specifications were proposed of which
13 were approved. The net effect was a 30% reduction in the
failure rate of the first Minuteman wing. The cost-effectiveness
analysis revealed a return of $8.00for every dollar invested in the
reliability improvement program. The net savings over a ten-year
period was expected to be $160,000,000[3,p. 511.
8. Comparative costs for the Atlas guidance system for a "nominal"
reliability level and a "high" reliability program are given in Ta-
ble 1.1 [4]. This table shows that a "high" reliability program for
the Atlas missile guidance system resulted in $58,400,000savings
per year for a yearly investment of $10,100,000 in development
and production for reliability and maintainability.
TABLE 1.1 - The total annual costs (million dollars) for
the Atlas guidance system [4, p. 1721.
"High" reliability "Nominal" reliability

program program
Development 59.3 50.0
Production 10.2 9.4
Maintenance 30.5 99.0
Total 100.0 158.4
9. Republic Aviation Corporation conducted a reliability improve-

ment program which justified the axioms that reliability may
increase initial cost but substantially reduce maintenance costs.
A comprehensive reliability program was conducted on the F-
105 Weapon System with the result that reliability was increased
from 0.7263 to 0.8986. The reliability program nonrecurring costs
were estimated at $25,500,000,while the annual savings in main-
tenance costs were estimated at $54,000,000[5,p. 4231.
10. UnreIiability hits the Navy supply business in two principal ar-
eas: aircraft unavailability and high supply costs. In addition,
the dollars required for supply are in direct competition with
dollars required for new ships and aircraft. The aviation spares
inventory aboard a large attack carrier has a value of approxi-
mately $4,000,000, while in an industrial air station the inventory
represents approximately $300,000,000. The Aviation Supply Of-
fice is currently buying spares for the entire Navy at a rate of
$500,000,000 per year. Better reliability and maintainability can
be a significant factor in reducing these costs [6, p. 811.
11. Rear Admiral J.M.Lyle (SC), USN, past commanding officer,
Naval Aviation Supply Office, said “In addition to costs in readi-
ness or time, unreliability costs us in dollars. The major direct
added cost, of course, is the additional stocks of parts to meet
the higher usage rate and to supply more frequent repairs. There
is also the cost of added transportation to meet emergency sit-
uations. And, of course, there are the intangible and indirect
costs stemming out of unreliability. What is the dollar cost of
grounding an A3D Aircraft for lack of parts? Though not readily
measured, it is nevertheless real and important.” [6]. “A Horizon
Stabilizer Actuator for one of our attack aircraft is an example of
unreliability, evidenced by failure or wear rate far exceeding that
expected. The replacement rate which finally developed was 60%
as contrasted with an expectation of 8%. Interpreted into dol-
lars, this usage increase cost us $400,000 additional in stock level
buys. Moreover, this usage increase multiplied our repair and
transportation costs seven times.” “Or take a fuel control having
current fighter application. The item cost us over $5,000. There
have been 27 modifications to this control. Just bits and pieces
to effect these modifications have cost us a total of $2,500,000.
The delays, and other direct and indirect costs, are on top of
that.”
12. GM reported that its 1961 appliances required 9% less service
than the 1960 models and 33% less than 1957 models.
13. ”There is no question at Tapco that reliability is a profitable
venture,” said R.R. Lwders, past Chief of Reliability, Tapco Di-
vision, Thompson Ram0 Woolridge, Inc. The profit contribution
shows up in many forms:
Standurds -A bolt, washer, and nut assembly costing $10, used

in quantities of 50 per finished product, was checked by the
Reliability Standards Group. It found a replacement for
ENGINEERING BENEFITS 11
oiily 10 cents that served the same function. Savings: $495

per unit. “Of course, there aren’t many of these 100-to-1
nuggets lying around,’’ said Landers, “but, by digging hard
and applying the principles of value analysis and standard-
ization, the reliability group consistently reduced costs of
equipment by one-third.”
Design Research -Landers pointed out that the most effective
area €or profit contributions is the Reliability Group’s work
with the designer. Designs are reviewed and audited during
the initial stages of a. development program. If there is a
design shortcomjng that would cost $1 to correct prior to
the initial drafting release, it would cost $10 after the final
release, $100 at the prototype stage, $1,000 at the prepro-
duction stage, and $10,000 at the production stage,
Vendor Work -Tapco gives values and statistical confidence
levels, plus testing procedures, to vendors. In that way,
it quantitatively defines areas of work that previously were
vague or omitted entirely. Mr. Landers said that this not
only improves the product, but it improves supplier rela-
tions as well.
Alcc.int.ennn.ce -Tapco a.pplics rcliability tools and techniques in
maintenance. The firm found that the majority of its repair
costs varied from $1,500 to $8,000. By applying reliability
and maintainability principles to its preventive maintenance
program, it has increased mean time between failures, and
thus attained longer equipment life.
14. The Air Force placed an order with Hoffman Electronic Cor-
poration of Los Angeles, California, to undertake a major pro-
duction contract for AN/ARN 21-C TACAN equipment, which
is the airborne portion of a ground-linked, short-range, naviga-
tional aid system [7] with a strict requirement of implementing
a complete reliability and maintainability engineering program.
The economic advantages of these “build-it-right-the-first-time”
procurement actions taken by the Air Force and Hoffmann can
be summarized as follows and in Table 1.2 :
14.1 Price savings of $445 per set times 10,000 sets on order or
$4,450,000.
14.2 Service life estimates of 3,000 hr.
12 MAINTAINABILITY ENGINEERTNG
14.3 8.5 times more reliable; i.e., 17.5 hr versus 150 hr MTBF.
14.4 Maintenance costs per failure of $140.
14.5 In one year on 10,000 sets of navigational systems $70,650,000
was saved.
TABLE 1.2 - Cost benefits in the TACAN reliability

program [7].
AN/ARN 21-B AN/ARN 21-C

(Old model) (New model)
Failure/1,000 hr ( 1 yr) 57.2 6.66
(1 year’s operation)
Maintenance costs/1,000 hr, $8,000 $935
per set (1 yr)
Maintenance costs/1,000 hr, $80,000,000 $9,350,000
10,000 sets (1 yr)
Total savings in maintenance $70,650,000
and support costs Der year
15. The case of two suppliers bidding to design, manufacture, test,

and deliver 2,000 airborne indicator panels per year is presented
in Table 1.3 and Fig. 1.1. Supplier A prices its units at $3,227 per
unit, while Supplier B prices its units at $2,221, certainly a very
favorable price or about two-thirds that of Supplier A. However,
it happens that Supplier A’s M T B F is 941 hours, while that of
Supplier B is only 331 hours, or about one-third that of Supplier
A. The end result is an annual maintenance cost of $14,285,000
for Supplier B’s product versus $5,452,000 for Supplier A’s prod-
uct. The total annual cost of acquiring and maintaining the units
of Supplier A is $11,906,000, and of Supplier B is $18,727,000,
or a savings of $6,821,000 per year if Supplier A’s units are ac-
quired, even though the purchase price is about 50% higher than
that of Supplier B. In other words, the life-cycle cost should be
the basis of selecting the supplier, and the more reliable product,
even though it may cost more to acquire, it costs much less over
the design life of the product. Figure 1.1 also shows that Supplier
A has a very good grasp of the reliability engineering principles,
because the designed-in M T B F was chosen to be the optimum
M T B F at which the life-cycle cost is minimum.
TABLE 1.3 - Cost comparison for two identical airborne
indicator panels (based on 2,000 units).
Unit cost, MTBF, Initial Annual maintenance Total
Supplier s hr cost, $ cost, s cost, s
A 3,227 941 6,454,000 5,452,000 11,906,000
C
B 2,221 331 4,442,000 14,285,000 18,727,000
25 -
Unit B
-020-
4
d
Cost savings ;
of $6,821,000 8
I
I I
I I
OO 300 600 900 1,200 1,500 1,800
MTBE hr
Fig. 1.1 - Plot comparing cost and MTDIZ for airborne indicator panels from two different
suppliers.
16. Table 1.4 illustrates the benefits of trade-off studies which can-
not be conducted without reliability and maintainability inputs.
The problem resolved in Table 1.4 is whether to throw away or
repair a failed module from the overall cost point of view. Un-
der “Total cost of spares,” 60 repairable modules per ten years
are estimated to be needed, yielding $20 x 60 = $1,200, and 50
throwaway modules yielding $150 x 50 = $7,500. This informa-
tion is derived from reliability engineering studies. Under “Cost
of repair - active repair time,” the M T T R of two hours is needed
yielding 60 repairs/lO years x 2 hr/repair x $15/hr = $1,800.
This M T T R can only be obtained from Maintainability Engi-
neering studies. Finally, it is found that the “repair case” will
cost $14,796 versus $8,680 for the “discard case”; consequently,
the “discard case” wins out at great savings.
17. Military aircraft have typically been designed with performance

in mind and not reliability and maintainability considerations.
This leads to higher life-cycle costs and maintenance man-hours
per flight hour ( M M H I F H ) [8]. Examples of improvement by
incorporating reliability and maintainability into design to reduce
life-cycle costs are:
(a) The nose radome of the B-1A had to be completely removed

to gain access to radar antennae. This process would require
3 people and 30 to 45 minutes. After redesign, the B-1B
nose radome is hinged mounted to swing open and can be
accessed by 1 person in less than 15 minutes.
(b) The B-1A had several external compartment panels which
allowed access to the avionics equipment but required main-
tenance platforms to work from. This problem was solved by
redesigning the B-1A so that the avionics bay faces the cen-
ter aisle where its accessibility has been greatly improved
and the equipment’s reliability has increased due to the
elimination of possible effects of exposure to the elements.
18. The AV-8B was designed t o meet quantitative maintainability

goals. The aircraft was specified to have fewer than 15.9 mainte-
nance man-hours per flight hour (A4M H / F H ) and has surpassed
that goal at 15.5 M M H / F H [9].This is particurlarly impressive
when compared to the AV-8A which had 30.3 M M H I F H . The
implementation of maintainability by design for the AV-8B will
eliminate depot level requirements, reduce support equipment re-
quirements, reduce downtime, increase availability and result in
life-cycle cost savings of $ 8,000,000.
TABLE 1.4 - Trade-off study considerations requiring reliability and
maintainability inputs.
Module repair versus throw away ingle application)
I --
ADDlicable cost
Factor I
hDaircase
. = ~
Discard case Remarks
Unit cost of module $200 $150 Production price. Module design is
simplified in discard case.
Total cost of spares $1,200 $7,500 Based on module replacements
(Assume 10% spare Repairable module - 60110 years.
repairable modules) Throw away module - 50110 years.
Cost of repair
Administration $396 N/A Assume 110% indirect labor.
Active repair time $1,800 N/A MTTR - 2 hr. One technician - 5 level.
Test equipment/spares $100 N/A Oscilloscope and module extender required.
Oscilloscope in supply system.
Piece-parts for repair $300 NIA Assume $5 per repair action.
Facilities none NIA Use existing facilities for repair.
Cost of retrofit and
modification $140 $1,000 Assume one.retrofit at $20 each.
Cost of packaging and shipping none NIA Assume field level repair. No shipping.
Cost of technical training $60 $30 Formal training costs less in discard case.
Cost of technical manuals,
trouble-shooting diagrams, etc. $600 NIA Assume 3 pages at $200 per page.
Cost of spares provisioning,
cataloguing, handling, etc. $10,000 N/A Assume 10% of parts in module are peculiar.
Estimated cost per line item - $5,000.
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $14,796 $8.680 DECISION - THROW AWAY.
19. The F/A-18 was developed under the Navy's "new look" weapons
procurement program in an effort to improve reliability and main-
tainability and thus, reduce life-cycle cost [lo]. During the four-
year period after entering service, the F/A-18 was three times
more reliable than the two aircraft it replaces, the F-4J and the
A-7E. The F/A-18 has an average of 2.2 mean flight hours be-
tween failures ( M F H B F ) compared with its closest competi-
tor the F-4J averaging 0.8 M F H B F . The F/A-18 required
26.0 M M H / F H which was a great improvement over the 46.1
MMIFI/FH necessary for the A-7E.
20. PATRIOT (Phased Array TRacking to Intercept Of Target) mis-

sile developers implemented a reliability and maintainability growth
plan to increase the M T B F and reduce the M T T R [ll]. The
results of this plan have demonstrated an increase in the M T B F
from 30 to 39 hours while the M T T R has decreased from 3.8 to
3.3 hours.
21. Pump failures cost an average of $4,000 per repair in the petro-
chemical industry. The M T B F for typical pumps is 18 months
and because of the number of them at large refineries main-
tenance costs for pump repairs alone may exceed $3,000,000.
Exxon has introduced a pump failure reduction program which
has yielded significant results and led to 29% less failures after
the first year of implementation [12].
22. The reliability and maintainability of a helicopter flight control

system can be considerably improved by using a digital/optical
flight control system instead of a dual mechanical flight con-
trol system. The comparison between dual mechanical and dig-
ital/optical flight control systems are summarized in Table 1.5.
The flight safety was improved 600% by the optical flight system
in contrast to the dual mechanical system. The mission reliabil-
ity increased 400% and the maintainability increased 250% for
the optical system in comparison to the dual mechanical control
systern.
Here is an often made statement: "Over 90% of reliability, main-

tainability and quality costs in industry are being spent t o correct prod-
uct design inadequacies and defects after they have occurred, while less
than 10% are being spent to make products right in the first place."
Let's make sure that this does not get perpetuated!
TABLE 1.5 - Reliability comparison between dual mechanical and digital/optical
flight control systems [13].
Flight safety, Mission aborts, Maintenan e action,

fr/106 hr fr/106 hr fr/lO hr
Functional Dual Digital/ Dual Digital/ Dual ' Digital/
Groupings Mechanical Optical Mechanical Optical Mechanical Optical
Mechanical controls 0.0054 - 341.5 - 15,000 -
Force controller - 1.608~10-~ - 1.1967 - 1,331
AFCS - - - - 1,830 555
Electronics - 3 . 3 0 7 -'
~ 1 0 - 0.0665 - 1,497
Hydromechanical 0.2113 3 4 . 6 8 ~ 1 0-3 1,114.0 315.30 4,370 3,440
Failure monitor - 2 . 5 3 7 ~ 1 0-4 - 30.340 - 400
Electrical power - 5.55~10-" - 4.408~10-~ - 979
Total 0.2167 3 4 . 9 4 10 ~ -3 1,455.5 346.90 21,000 8,202
MTBF, hr 4.61~10' 28.65~10' 687.0 2,882.6 48 122
18 APPLICATIONS AND B m m m
PROBLEMS
1-1. What is maintainability?
1-2. What is maintainability engineering?
1-3. What in today’s advanced society dictates the acquisition and
the application of the maintainability engineering principles?
1-4. Name three complex products of today which should be de-
signed by and their performance monitored through main-
tainability engineering.
1-5. Name three current space and defense projects which have
been designed by and whose performance is being monitored
through maintainability engineering.
1-6. Which specific phases of existence of a product or system
does maintainability deal with?
1-7. List five of the most important applications of and benefits
derived from maintainability engineering in your opinion.
1-8. Illustrate by two numerical examples why product or sys-
tem complexity dictates the acquisition and application of
the knowledge of maintainability engineering.
1-9. Why is today’s worldwide industrial competition a challenge
t o maintainability engineering?
1-10. How do you think maintainability specifications are set?
REFERENCES
1. Billit, A.B., “Control of Maintainability in Aerospace Fluid Power Sys-
tems,” Aerospace Reliability and Maintainability Conference Proceed-
ings, Washington, D.C., pp. 340-349, June 1964.
2. Harter, W.W., “Results of an Airplane Reliability Program,” Aerospace
Reliability and Maintainability Conference Proceedings, Washington,
D.C., pp. 65-70, June 1964.
3. Powell, H.R., “The Minuteman Approach to System Reliability,” Aero-
space and Maintainability Conference Proceedings, Washington, D.C.,
pp. 51-58, June 1964.
4. Camarata, J., “Product Reliability - The Concept of Integrated Relia-
bility and Quality Assurance,” Aerospace Reliability and Maintainabil-
ity Conference, Washington, D.C., pp. 172-178, May 1963.
REFERENCES 19
5 . Colletta, A., Cravero, J., and Russell, C., “Reliability in Procurement-

F105 Aircraft Electronic System,” Seuenih Military-Industry and Space
Reliability Symposium, pp. 423-430, June 1962.
6. Lyle, J.M., Rear Admiral, “Supply Aspects of Reliability,” 4th Nauy-
Industry Conference on Aeronauiical Maierial Reliability, Washington,
D.C.,pp. 25.32-25.35, NOV. 1-2, 1960.
7. Bracha, Vincent J., “Analysis of Reliability Management in Defense
Industries” (Ph.D. Dissertation), Ballistic Systems Division, Air Force
Systems Command, USAF, AFIT, Dayton, Ohio, pp. 8-10 to 8-12,
1962.
8. Worm, Charles M., “The Real World - A Maintainer’s View,” Proceed-
ings of the Annual Reliabiliiy and Mainiainabiliiy Symposium, IEEE,
New York, pp. 8690, 1987.
9. Schmitz, Wayne N., “AV-8B-M By Design: Impact on Supportability,”
Proceedings of the Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium,
IEEE, New York, pp. 240-246, 1987.
10. Gordon, Tommy W., “F/A-18 Hornet Reliability Program: Status Re-
port,” Proceedings of the Annual Reliability and Maintainability Sym-
posium, IEEE, New York, pp. 228-231, 1986.
11. Wyatt, Mack W., “RAM Growth of the PATRIOT Missile System,”
Proceedings of the Annual Reliabilii y and Maintainability Symposium,
IEEE, New York, pp. 381-385, 1987.
12. Bloch, H.P., “Centrifugal Pump Failure Reduction Program Can Show
Quick Success,” Oil k Gas Journal, Vol. 81, No. 2, January 10, 1983.
13. Brady, T.V. & Hogg, G.W., “Army Helicopter Mission Reliability and
Cost Analysis,” Proceedings of the Annual Reliability and Maintain-
ability Symposium, pp. 280-286, 1983.
Chapter 2
SYSTEM EFFECTIVENESS AND

RELIABILITY ENGINEERING
CONCEPTS
2.1 SYSTEM EFFECTIVENESS

System Effectiveness, as a concept, had its beginning in the early six-
ties. Two major pioneering efforts were those of WSEIAC and of the
ARINC Corporation, which are detailed next.
2.1.1 WSEIAC
The concept of System Effectiveness as developed by the Weapons Sys-
tem Effectiveness Industry Advisory Committee (WSEIAC), involved
the totality of the requirements associated with the system’s avail-
ability, dependability and capability, as well as reliability. It must be
pointed out that reliabilitp is directly a component of availability and
of dependability. Furthermore, reliability has t o be designed into a
system. It affects its design and in turn its performance or capability.
WSEIAC task groups prepared and published six reports in eleven vol-
umes. Their titles and Defense Technical Information Center numbers
are as follows:
21
22 SYSTEM EFFECTIVENESS
AFSC-TR-65-1 Final Report of Task Group 1 “Requirements

(AD 458-453) Methodology.”
AFSC-TR-65-2 Final Report of Task Group 2 “Prediction

Measurement .”
(AD 458-454) Vol. I.

(AD 458-455) Vol. 11.
(AD 458-456) Vol. 111.
AFSC-TR-65-3 Final Report of Task Group 3 “Data Collection

(AD 458-585) and Management Reports.”
AFSC-TR-65-4 Final Report of Task Group 4 “Cost Effective-

ness Optimization.”
(AD 458-595) Vol. I.

(AD 462-398) Vol. 11.
(AD 458-586) Vol. 111.
AFSC-TR-65-5 Final Report of Task Group 5 “Management

Systems .”
(AD 461-171) Vol. I.

(AD 461-172) VO~.11.
AFSC-TR-65-6 Chairman’s Final Report “Integrated Summary”

January, 1965.
2.1.2 ARINC
Another set of System Effectiveness concepts have been developed by
ARINC Research Corporation, 2552 Riva Rd., Annapolis, MD 21401.
A summary of these concepts is presented in Fig. 2.1. The definitions
of the System Effectiveness concepts are given in Table 2.1 and the
time categories involved are given in Table 2.2.
These efforts help t o properly place reliability engineering in the
overall picture and in the concept of System Effectiveness. They point
out more vividly the importance of reliability engineering as an overall
concept encompassing reliability, maintainability, availability, opera-
tional readiness, dependability, design adequacy and capability.
RELIABILITY E N G I N E E R " CONCEPT 23
Mission Operational Design

reliability readiness Adequacy
I -
I
I
I
Storage
time
Free
time
Availability -
t
I
- - Active Repair lime
Serviceability . (Repairability)
Fig. 2.1 - System Effectiveness concepts.

Table 2.1 - Definitions of System Effectiveness Con-

cepts.
1. System Efectiveness is the probability that the system can suc-
cessfully meet an operational demand within a given time when
operated under specified conditions.
2. System E’ectiveness for a one-shot device, such as a missile, is
the probability that the system (missile) will operate success-
fully (kill the target) when called upon to do so under specified
conditions.
3. Reliability is the probability that the system will perform sat-
isfactorily for at least a given period of time when used under
stated conditions.
4. Mission Reliability is the probability that, under stated condi-
tions, the system will operate in the mode for which it was de-
signed; i.e., with no malfunctions, for the duration of a mission,
given that it was operating in this mode at the beginning of the
mission.
5. Opemtional Readiness is the probability that, at any point in
time, the system is ready to be placed into operation on demand
when used under stated conditions, including stated allowable
warning time.
6 . Availability is the probability that the system is operating sat-
isfactorily at any point after the start of operation, when used
under stated conditions, where the total time considered includes
operating time, active repair time, idle time, preventive mainte-
nance time (in some cases), administrative time and logistic time.
7 . Intrinsic Availability is the probability that the system is operat-
ing satisfactorily at any point after the start of operation, when
used under stated conditions, where the only times considered
are operating time and active, corrective repair time.
8 . Design Adequacy is the probability that the system will success-
fully accomplish its mission, given that the system is operating
within design specifications, and accomplish all designed-to ob-
jectives.
9. Maintainability is the probability that, when maintenance action
is initiated under stated conditions, a failed system will be re-
stored to operable condition within a specified downtime.
RELIABILITY ENGINEERSNG CONCEPT 25
Table 2.1 - Continued.

10. Repaimbility is the probability that a failed system will be re-
stored to operable condition within a specified active repair time.
Ease of accessibility of critical components, accomplished by de-
sign, improves repairability.
11. Serviceability is the degree of ease with which a system can be
repaired.
Table 2.2 - Definitions of time categories in System
Effectiveness.
1. Opemting time is the time during which the system is operating
in a manner acceptable to the operator, although unsatisfactory
operation, or failure, is sometimes the result of the judgment of
the maintenance man.
2. Downtime is the total time during which the system is not in
acceptable operating condition. Downtime can, in turn, be sub-
divided into a number of categories, such as active repair time,
logistic time and administrative time.
3. Active repair time is that portion of downtime during which one
or more technicians are working on the equipment or system
to effect a repair. This time includes preparation time, fault-
correction time, and final checkout time for the equipment sys-
tem, and perhaps other downtime subdivisions, as required in
special cases.
4. Logistic time is that portion of downtime during which repair is
delayed solely because of the necessity for waiting for a replace-
ment part or other subdivision of the equipment or system, for
acquisition of required tools, additional maintenance personnel,
diagnostic equipment, etc.
5 . Adrninistmtive time is that portion of downtime not included
under active repair time and logistic time, but required to make
decisions as to which maintenance crew should be dispatched to
restore the failed equipment or system, to decide what corrective
action(s) to be used if the maintenance crew cannot decide what
to do, etc.
6 . Free time is time during which operational use of the system is
not required; however, the system is operationally ready.
7. Storage time is time during which the system is presumed to be
in operable condition but is being held for emergency; i.e., as a
spare.
2.2 A COMPREHENSIVE DEFINITION

OF RELIABILITY
Reliability is the (1) conditional probability, at a given (2) confidence
level, that the equipment will perform their intended functions satis-
factorily or (3) without failure and within specified performance limits,
at a given (4) age, for a specified length of time or ( 5 ) mission time,
when used in the manner and for the purpose intended while operating
under the specified (6) application and opemtion stress levels.
Reliability is a probability, hence a number between zero and one,
or zero percent and 100%. It is defined as the ratio of the number of
successful missions, N s ( t ) , each of t duration, to the total number of
such missions, NT(t), undertaken, or
reliability estimate = $2) =-

Ndt)
NT(4
therefore,
NFW
reliability estimate = 1 - -
NT(t) '
where
N=(t) = number of missions o f t duration that failed,
b(t) = 1 - 6(t)= 1- unreliability estimate, (2.5)
and
+
A ( t ) B ( t ) = 1. (2.6)
k ( t ) is only an estimate because of the limited, finite number of total

missions usually undertaken. The estimate approaches the true relia-
bility as the total number of missions undertaken approaches infinity,
or
h ( t ) = R ( t ) = true reliability, as NT -+ 00. (2.7)

RELIABILITY ENGINEERING CONCEPT 27
2.3 A QUANTIFICATION OF SYSTEM

EFFECTIVENESS
As at the beginning of each mission t = 0, the number of units surviving
at the beginning of a mission will be equal to the total number at hand
at the start of the mission. Consequently, the reliability will be equal
to one at t = 0. However, this is conditional to the fact that at the
beginning of a mission the equipment is available and ready to start
the mission successfully and the equipment will function within its
designed-for conditions.
A better way of considering this is to look at the quantified concept
of System Effectiveness, SE, which is defined as
SE = OR x RM x DA, (2.8)
where
OR = operational readiness,
RM = mission reliability
and
DA = design adequacy.
System Effectiveness is the probability that a system will success-
fully meet all designed-to objectives when called upon to do so at a
point in time and when operated under the specified conditions.
Another, quantitative, definition of System Effectiveness is
NAC
S E = -,
NT
where
NAC = number of systems that have accomplished all
designed-to mission objectives when called upon
to do so, at a point in time,
and
NT = total number of systems on hand at the start of
the mission.
Operational readiness is the probability that the system is either
available at the beginning of the mission or can be brought to an oper-
ationally ready state by the beginning of the mission. The probability
that having started the mission successfully, the system will complete
the mission without failure is mission reliability. The probability that

having completed the mission the equipment has functioned within the
performance specifications it was designed for and provided all of the
required end results is design adequacy.
Operational readiness is a function of the reliability and the main-
tainability of the equipment because the system would either be up due
to its functioning reliably or down, and has to be repaired or main-
tained to bring it up to operational status.
A quantitative definition of opemtional readiness, OR, is
(2.10)
where
NAV = number of systems that are available to start
their mission successfully.
A quantitative definition of mission reliability, R M ,is
(2.11)
where
NCM = number of systems that, having started their mis-
sion successfully, complete their mission success-
fully.
Design adequacy is a difficult concept to conceive because it is dif-
ficult to quantify. It can be illustrated by examples, however. Let
us assume one wants to take six people t o work, there is only one
car available, and the car’s capacity is only four passengers. The de-
sign adequacy of this car for this mission is 416, or 67%. In terms
of intercontinental ballistic missiles, the probability that the required
number of missiles have been checked out and are ready to be launched
at the designated time is operational readiness. The probability that
each missile is successfully launched, reaches the target and explodes
successfully is mission reliability. The probability that the missile de-
stroys the specified target to the extent intended is design adequacy.
If the number specified to destroy the whole target were launched suc-
cessfully, and an inspection revealed that only 90% of the target was
destroyed, then the design adequacy of these missiles is 90%.
A quantitative definition of design adequacy, D A , is
(2.12)
RELIABILITY ENGINEERlNG CONCEPT 29
where all terms were defined earlier.

When we talk only of reliability, it is assumed that opemtional
readiness and design adequacy axe 100%. Therefore, reliability is a
probability conditional to the facts that opemtional readiness and de-
sign adequacy axe each 100%.
EXAMPLE 2-1
A system has an opemtional readiness of 98%, a mission reliability
of 95%, and a design adequacy of 90%. Answer the following questions:
1. What is the System Effectiveness of this system?
2. If we need the full output of 100 such systems, how many of them
should be purchased?
3. How many of these systems will start their missions successfully?
4. How many of these systems will complete their mission success-
fully?
5. How many systems will accomplish their total, designed-to mis-
sion objectives?
SOLUTIONS TO EXAMPLE 2-1
1. This system’s System Effectiveness is

S E = OR x RM x DA= 0.98 x 0.95 x 0.90 = 0.84, or 84%.
2. The number of such systems we should have on hand is obtained
from
NAC
SE = -,
NT
or
NAC -100
NT=-- - - - 119 systems.
SE 0.84
3. The number of systems that will be operationally ready to start
their missions is obtained from
which yields
NAV = NT X OR = 119 x 0.98 = 116 systems.
4. The number of systems that will complete their missions success-

fully is obtained from
or
NCM = NAVx RM = 116 x 0.95 = 110 systems.
5. The number of systems that will accomplish their total, designed-

to mission objectives is obtained from
or
NAC= NCM x D A = 110 x 0.90 E 100 systems.
2.4 A COMPREHENSIVE DEFINITION OF

MAINTAINABILITY
Maintainability is (1) the probability of successfully performing and
completing a specified corrective maintenance action, or a specified
preventive maintenance action or both; ( 2 ) within a prescribed period
of time; ( 3 ) at a desired confidence level; (4) with specified manpower,
skill levels, test equipment, technical data, operating and maintenance
manuals, and maintenance support organization and facilities; and ( 5 )
under specific environmental conditions.
The quantification of maintainability will be covered in detail later.
2.5 WHAT IS RELIABILITY ENGINEERING?

Reliability Engineering provides the theoretical and practical tools
whereby the probability and capability of parts, components, equip-
ment, subsystems and systems to perform their required functions
without failure for desired periods in specified environments, and in
particular their optimized reliability can be specified, predicted, designed-
in, tested and demonstrated under use conditions, as well as their op-
timized maintainability, availability, safety and quality level.
2.6 WHY RELIABILITY ENGINEERING?

The reliability engineering science, methodology and technology have
to be masterfully known and diligently applied because of the following:
1. Practically all DOD and NASA contracts contain reliability and
maintainability clauses and specifications. These have to be un-
derstood, and correctly interpreted to successfully bid on these
contracts and execute them successfully.
2. More and more capital goods, hard goods and consumer goods
manufacturers are establishing reliability engineering organiza-
tions in their companies, realizing how important this field is to
their present and future market success and profitability.
3. It has been said, “In the future the only companies left in the
business will be those who know and are able to control the
reliability and maintainability of their products.”
4. Companies cannot afford not to take advantage of the numerous
benefits of reliability engineering enumerated in the next section.
5 . Companies cannot afford not to partake of the cost benefits that
accrue from the establishment and implementation of reliability
and maintainability programs.
6. All companies, just to keep pace with, if not to stay ahead of,
competition have to become knowledgeable of reliability engi-
neering principles and apply them with full top management
support.
7. The customers and the public are becoming more and more reli-
ability conscious every day, as they realize how costly poor reli-
ability and maintainability is becoming in their daily lives.
8. The complexity of products (the number of piece-parts and com-
ponents in products) is increasing continuously, because more
functions are demanded to be performed by them. Simply to
maintain present reliability levels, higher reliabilities have to be
designed and built into their piece-parts and components.
9. More and more products are being advertised by their reliability
and maintainability ratings. This practice forces competition to
know the reliability and maintainability of their products, to find
out how to generate such data for their own products, learn how
to quantify them and how to interpret such ratings and data so
that they can be advertised correctly and effectively.
32 SYSTEM EFFE CTWENESS
10. Our demand for higher standards of living in a complex, mech-

anized and automated world make it imperative that we under-
stand and apply reliability engineering in our daily lives. This
way we get products that operate more reliably, are easier to op-
erate and maintain, are safer to operate, are of highest quality
and are sold at globally competitive prices.
2.7 WHAT ARE THE PRACTICAL

APPLICATIONS OF RELIABILITY AND
MAINTAINABILITY ENGINEERING?
Reliability and maintainability engineering provide the techniques, math-
ematical and practical, to accomplish the following:
1. Enable the prediction of component reeliability from failure data.
2. Provide means of arriving at system reliability.
3. Provide a measure of design adequacy relative to reliability.
4. Evaluate the amount of redundancy present in the design, and
determine how much more redundancy may be needed.
5. Estimate the required redundancy to achieve a specified re2iabiZ-
ity.
6. Indicate areas in which design changes would be most beneficial
from the mliability and cost reduction point of view.
7. Provide a basis for comparing two or more designs.
8. Enable one to conduct trade-off analyses between reliability, main-
tainability, cost, weight, volume, operability and safety.
9. Provide the data required to prepare bathtub curves in which the
failure rate for that equipment is plotted versus the time in its
life. Such curves enable the determination of the following:
9.1 The optimum burn-in and break-in testing period.
9.2 The optimum warranty time and cost.
9.3 Spare parts requirements and their production rate.
9.4 The beginning of wear-out life.
10. Determine the time when a component should be replaced pre-
ventively, usually before wear-out starts.
11. Prepare reliability growth curues as appropriate design, manu-

facturing, purchasing, quality control, testing, sales and service
efforts are expended.
12. Establish what failures occur at what time in the life of an equip-
ment and be prepared to cope with them.
13. Establish failure responsibility, as to engineering, manufacturing,
purchasing, quality control, testing, sales and service.
14. Guide corrective action decisions to minimize failures and elimi-
nate overdesign, as well as underdesign.
15. Pinpoint areas where research and development money can best
be spent from the reliability and maintainability point of view.
16. Provide guidelines for critical reliability and maintainability de-
sign review.
17. Provide guidelines for manufacturing processes and techniques to
achieve manufacturing rtliability goals.
18. Help provide guidelines for quality control practices.
19. Help provide guidelines for value engineering.
20. Establish company no-charge cost (scrapped production, reworked
production, product returns, etc., costs) reduction areas.
21. Provide correct and effective sales and advertising material.
22. Help promote sales on the basis of the reliability and maintain-
ability of the products manufactured.
23. Provide a cost analysis technique whereby the optimum product
reliability and maintainability can be established at which the
total cost of the product to the customer is minimum. Total
cost is the sum of the initial cost or the purchase price, plus the
support cost or the cost of operating the machine, servicing and
maintaining it and the downtime cost for the designed-for life of
the product.
24. Increase the potential of the product as a defense or space prod-
uct.
25. Reduce warranty cost, or for the same cost increase the length of
warranty.
34 SYSTEM EFFECTWENESS
26. Reduce inventory costs by correct spare parts provisioning.

27. Establish the time required for life testing, and mliability and
maintainability demonstration tests.
28. Establish life testing, and reliability and maintainability demon-
stration sample sizes.
29. Help provide guidelines for evaluating potential suppliers on the
basis of their product reliability and maintainability.
30. Help provide guidelines for system maintainability, spare parts
provisioning, and minimum-cost spares kit determination.
31. Establish the time required for average system scheduled repairs.
32. Establish the system’s availability and its goal.
33. Establish the system’s capability and its goal.
34. Establish the system’s dependability and its goal.
35. Establish the system’s utilization factor and its goal.
36. Establish the system’s maintainability and its goal.

37. Establish the overall man-hours required for the entire mainte-
nance procedure with inspections.
38. Provide analyses of failure reports to see if all failures are of the
same type, if shipping and packaging methods are adequate, if
there are trends in the frequency of failure versus service life, if
there is a sufficient number of men available for maintenance, if
the downtimes and repair times are consistent with the estimates
and if the changes made affected the life and the maintainability
of the equipment and to the desired degree.
39. Conduct failure modes, effects, and criticality analyses, FAMECA,
to identify areas which should receive concentrated redesign, re-
search, development and testing efforts from the product’s relia-
bility and maintainability points of view.
40. Increase customer satisfaction and goodwill.
41. Increase sales and market share.

42. Increase profits.
PROBLEMS 35
43. Reinvest some of the profits into manufacturing plant renovation

t o improve the productivity of the plant, and thereby reduce
production costs.
44. Reinvest some of the profits into more research and development
t o stay ahead of world competition.
45. Improve the quality of life of the workers who produce these
products by giving them more deserved benefits from the profits.
46. Reward company shareholders who invested their money in the
company by distributing to them some of the excess profits as
dividends and by contributing to the appreciation of the com-
pany's securities.
PROBLEMS
2-1. Who developed the System Effectiveness concept?
2-2. Define the following terms:
(1) System eflectiweness.
(2) Mission reliability.
(3)Operational readiness.
(4)Design adequacy.
2-3. List the time categories associated with System Eflectiveness.
2-4. List the key elements in the comprehensive definition of
reliability.
2-5. Create three examples of your own t o illustrate design
adequacy.
2-6. List the key elements in the comprehensive definition of
maintainability.
2-7. Describe five applications of maintainability engineering.
2-8. The mission reliability for a system is known to be 99.4%.
If 1,000 such systems complete their mission, how many
were available at the start of the mission?
2-9. One thousand units have a System Eflectiveness of 97.2%.
(1) Determine the number of units which accomplished
all designed-to mission objectives.
(2) Determine the opemtional readiness assuming that

the mission reliability is 1.
2-10. A system has an opemtional readiness of 95%, a mission
reliability of 99%, and a design adequacy of 85%. Answer
the following questions:
(1) What is the System Eflectiueness of this system?
(2) If we need the full output of 50 such systems, how
many of them should be purchased?
(3) How many of these systems will start their missions
successfully?
(4) How many of these systems will complete their mis-
sion successfully?
(5) How many systems will accomplish their total,
designed-to mission objectives?
REFERENCES
1. Kececioglu, Dimitri B., Reliability Engineering Handbook, DEStech Pub-
lications, 1148 Elizabeth Ave., #2, Lancaster, PA 17601-4359, Vol.1,
720 pp. 2002.
2. Kececioglu, Dimitri B., Reliability Engineering Handbook, DEStech Pub-
lications, 1148 Elizabeth Ave., #2, Lancaster, PA 17601-4359, V01.2,
568 pp., 2002.
3. Kececioglu, Dimitri B., Reliability 8 Life Testing Handbook, DEStech
Publications, 1148 Elizabeth Ave., #2, Lancaster, PA 17601-4359,
Vol.1, 960 pp., 2002.
4. Kececioglu, Dimitri B., Reliability t3 Life Testing Handbook, DEStech
Publications, 1148 Elizabeth Ave., #2, Lancaster, PA 17601-4359,
v01.2, 900 pp., 2002.
Chapter 3
MAINTENANCE
3.1 MAINTENANCE DEFINED

Maintenance is defined as any action which retains non-failed units
in a reliabilitywise and safetywise satisfactory, operational condition;
and if they have failed, restores them to a reliabilitywise and safety-
wise satisfactory, operational condition. It involves fixing up partial
failures or incipient failures of independently operating subsystems of
the system and in the system’s redundant elements without preferably
interrupting system operation. Maintenance is a vital part of the cy-
cles of unreliability, maintainability, availability, and safety, as shown
in Fig. 3.1. It looks simultaneously a t downtime, maintenance man-
hours, and maintenance dollars.
The previous definition of maintenance implies two types of main-
tenance actions: (1) preventive or schedded, and (2) corrective or un-
scheduled. The various preventive and corrective maintenance times,
and their relationships to all other times associated with the life of a
unit are given in Fig. 3.2.
3.2 PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE

Preventive maintenance is performed on satisfactorily functioning units
at regularly scheduled intervals, and includes, but is not limited to, the
following actions :
1. Servicing periodically, such as replenishing depleted oil, changing
aged oil, greasing and lubricating, refueling, cleaning, adjusting,
aligning, checking and cleaning electrical contact surfaces, remov-
ing rust deposits, tightening loose units, making routine checks
and calibrating.
37
CORRECTIVE
UNRELl ABI LlTY MAINTENANCE
ACTIONS k2
1 1 Y Y 1 #
I b
2 2 L
MAINTENANCE SYSTEM SYSTEM SYSTEM

*PERSONNEL MAlNlAlNABlLllY AVAILABILIlY SAFEW
*EQUIPMENT I I
‘FACILITIES n P I
*COST
t
PREVENTIVE
MAINTENANCE
c ACTIONS
Fig: 3.1 - Tile cycles of urircliability, maintainability, availability arid safety.

MAINTENANCE MODlFlCATlON
lllACnON TIME MISSIONl l M E
TlME TlME DUAr nME
I b
1
PREVENTIVE conucriw
MAINTENANCE MAINTENANCE sunny DUAY TIME
TIME
*
I
- I I I I I I I 1 4
FAILURE IT€M ADJUSTMENT- FAULT LOGGING

?RErARATIoN
nm
ISOLATION OBlAlNMENT CAUIIATN)N CORRECTlON cTcy
cH~~ p, RESTORATION
TIME TIME TIME TIME ACTION T I M E
-
L
MfLACINC Mlmn MAJOR

INSIECIION SERvKINC OMIUIAUL OVERIIAUL
TIME
ITURN-AROUND) :
!:: TIME TIME
Fig. 3.2 - Preventive and corrective maintenance times and their relationships to all other
times associated with the life of equipment.
40 MAINTENANCE
2. Inspecting, checking out, replacing or repairing failed redundant

units.
3. Replacing components before they enter their prescribed wear-

out life period.
4 . Overhauling in a minor or major way aged and worn-out units.
The objectives of preuentiue maintenance are to increase a unit’s re-

liability, decrease the number of secondary failures, decrease the time
a product or a system is not operable and nonproductive, decrease
its downtime and thus increase its uptime, decrease the overall spare
parts requirements, decrease the maintenance man-hours and decrease
its life-cycle cost. The ultimate objectives are to increase the auailabil-
ity of a unit, thus increasing the unit’s total output or production and
consequently decreasing the unit cost of production, decrease the to-
tal maintenance man-hours per operating hour, and decrease the total
maintenance cost. The total maintenance costs are reduced because
costly impending or wear-out type failures and malfunctions are min-
imized, the resulting even costlier secondary failures are avoided, and
the requirements for maintenance facilities, test and checkout equip-
ment, replacement and repair tools, maintenance man-hours and spares
are minimized.
The preventive maintenance actions and the associated times are
given in Fig. 3.2.
3.3 CORRECTIVE MAINTENANCE

Corrective maintenance is performed on reliabilitywise and safetywise
failed or malfunctioning units. Such maintenance is performed at un-
predictable intervals because the time to any specific unit’s failure
cannot be established ahead of time. The purpose is to restore such
equipment to satisfactory and safe function within the shortest possible
time by preparing the equipment for corrective maintenance, diagnos-
ing the failure or malfunction, and implementing the required correc-
tive action by adjusting, aligning, tightening, replacing, or repairing
the parts, components and subsystems which caused the unscheduled
failure, checking out the equipment, cleaning them up and logging the
restorative action time.
The corrective maintenance actions and the associated times are
given in Fig. 3.2.
OPERATING TIME AND DOWNTIME 41
3.4 OPERATING TIME AND DOWNTIME

CATEGORIES
Two general time categories associated with an equipment’s existence
are operating time and downtime. Opemting Time is the time dur-
ing which the equipment is operating in a manner acceptable t o the
operator and/or the maintenance man. Downtime is the total time
during which the equipment is not in an operable or operating con-
dition. Downtime can in turn, be subdivided into two categories: 1.
Waiting time 2. Active maintenance time. These times are discussed
next.
3.4.1 WAITING TIME

Waiting time is that period during which the unit is not being worked
upon by maintenance personnel due to logistics and/or administrative
delays, or because there is no demand for it, or is in storage, or is being
kept as a spare. This time includes the following:
1. Logistic and transportation time.
2. Administrative time.
3. Free time.
4. Storage time.
Logistic and transportation time is the time required t o procure
the failed parts which have to be replaced, transport them and deliver
them to the maintenance location. Also time spent waiting for spares,
technicians, tools and test equipment and queuing-up time in repair
facilities is part of logistic time.
Administrative time is that time required t o arrive at corrective ac-
tion decisions for failures and malfunctions which cannot be diagnosed
by the maintenance personnel, and requires the action of experts and
administrative personnel to decide on the exact cause of failure and on
the most effective corrective action to take. It may also include waiting
time not included under active repair time or logistic time.
Free time is the time during which operable equipment is not sched-
uled for use.
Storage time is the time spent by operable equipment in storage as
there is no need for it in the near term, or it is being held as spares.
The previous two time categories may also be called inactive times.
The waiting time is a function of the proficiency level of the main-
tenance support organization, and not of inherent equipment design,
42 MAINTENANCE
even though design provisions for minimizing such delays can some-
times be made.
Most maintainability predictions are based on the distribution of
the active maintenance time and on the evaluated mean active main-
tenance time of the equipment.
All of the above maintenance times can to a lesser or greater ex-
tent be minimized or even eliminated by designing the right reliability,
maintainability, and safety into equipment and systems. Consequently,
desired reliability, maintainability and safety levels should be designed
into all equipment and systems.
3.4.2 ACTIVE MAINTENANCE TIME

The active maintenance time is that period during which the unit is
being worked upon by maintenance personnel during preventive and/or
corrective maintenance actions. Its length is a function of the unit's
inherent, designed-in maintainability. In the general sequence in which
the restorative actions will be performed, the active maintenance time
includes the following:
1. Servicing.'
2. Inspection.*
3. Preparation.
4. Failure isolation.
5 . Diagnostic.
6. Access to failed units or components.
7. Unit, component, or part obtainment.
8. Fault correction by replacement or repair.
9. Preventively replacing units scheduled for replacement with fresh
units .*
10. Minor overhaul.*
11. Major overhaul.'
12. Adjustment and/or calibration.*
13. Checkout.*
14. Cleanup.
OPERATING T I M E AND DOWNTIME 43
15. Logging the restoration action.

The asterisked maintenance times are, in general, preventive mainte-
nance action times.
1. Sewicing time includes such times as required t o replenish de-
pleted fluids, cleaning, adjusting, lubricating, aligning, changing
oil, greasing, tightening loose units, calibrating and checking out.
2 . Inspection time is the time required to observe the performance
characteristics of the equipment and the status of replenishable
fluids, check all indicating lights, listen for undue noises, or ob-
serve the temperatures, vibration levels, etc. of the equipment.
3 . Prepamtion time is the time required to acquire the necessary
technicians to perform the restoration, t o notify all personnel in-
volved, to gather the needed tools and test equipment, to travel
to get to the failed unit, if necessary, clean the equipment, if
required, and get it ready for failure isolation and other mainte-
nance actions.
4. Failure isolation time is the time required to check the mode of
function of the equipment including its temperature, vibration,
level, noise level, oil and grease level, alignments and adjust-
ments, input and output levels to see whether or not they are
within their specified operating limits, observe the state of mal-
function and failure indicating lights, if available, and isolate the
failed unit, component or part.
5. Diagnostic time may be considered to be a part of the failure
isolation time, and is the time required to identify the cause of
the failure, the specific unit, component, or part that failed and
to determine what corrective action(s) should be taken.
6 . Access time is the time required to reach the failed unit, com-
ponent, or part through preparation, failure isolation, diagnosis
and disassembly.
7. Unit, component, or part obtainment time is the time required t o
procure and have these delivered to the site of the failed equip-
ment.
8 . Fault correction, replacement, or repair time is the time required
to repair, replace or adjust the failed unit.
9. Minor overhaul time is the preventive and, if necessary, corrective
maintenance time required to replace and/or repair a significant
number of major parts and components in the equipment.
44 MAINTENANCE
10. Major overhaul time is the preventive and, if necessary, corrective

maintenance time required to replace and/or repair most of the
major and associated minor parts, components and subassem-
blies in the equipment.
11. Adjustment/caZibration time is the time required to make all the

necessary final adjustments and calibrations for correct function-
ing of the equipment and its instrumentation.
12. Checkout time is the time required to test and observe the oper-
ating characteristics and outputs of the equipment to determine
whether it can be put back t o service again and function satis-
factorily or within the specification requirements.
13. Clean up time is the time required to tidy up and clean up the
equipment and its immediate surroundings.
14. Logging the wstomtion action time is a necessary time that should
be devoted to documenting the whole active maintenance and
restorative action t o insure that all reliability and maintainabil-
ity data is properly documented for subsequent reduction to re-
liability and maintainability parameters, for analysis, for design
reviews and for feedback to the disciplines responsible for the fail-
ures and malfunctions. The objective is to improve the reliability
and maintainability of equipment and systems.
3.5 MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL FACTORS

AND COSTS
It must be decided first who has to perform the maintenance, the
contractor or the customer. Subsequently the following are pertinent:
1. Availability of maintenance skills.

2. Number of maintenance personnel needed.
3. Training requirements (time, trainers, materials, etc.).
4. Operational conditions to perform the maintenance action(s).
5. Maintenance personnel safety.
6. “Human-error” proof equipment and procedures.

PERSONNEL SAFETY FACTORS AND COSTS 45
In maintenance, man becomes a reliability, maintainability, system

safety, time and cost factor in the design. He is an expensive commod-
ity, consequently, his involvement must be minimized.
One third of every Air Force dollar goes into maintenance, and
similar amounts also apply to the Army and the Navy. Furthermore,
anywhere from three to forty times the initial cost is spent t o maintain,
provide spare parts, and provide the necessary maintenance support
facilities and equipment over the life of the equipment.
3.6 MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL

SAFETY FACTORS
Maintenance personnel should not be subjected to safety hazards while
carrying out maintenance activities. The following safety requirements
must, therefore, be met:
1. No dangerous elements must touch or endanger personnel.
2. Personnel must not be able to touch components that carry elec-

tric tension.
3. Maintenance personnel must not be exposed to hazardous moving
components.
4. Maintenance personnel must be protected from falling by having
a safe work location at ail times.
5 . Safety lanes must be provided at the workplace and must be very

well marked and identified.
6. Protrusions of buildings and equipment at the work place, into

which maintenance and other personnel could run, must be well
marked and identified, or they must be well guarded, or they
must be eliminated.
7. Emergency first-aid must be so provided that it is nearby and

conveniently accessible.
8. Safety clothing, shoes and glasses and/or goggles must be pro-
vided.
9. Maintenance personnel must be trained in safety matters and
updated, so that they become safety conscious at all times.
46 MAINTENANCE
3.7 MAINTENANCE SUPPORT FACILITIES

AND EQUIPMENT
Requirements for maintenance generate requirements for maintenance
support facilities and equipment, which include the following:
1. Hand tools.
2. Diagnostic equipment, preferably Built-In Test Equipment (BITE).
3. Equipment for test, calibration and checkout.
4. Automatic test equipment.
5 . Equipment for servicing.
6. Work stands.
7. Consumable supplies (spares, lubricants, etc.).
8. Equipment for jacking or hoisting heavy units.
9. Transportation equipment.
10. Shop facilities.
11. Test facilities.
12. Supply facilities.
13. Storage facilities.
14. Convenient and adequate changing, washing and rest areas.
15. Technical data.
16. Operating manuals.
17. Maintenance manuals.
Equipment and systems should be so designed as t o minimize the
requirements for support facilities and equipment, and to use standard
(not special) support items wherever possible.
PROBLEMS
3-1. What is maintenance and what does it consist of?

PROBLEMS 47
3-2. What are the objectives of preventive maintenance and what

actions should be performed to achieve those objectives?
3-3. What is corrective maintenance?
3-4. What time categories are associated with the existence of an
equipment?
3-5. What does waiting time consist of?
3-6. What do active maintenance times consist of?
3-7. What are the factors that should be considered relating to main-
tenance actions, personnel and costs?
3-8. What are the maintenance personnel safety factors?
3-9. Why is preventive maintenance beneficial to your car and what
are they?
3-10. What corrective maintenance action(s) were required on your car
this year and what did they cost you? Give the year, mileage and
make of your car.
Chapter 4
MAINTAINABILITY DESIGN
CRITERIA
To minimize both preventive and corrective maintenance times, per-

sonnel, skill levels, equipment and spares, the following design criteria
should be adhered to:
1. Provide diagnostic aids for rapid and positive fault identification.
2. Make sure units are accessible for ease of trouble-shooting, re-
moval and replacement.
3. Package functions into modules that are separable with minimum
interconnections.
4. Standardize piece-parts and components as much as possible.
5 . Standardize required tools.
6. Provide good identification of parts and test points and locate
labels where they can be seen.
7. Make sure connectors cannot be inadvertently interchanged.
8. Provide fasteners and lugs which facilitate maintenance.
9. So locate multiple connectors that they can be easily grasped for
tight assembly and ease of disassembly.
10. Locate check points, adjustment points, cables and connectors
for ease of maintenance and reduction of downtime.
11. Identify circuit breakers properly, in addition to reference desig-
nation.
49
50 MAINTAINABILITY DESIGN CRlTERIA
12. Mount polarized electric components consistently for ease of op-

eration and maintenance.
13. Correctly number the parts according to circuit data flow and
their physical location.
14. Provide rests on which subassemblies can be placed to perform
the required maintenance without damaging their parts and corn-
ponent s.
15. Be sure maintenance can be performed without endangering per-
sonnel or system safety.
Figure 4.1 (a) illustrates one way of providing a more efficient,
tailored, completely automatic, built-in test unit which requires only
five minutes to diagnose the cause of failures of electronic equipment,
as opposed to using an auxiliary, general purpose test set-up, shown in
Fig. 4.1 (b), which requires 45 minutes to perform the same diagnostic
tasks.
Figure 4.2 (a) illustrates a better design which provides greater
accessibility for ease of trouble-shooting; removal and replacement of
failed, or malfunctioning, or worn-out units; as opposed to a design
which is hardly accessible, as shown in Fig. 4.2 (b).
Figure 4.3 shows outstanding design features of a single-stage steam
turbine which provides very good accessibility and ease of maintenance.
Figure 4.4 (a) gives the minimum openings for using common hand
tools to provide adequate accessibility, and Fig. 4.4 (b) gives the space
required for using these common hand tools to provide adequate ac-
cessibility.
Figure 4.5 shows good and bad packaging practices, the preferred
one being that of a design for functional unitization corresponding to
separable modularization with minimum crossovers or interconnections
between the modules.
Figure 4.6 shows the benefits of standardizing parts, components
and subassemblies, and then designing them to be interchangeable so
that there will be fewer of them to procure, catalog, stock, inventory
and locate.
Figure 4.7 illustrates the need for good identification of parts and
test points, and for grouping of test points in an orderly, easily identi-
fiable configuration.
Figure 4.8 (a) illustrates the need for coding each plug to its re-
ceptacle so that maintenance errors through inadvertent interchange
of connectors are eliminated.
Figure 4.8 (b) shows the correct placement of the labels so that
they can be seen and read easily.
PROBLEMS 51
Figure 4.9 illustrates the correct selection of fasteners which have

external grips, and of electrical wiring lugs for ease of maintenance.
Figure 4.10 points out the need for the provision of rests on which
subassemblies can be placed for safe maintenance without damaging
any of their parts and components.
Figure 4.11 points out the need to locate connectors far enough
apart t o be firmly grasped.
Figure 4.12 emphasizes adjustment-location aspect of design so that
check points, adjustment points, cable and connectors, and panels face
the technician. They should not be hidden by other units.
Figure 4.13 shows functional identification of circuit breakers in
addition to reference designation whenever possible.
Figure 4.14 illustrates circuits with many diodes or other polarized
components. The preferred mounting of the components is with their
polarization in one direction (left to right or top to bottom).
Figure 4.15 illustrates correct numbering of parts according t o cir-
cuit data flow and their physical location.
PROBLEMS
4-1.Come up with two suggestions of your own on how you would
improve the design of a certain assembly with respect to its com-
ponents accessibility, adjustments, identification, safety, replace-
ment, modularization, etc.
4-2. Consider your own car. Is there any system or subsystem that
could be improved with respect to its maintainability design cri-
teria? What are these improvements? How would you implement
these improvements? Document your suggestions by appropriate
drawings.
4-3. Consider the failure of the water pump in your car. Come up with
your estimate of the expected time to disassemble it, replace it
and assemble it again including the minimum necessary time to
check it out t o assure its proper function.
4-4. Obtain estimates of the repair time for the water pump in Prob-
lem 4-3 from a car dealer or a car repair service.
4-5.How and where would you locate the water pump in your car for
ease of maintenance? Document your suggestions with appropri-
ate drawings.
4-6. Where and how would you locate your car engine’s oil dipstick
for ease of preventive maintenance thereof? Document your sug-
gestions with appropriate drawings.
TEST
'PANEL
(a) Prefered completely automatic built-in test (I)) Alternate auxiliary general purpose test
(test time - 5 minutes). (test time - 45 minutes).
Fig. 4.1 - Preferred and alternate diagnostic aids for rapid and positive fault identification.
aE +-
0
r
&
!i
s
c,
R
n
D
W
a
e
lr
e
E
a
n
rd
W
I
2
53
54 MAINTAINABILITY DESIGN CRITERIA
-
Sbrm rtnlnrr you I-
trking the govrrv
Fig. 4.3 - Single-stage steam turbine designed for good ac-

cessibility and ease of maintenance.
1 I-$-I I
I
I
55
1
4.6- L
4.6 -
Fig. 4.4(b) - Minimum working space required for using common hand tools to provide
adequate accessibility.
r-------- 1
m
1
L
I I i
i
3
r
I
I
NI
n I
I
0 L
0
CS
I d
I .-.
th
“-to---- to-’ Er
57
T A
0
0
cs
I
0
B V
m
58
n S
ua
mk
Y
c
59
HERE (ON TOP)
GOOD BAD NOT UNDER HERE NOT IN HERE
(u) Cocle caclr plug to the receptacle

to wlbiclr it is to bc attxlrcd.
MAKE PROVISIONS FOR EXTERNAL GRIP
EXTERNAL GRIP HEAD PERMITS THIS KIMD HAS TO BE DRILLED

US€ OF WRENCH OUT IF SLOT IS DAMAGED
(LUGS)
GOOD BAD
U-TYPE LUGS FACILITATE REPAIRS

Fig. 4.9 - Provisioning of fasteners with good external grips and elcct rical wiriitg lugs
w h idt faci I i t a t e n t ai 11t ~i ait cc .
n.
a
m
0
0
0
cs
62
PROBLEMS 63
This Not This
Fig. 4.11 - Connector location which enables easy grasping.
This Not This
Fig. 4.12 - Location of check points, adjustment points, ca-

bles and connectors for ease of maintenance and
reduction of downtime.
This Not This
Fig. 4.13 - Proper circuit breaker identification.
c II
This
Fig. 4.14 - The preferred mounting of the polarized elec-

tronic components.
N
3
z 5 2
433-
b u
0
3
9
65
4-7.Where and how would you locate your car transmission’s oil dip-
stick for ease of preventive maintenance thereof? Document your
suggestions with appropriate drawings.
4-8. Where and how would you locate your car engine’s spark plugs
for ease of maintenance thereof? What special tools if any, would
you use? Document your suggestions with appropriate drawings.
4-9. Come up with a better example than that given in Fig. 4.1 of
this chapter to decrease the diagnostic time of failed equipment.
Document your suggestions with appropriate drawings.
4-10. Come up with a better example than that given in Fig. 4.2
illustrating easier accessibility. Document your suggestions with
appropriate drawings.
Chapter 5
DOWNTIME DISTRIBUTIONS
AND MAINTAINABILITY
ENGINEERING FUNCTIONS
5.1 DOWNTIME DISTRIBUTIONS

The preventive and corrective maintenance actions described in Chap-
ter 3 get completed in varying times depending on the component
involved, its physical characteristics and its location in the equipment,
the skill levels of the maintenance personnel, the work disposition state
of this personnel, the types of maintenance equipment available, the
environmental conditions under which they work, etc. As a result,
even for identical components in identical locations, such maintenance
action times will vary from one failed component to the next identical
failed component in identical equipment. This naturally leads t o each
specific maintenance action’s time being distributed. Such distribu-
tions may be the exponential, the normal, the lognormal, the Weibull,
the gamma, and others. Most government specifications favor the use
of the lognormal distribution as best representing the active repair or
restoration times in particular. The application of the lognormal dis-
tribution to the determination of the active repair or restoration times
is illustrated next.
EXAMPLE 5-1
Given the active times-to-restore data of Table 5.1 for a system in
which a specific part fails, do the following:
1. Determine the probability density function of the times to restore
the system when this part fails, using the lognormal distribution,
67
68 DOWNTIME DISTRIBUTIONS
TABLE 5.1 - Times-to-restore data of identical systems

in which a specific part fails, for the deter-
mination of the maintainability character-
istics of the system in Example 5-1.
1 2 3
Group Times to restore, Frequency of observation,
number t j , hr nj
1 0.2 1
2 0.3 1
3 0.5 4
4 0.6 2
5 0.7 3
6 0.8 2
7 1.0 4
8 1.1 1
9 1.3 1
10 1.5 4
11 2.o 2
12 2.2 1
13 2.5 1
14 2.7 1
15 3.0 2
16 3.3 2
17 4.0 2
18 4.5 1
19 4.7 1
20 5.0 1
21 5.4 1
22 5.5 1
23 7.0 1
24 7.5 1
25 8.8 1
26 9.0 1
27 10.3 1
28 22.0 1
29 24.5 1
N' = 29 N = 46
D O W N T I M E DISTRIBUTIONS 69
and plot it.

2. What is the mean time to restore the system when this part fails?
3. What is the median of the times to restore the system when this
part fails?
4. What is the time by which one-half of such restorations will be
completed?
5 . What is the most frequently occurring time to restore?
G . What is the standard deviation of the times to restore?
SOLUTIONS T O E X A M P L E 5-1
1. To determine the lognorm_al p&f the times to restore given in
Table 5.1, the values of 1' = loget and ott should be calculated
from
-1 -- -r5= l t;
/
(rj.1)
N
for ungrouped data, where t' = log, t , and from
(5.2)
for grouped data, where 1i3 is the number of identical observa-

tions given i n the third column of Table 5.1, n i l is the number
observed times to restore. or the number of
of rli~€~ciit-iii-valrre
data groups which for this problem is N' = 29, given in Cloluiiiii
1 of Table 5.1, and N is the total ntimber of observed times to
restore, or
A7 I
N= 1 nj, (5.3)
j=1
wliich for this problem is 46: and
( 5.4 )
L J
for ungrouped data, and
for grouped data.

To facilitate the calculations prepare Table 5.2, from which the
sums of the entries in Columns 4, 5 and 6 are
N'=29
C nj = 46 = N ,
j=1
N'
C n j t S = 30.30439,
j=1
and
N'
C nj(t;)2 = 75.84371.
j=1
The value of 2, using Eq. (5.2) is

-1' = 30.30439
46 '
or
-t' = 0.65879.
The value of utt, using Eq. (5.5) is
- 46(0.65879)2
or
Ut'
.
=
[
75.84371
46-1 1.'
01' = 1.11435.
Consequently, the lognormal pdf, representing the data in Table
DOWNTIME DISTRIBUTIONS 71
- Calculations to determineF and ott for the

TABLE 5.2
data in Table S.1 of Example S-1.
- -
5
1 2 3 -4 6
tj Zogetj = t
j' (ti)' -nj njq nj(ti)'
0.2 - 1.60944 2.59029 1 -1.60944 2.59029
0.3 -1.20497 1.44935 1 -1.20397 1.44955
0.5 -0.69315 0.48045 4 -2.77260 1.92180
0.6 -0.51083 0.26094 2 - 1.02166 0.52188
0.7 -0.35667 0.12721 3 -1.07001 0.38166
0.8 -0.22314 0.04979 2 -0.44628 0.09958
1.o 0.00000 0.00000 4 0.00000 0.00000
1.1 0.09531 0.00908 1 0.09531 0.00901
1.3 0.26236 0.06884 1 0.26236 0.06884
1.5 0.40547 0.16444 4 1.62188 0.65760
2.0 0.69315 0.48045 2 1.38630 0.96090
2.2 0.78846 0.62167 1 0.78846 0.62167
2.5 0.91629 0.83959 1 0.91629 0.83959
2.7 0.99325 0.98655 1 0.99325 0.98655
3.0 1.09861 1.20695 2 2.19722 2.41390
3.3 1.93920 1.42545 2 2.38784 2.85090
4.0 1.38629 1.92181 2 2.77258 3.84362
4.5 1.50408 2.26225 1 1.50408 2.26225
4.7 1.54756 2.39495 1 1.54756 2.39495
5.0 1.60944 2.59029 1 1.60944 2.59029
5.4 1.68640 2.84394 1 1.68640 2.84394
5.5 1.70475 2.90617 1 1.70475 2.90617
7.0 1.94591 3.78657 1 1.94591 3.78657
7.5 2.01490 4.05983 1 2.01490 4.05983
8.8 2.17475 4.72955 1 2.17475 4.72955
9.0 2.19722 4.82780 1 2.19722 4.82780
10.3 2.33214 5.43890 1 2.33140 5.43890
22.0 3.09104 9.55454 1 3.09104 9.55454
24.5 3.19867 10.23151 -
1 3.19867 10.23151
5.1, is
or
1 L( l'-0.65879
e-2 1.11435
2
,
g ( t ) = (1.11435)t 6
where t' = log, t .
The plot of this pdf is given in Fig. 5.1 in terms of the straight
times in hours. See Table 5.3 for the g ( t ) values used.
The pdf of the log, t which is that of a normal distribution, or of
the t' values, is
(5.10)
or
1 e-6(
t'-0.65870
1.11435
2
.
g(t') = (1.11435)&
This pdf is that of a normal distribution and is shown plotted in
Fig. 5.2. See Table 5.3 for the g(t') values used.
2. The mean time to restore the system when this part fails, 5, is
obtained from
'i=e 0.65879+3 (1.11435)2

9
or
'i = 3.595 hr,
z
This compares with a mean of = 3.609 hr, which would be
obtained using the straight t's and averaging them. The differ-
ence is due to the fact that the former value assumes all data
are exactly lognormally distributed which is not the case, and
the latter gives only one estimate of a statistic, the arithmetic
mean, of the times to restore which would be an estimate of one
of the parameters, the mean of a normal distribution were the
data normally distributed. However, if it is known that the t's
come from a lognormally distributed population the T = 3.595 hr
is the value closest to the true mean.
0.4
T
0.3
0.2
0.1
0 I
I A
I
A'
1 .
I
. I .. I
O
c. Mode
tl t2 Median
3
I
-t =Mean
4 5 6 7 8
t = 0.5582 hr = 1.932 hr 3.595 hr

Time to mstom, t, hr
Fig. 6.1 - Plot of the lognormal pd/ of the times-to-restore data given in Table 5.1 in
terms of the straight le in hours.
74 DOWNTIME DISTRlB UTIOArs
TABLE 6.S - The probability density of the M'Jof g ( t )

and g(t') for the data in Thble 5.1 based
on the straight times to restore and on
the natural logarithm of the times to re-
store used to plot Figurea 5.1 and 5.2,
respectively.*
1 2 3
Times to Probability Probability
restore, density, density,
4 hr 9(t) 90') = 9(log, t )
0.02 0.00398 0.00008
0.10 0.10480 0.01048
0.20 0.22552 0.04510
0.30 0.29510 0.08853
0.50 0.34300 0.17150
0.70 0.33770 0.23639
1.oo 0.30060 0.30060
1.40 0.24524 0.34334
1.80 0.19849 0.35728
2.00 0.17892 0.35784
2.40 0.14638 0.35130
3.00 0.11039 0.33118
3.40 0.09260 0.31483
4.oo 0.07232 0.28929
1.40 0.06195 0.27258
5.00 0.04976 0.24880
6.00 0.03556 0.2 1351
7.00 0.02625 0.18373
8.00 0.01985 0.15884
9.00 0.01534 0.13804
10.00 0.01 206 0.12061
20.00 0.00 199 0.03971
33.00 0.00058 0.01733
40.00 - 0.00888
80.00 - 0.00132
'At the mode, t'= 0.5582 hr, g ( i ) = 0.34470 and g(?) = 0.19247.
4 t the median. i = 1.932 hr, g ( i ) = 0.18530 and g(5) = 0.35800.
0.4 -
>
n 0.3 - -
Y
0
-3
v)
c
0)
-0 0.2 - -
_-
E
-
.-
n
la
o
E
n 0.1 - -
0 4
76 D 0 WNTIME DISTRIB U TIONS
3. The median of the times to restore the system, i, is obtained

from
-
t' = e" = antilog,F, (5.12)
i = e0.65879 9
or
f = 1.932 hr.
This means that in a large sample of t's, half of the t ' s will have
values smaller than i, and the other half will have values greater
than i.
4. The time by which one-half of the restorations of such systems
will be completed is the median, or
i = 1.932 hr.
5. The most frequently occurring, or observed, time to restore such
systems is the mode of the pdf of the t ' s , f, and is given by
-
f = etf-o:f -i e-":f (5.13)
f = e0.65879- (1.11435)'.
t
consequently,
t' = 0.5582 hr.
6. The standard deviation of the times to restore such systems is
given by
(5.14)
1
Qt = 3.59549 [e(1*11435)2 - 135 ,
or
ut = 5.641 hr.
This compares with the standard deviation of the straight t's of
the raw data, assuming they are normally distributed, or
ut = 4.945 hr.
The difference between these two values is due to the skewness
of the data which favors the lognormal distribution.
ANALOGOUS ENGIIVEERJNG FUNCTIONS 77
5.2 ANALYTICAL MAINTAINABILITY

ENGINEERING FUNCTIONS ANALOGOUS
TO THOSE IN RELIABILITY ENGINEER-
ING
A good way to look at analytical maintainability engineering functions
is in terms of functions which are analogous to those in reliability en-
gineering. They may be derived in a way identical to that in reliability
engineering by merely substituting t (time to restore) for T (time to
failure), p (restoration rate) for X (failure rate), and M ( t 1 ) [probability
of successfully completing a restoration action in time t l , or P(t t l ) ] ,
for Q(T1)[probability of failing by age TI, or P(T < TI)]. In other
words the following correspondences prevail in maintainability and re-
liability engineering functions:
1. To the times-to-failure pdf in reliability engineering corresponds

the times-to-maintain pdf in maintainability engineering.
2. To the failure rate function in reliability engineering corresponds
the maintenance, or restoration, rate function in maintainability
engineering. Maintenance, or restoration, rate is the rate with
which a maintenance, or restoration, action is performed and is
expressed in terms of the number of maintenance, or restora-
tion, actions performed and successfully completed per hour of
maintenance, or restoration, time.
3. To the probability of system failure, or system unreliability, cor-
responds the probability of successful system maintenance, or
system maintainability. These and other analogous functions are
summarized in Table 5.4.
EXAMPLE 5-2
Prove that
M ( t ) = 1- e - p t , (5.15)
if the restoration, or repair, rate is constant with time.
SOLUTION T O EXAMPLE 5-2

TABLE 6.4 - Analogous maintainability engineering and reliability en-
dneerine functions.
Item Re1 bility engineering Maintainat ity engineering
number Item Functions Item Functions
1 Pdf of times Pdf of times

to failure. to maintain
or restore.
2 Failure Repair rate, or

rate. restoration rate,
or maintenance rate.
*-r is the location parameter of the respective distribution involved; i.e., that of f ( T ) or g ( i ) .
TABLE 5.4 - Continued.
Item f ability engineering Maintainability engineering
number Item bctionn Item bctiona
3 Probability of WI) Pmbability of

fail- by T I . maintenance
completion by tl .
4
(0
Q(T1) = I - e
- fT1 A( T)dT
M(t1) = 1 - e- J:' p ( t ) dr
4 Mean time MTBF= =m Mean time to MTTR= r= d

between maintain or
failures. restore.
MTBF = -y + 1 m
R ( T ) dT MTTR = -y +
OD
11 - M ( t ) ] dt
--
80 ANALOGOUS ENGINEERING FUNCTIONS
= -1 t
eu d v ,
or
M ( t ) = 1 - e- &*4 4 dt.
If p ( t ) = p, or constant with time, then

M ( t ) = 1 - e-” ‘.
EXAMPLE 5-3
Given the times-to-repair data of Example 5-1 determine the repair
rate function and plot it.
SOLUTION TO EXAMPLE 5-3
The repair rate function is given by
where
g(t) = g(t’)/t 4(4

= -/t,
bt’
L
a
n
0 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I0
lime to restore, t, hr
Fig. 5.3 - Plot of the repair rate function of the data of Example 5-1 when
the times to repair are lognormally distributed, for Example 5-3.
82 ANALOGOUS ENGINEERING FUNCTIONS
TABLE 5.5 - The calculation of maintainability, M ( t ) ,

and of the restoration (repair) rate, p ( t ) ,
based on the data of Table 5.1.
- Probability
~~
Repair rate,
t, Maintainability, density,
-hr 1’ 4t’) O(2) =M(t) g(t) -
1 M(t)
N I
rP/hr
0.2 -1.60944 -2.03552 0.0210 0.22552 0.9790 0.23035
0.4 -0.91629 -1.41357 0.0788 0.32961 0.9212 0.35780
0.6 -0.5 1083 -1.04965 0.1469 0.34397 0.8531 0.40320
0.8 -0.22314 -0.79141 0.2144 0.32718 0.7856 0.41646
1.o 0.00000 -0.59121 0.2772 0.30061 0.7228 0.49590
1.2 0.18232 -0.42768 0.3345 0.27227 0.6655 0.40911
1.4 0.33647 -0.28929 0.3862 0.24524 0.6138 0.39954
1.6 0.47000 -0.16944 0.4327 0.22057 0.5673 0.38882
1.8 0.58779 -0.06373 0.4746 0.19849 0.5254 0.37780
2.0 0.69315 0.03083 0.5123 0.17892 0.4877 0.36689
2.2 0.78846 0.11636 0.5463 0.16163 0.4537 0.35629
2.4 0.87547 0.19444 0.5771 0.14638 0.4229 0.34611
2.6 0.95551 0.26627 0.6064 0.13290 0.3936 0.33765
3.0 1.09861 0.39469 0.6534 0.11039 0.3466 0.31854
3.6 1.28093 0.55830 0.7117 0.08510 0.2883 0.29517
4.0 1.38629 0.65285 0.7431 0.07232 0.2569 0.28 154
4.6 1.52606 0.77827 0.7817 0.05749 0.2182 0.26348
5.0 1.60944 0.85310 0.8032 0.04976 0.1968 0.25281
5.6 1.72277 0.95480 0.8301 0.04053 0.1699 0.23860
6.0 1.79176 1.01671 0.8430 0.03559 0.1570 0.22666
7.0 1.94591 1.15504 0.8760 0.02625 0.1240 0.21161
8.0 2.07944 1.27487 0.8988 0,01986 0.1012 0.19625
9.0 2.19722 1.38057 0.9163 0.01534 0.0837 0.18322
-
10.0 2.30259 1.47512 0.9299 0.01206 0.0701 Q.17205
ANALOGOUS ENGINEERTNG FUNCTIONS 83
and
The plot of p ( t ) for various values oft is given in Fig. 5.3 based on
the calculated results given in Table 5.5.
A sample calculation follows:
For t = 2 hr,
g(t’ = log, t ) = g(t’ = 0.69315)’
-
- 4[z(t‘ = 0.69513)]
Qt’
’
--
0.69315-0.65879
1.11435 )
1.11435 ’
- 4(0.03083)
1.11435 ’
or
0.3988
g(t‘ = log, 2 hr) = = 0.35784.
1.11435
Therefore,
g(t = 2 hr) = dt’)

-t ’
- 0.35784
- 2 ’
or
g(t = 2 hr) = 0.17892,
The maintainability for t = 2 hr is
s(t’=0.69315)
M ( t = 2 hr) = J_- 4(4 dz,
-
- L 0.03083
4(4 dz,
or
M ( t = 2 hr) = 0.5123.
84 DOWNTIME DISTRTBUTIONS
Consequently,
g(t = 2 hr)
p(t = 2 hr) =
1 - M ( t = 2 hr)’
-- 0.17892
1 - 0.5123’
or
p(t = 2 hr) = 0.36689, or 0.367 restorations per hour.
PROBLEMS
5-1.The lognormal times to restore of a particular electronic device

have the following parameters:
-tt = 1.0 and up = 1.0 in log, hours.
Do the following:
(1) Write down the maintainability function for this equipment.
(2) What is the mean time to restore the system when this
device fails?
(3) What is the median of the times to restore the system when
this device fails?
(4) What is the time by which one-half of such restorations will
be completed?
( 5 ) What is the standard deviation of the times to restore?
5-2. Given is the times-to-repair data of Table 5.6 for a specific part
in a system. Do the following:
(1) Determine the probability density function of the times
to repair of this part in its system, assuming a lognormal
distribution.
(2) Determine the repair rate function.
(3) Determine the maintainability function.
(4) What is the maintainability (the probability of completing
the repair) for this part for a repair time of 6 hr?
( 5 ) Same as in Case 4, but for 25 hr.
PROBLEMS 85
TABLE 5.6 - Times-to-repair data for the determina-

tion of the maintainability for Problem S-
2.
Times to repair, Frequency of observation,
t,, hr n
0.3 1
0.5 1
0.9 2
1.1 3
1.5 4
1.6 5
2.0 6
2.1 7
2.5 7
2.9 6
4.O 5
4.7 4
5.0 4
5.4 3
6.0 2
6.5 2
7.8 1
9.0 1
9.4 1
10.0 1
11.0 1
14.0 1
20.0 1
25.0 1
40.0 1
(6) What is the mean time to repair this part?

(7) What is the median of the times to repair?
(8) What is the time by which one-half of such repairs will be
completed?
(9) What is the most frequently occurring time to repair?
(10) What is the standard deviation of the times to repair?
5-3. An equipment which requires restoration to satisfactory function
when its components fail has a lognormal pdf with the following
parameters:
-tt = 5 and at#= 1.
Do the following:
(1) Determine the probability density function of the times to
restore the equipment and plot it.
(2) Determine the maintainability function and plot it.
(3) Determine the repair rate function and plot it.
(4) Calculate the 50% confidence level time to restore the equip-
ment.
( 5 ) Calculate the time to restore for a maintainability of 95%.
repair this part in its system assuming a lognormal distri-
bution.
(5) Same as in Case 4, but for 25 hr.
completed?
PROBLEMS 87

tion of the maintainability for Problem 5-
4.
t,, hr n
0.1 1
0.3 1
0.5 5
0.6 6
0.7 4
0.8 3
1 .o 2
1.1 1
1.3 1
1.5 1
2.0 2
2.3 2
2.5 2
2.8 1
3.1 2
3.5 2
4.1 2
4.7 1
4.9 1
5.1 1
5-4 1
5.6 1
7.5 1
9.3 1
25.5 1
5-5. Given is the following time to restore distribution of an equip-

ment which requires restoration to satisfactory function when its
components fail:
Do the following:
(2) Calculate the maintainability of this equipment for an al-
lowable time to restore of 5 hr.
(3) Calculate the mean time to restore this equipment.
(4) Calculate the 50% confidence level time t o restore.
5-6. An equipment which requires restoration t o satisfactory function
when its components fail has a lognormal pdf with the following
parameters:
-
t' = 5 and = 0.5.
Do the following:
restore the equipment and plot it.
(2) Determine the maintainability function and plot it.
(3) Determine the repair rate function and plot it.
(4) Calculate the 50% confidence level time to restore the equip-
ment.
5-7. Given is the following times t o restore distribution of an equip-
ment which requires restoration t o satisfactory function when its
components fail:
Do the following:
PROBLEMS 89

(4) Calculate the 50% confidence level time to restore.
(5) Calculate the time to restore for a maintainability of 95%.
5-8. Given is the following times-to-restore distribution of an equip-
ment which requires restoration t o satisfactory function when its
components fail:
Do the following:
5-9. Given is the following time-to-restore distribution of an equip-
components fail:
Do the following:
5-10. An exponential equipment has a repair rate of 5 repairs per hour.
Do the following:
(1) Write the time-to-restore distribution equation in terms of
the repair rate.
the MTTR and plot it.
(3) Write the maintainability function in terms of MTTR and

plot it.
(4) What should the allowable time to restore be for a main-
tainability of SO%, 90% and 99%?
(5) Interpret the results of Case 4.
(6) What should the MTTR be for a 95% maintainability re-
quirement a d a allowable time to restore of 1 hr?
Chapter 6
MAINTAINABILITY AND ITS

QUANTIFICATION
6.1 MAINTAINABILITY DEFINED

Maintainability may be defined variously as follows:
1. Maintainability is the probability of successfully performing and
completing one or more, or any specified combination, of the var-
ious maintenance actions listed in Chapter 3, within a prescribed
period of time t l .
Once the times-to-maintain pdf is determined, based on the main-
tenance downtime category involved, the maintainability for the
period 21, M ( t l ) , may be calculated from
where g ( t ) is the pdf of the times required to complete the partic-

ular maintenance action(s), for which the equipment’s maintain-
ability is desired to be quantified. This quantification of main-
tainability is illustrated in Fig. 6.1 based on Eq. (6.1).
2. Maintainability is a characteristic of design and installation which
is expressed as the probability that an item can be restored to, or
retained in, satisfactory operating condition within a given pe-
riod of time when maintenance action is performed in accordance
with prescribed procedures and resources.
3. Maintainability of a part in a system is the probability of com-
pleting system maintenance, whether by replacing or by repairing
91
8
c
rd
c
Q,
Y
c
'7
a
Y
r,
0
- 0
92
EXPONENTIAL CASE 93
that part, in time tl, when that part fails or has to be replaced
preventively.
4. Maintainability comprises those characteristics (both qualitative
and quantitative) of materials, design and installations which
make it possible t o meet operational objectives with a minimum
expenditure of maintenance effort (in terms of manpower, skill
levels, test equipment, technical data, operating and maintenance
manuals, maintenance support organization and facilities) under
operational environmental conditions in which scheduled and un-
scheduled maintenance is performed.
5. Maintainability is the rapidity with which failures and malfunc-
tions are diagnosed and corrected, or preventive maintenance is
completed and the equipment is successfully checked out. It is a
function of interacting variables including those of the design con-
figuration of the equipment, of accessibility of frequently failing
or malfunctioning parts, or of parts scheduled for more frequent
preventive maintenance on the one hand and available facilities
and appropriate manpower on the other.
6.2 THE EXPONENTIAL CASE

The exponential times-to-restore distribution applies to corrective main-
tenance when the duration of repair, replacement or restoration times
is exponentially distributed. Then, the times-to-restore probability
density function, g ( t ) is
where
p = equipment corrective repair, replacement or restora-
tion rate, in restorations per unit time; e.g., restora-
tions per hour,
t = time required to correctively repair, replace or re-

store the equipment t o satisfactory function,
MTTR = mean time required to correctively repair, replace

or restore the equipment to satisfactory function
expressed in the same time units as t,
94 MAINTAINABILITY AND ITS QUANTIFICATION
and
1
MTTR = -.
P
The maintainability function for the exponential time to restore dis-
tribution case, from Eq. (6.1), is
or
M ( t 1 ) = 1 - e-btl = 1- e -&h, (6.5)
where
M ( t 1 ) = probability that repair will be successfully com-
pleted in time tl when it starts at t l = 0,
and
tl = the repair, replacement, or restoration time for
which M(t1) is to be determined.
Once the MTTR is given, M ( t 1 ) can be calculated for any specific
value of t l . Figure 6.2 illustrates two such maintainability functions,
M ( t ) : One for an equipment with an MTTR of 0.5 hr and the other
for an equipment with an MTTR of 1 hr.
An equipment with an exponential times-to-restore pdf has a 63.2%
probability of being restored satisfactorily in a time t which equals
its MTTR, a probability of 40% for t = 0.5108 x MTTR, a prob-
ability of 22% for t = 0.2485 x MTTR, a probability of 90% for
t = 2.3026 x MTTR and a probability of 95% for t = 2.9957 x MTTR.
Finally, there is a 50% probability of accomplishing restorations in
t = 0.69315 x MTTR, which is called the median time to restore. See
Table 6.1 for these and other values.
Of specific interest in maintainability specifications are the 90% and
95% probabilities. It is often desirable to specify a maximum repair,
maintenance, or restoration time, tMMAx,which should possibly not be
exceeded, or exceeded only with a small probability. Such constraints
on maximum maintenance times are usually associated with the 90th
or 95th percentile; i.e., the probability of accomplishing maintenance
in a specified time tMMAXshould be 0.90 or 0.95, according to what
the specification demands. In the case of an exponential distribution
of restoration times, M ( t ) = 0.90 for tMMAX= 2.3026 X i"TR and
M ( t ) = 0.95 for tMMAx= 2.9957 x MTTR. The explanation of such a
0.900 0-91
0.777
I /
n
e
s
0.632 1
/ Y(t)=l-e
1.o I:5 2
ERT = 0.347 hr ERT = 0.693 hr
Restoration time, t, hr
Fig. 6.2 - Two exponential maintainability functions.
TABLE 6.1 - Times for various maintainabilities for t h e

exponent i d distribution.
1 2
tl M ( t l ) ,9%
0.24850 3 22.0
0.51080 f 40.0
0.69315 f (Median time t o restore) 50.0
MTTR =f 63.2
~ M M A X = O . ~ O = 2.3026z 90.0
~ M M A X = ~ . ~= S 2.9957z 95.0
requirement is that 90% or 95% of all restoration actions s h d require

less than t = 2.3026 x M T T R , or t = 2.9957 x M T T R , respectively,
according to which percentage is associated with the tMMAxrequire-
ment. For example if the M T T R is 1 hr, from Fig. 6.2, 90% of d
repair actions should take less than 2.3026 hr and 95% should take less
than 2.9957 hr. In the exponential case it makes no difference whether
the M T T R or the tMMAxare specified along with the associated prob-
ability or percentile.
If t M M A X(maximum maintenance time) is specified with probabil-
ity M ( t M M A x = -
) 1 a,then
consequently,
and
tMMAX= - M T T R X IOge
EXAMPLE 6-1
It is specified that with probability M ( t ) = 1 - cr = 0.90,or with
cy = 0.10, the maintenance time for a specific equipment must not
exceed one hour; i.e., tMMAX=i 1 hr. Determine the MTTR that has
to be designed into this equipment.
REPAIR RATE 97

The M T T R t o be designed is obtained from Eq. (6.8) where a =
0.10, log, 0.10 = -2.302 and tMMAX= 1 hr. Then,
MTTR= --log, a '

tMA4AX
= 0.434 hr,
M T T R = (-2.302)
or about 26 minutes.
6.3 THE REPAIR RATE, /-I

The maintenance, repair or restoration rate, p , for the exponential case
is
1
'
I
(6.10)
= MTTR'
Since the M T T R is a fixed number, the repair rate, p, is constant for
the exponential distribution. When this is the case, the probability of
completing a repair in a short period of dt when repair started t time
units ago; i.e., p dt is always constant, regardless of how long a repair
action has been in progress. For all other distributions, the repair rate
is nonconstant. It usually increases as a function of the progressing
maintenance time, t.
6.4 THE MEAN TIME TO REPAIR, MTTR

M T T R by itself, except for the exponential distribution, does not tell
us enough about the tails of the distribution, such as the frequency
and duration of the very long maintenance actions. Still, M T T R is an
important design requirement especially for complex equipment and
systems and it can be measured when the hardware is tested for main-
t ainability.
By its nature, M T T R depends on the frequencies with which var-
ious replaceable or repairable components in the equipment fail (i.e.,
on the failure rates or replacement rates), and on the times it takes to
repair the equipment as the different kinds of failures occur. There is
a predicted M T T R for which we need to know the predicted failure
rates and estimated repair times down to the lowest repair level at a
given repair level, and there is the measured MTTR observed on ac-
tual hardware. Ideally, the two MTTR's will be close to each other.
98 MAINTAINABILITY AND ITS Q UANTIFICATION
But if the predicted failure rates are not correct, the measured MTTR
may deviate significantly from the predicted value, even though the
individual repair times initially were well estimated. When designing
an equipment for maintainability, prediction techniques such as those
in MIL-HDBK-472are used. An MTTR estimate of an exponentially
failing equipment is obtained from
N
CXi
(6.11)
where
N = total number of replaceable or repairable components,
X i = failure rate of the ith component, in failures per unit

time,
or
1
and
-
ti = mean equipment repair time when the ith component
fails.
Equation (6.11) applies when the average time to restore the equip-
ment is desired when all components fail eventually. Equation (6.11) is
a practical design tool for maintainability. When the predicted failure
rates are available, the maintainability engineer evaluates the expected
repair times, c. They are estimated by maintenance time analysis
methods based on previous field data or expert engineering judgment
which consider fault verification, fault localization, fault isolation, dis-
assembly, replacement, reassembly, adjustment, servicing and check-
out. Each of these actions takes a certain time to perform, but these
times can well be estimated from the design, testability, and packaging
concept for the equipment. Trade-off techniques are used to change
design and packaging characteristics, as well as test capabilities, to
c,
achieve the desired failure rates, Xi, and mean repair times, for the
various types of failures and thus to comply with the MTTR require-
ment. The maintainability engineer can trade-off these X i and to
achieve the MTTR goal by good design for reliability (Xi) and main-
tainability (c). As to the measured MTTR, this is determined from
CORRECTWE MAINTENANCE TIME 99
hardware tests, simulated maintainability demonstrations, or field data

by computing the total observed repair downtime over an extended pe-
riod of time, the sum of all individual downtimes, and dividing this by
the number of repair actions, Nr,which occurred during the period of
observation, or
EXAMPLE 6-2
A system consists of three replaceable units which have the follow-
ing MTBF's and replacement times:
Subassembly 1 : MTBF1 = 1,000 hr, = 1.0 hr,
Subassembly 2 : MTBF2 = 500 hr, = 0.5 hr,

and
Subassembly 3 : MTBF3 = 500 hr, = 1.0 hr.
Compute the MTTR of this system.
To compute the MTTR of the system, first convert the MTBF's
into failure rates, or A1 = 1/1000 = 0.001 fr/hr, A 2 = 1/500 = 0.002
fr/hr and A3 = 1/500 = 0.002 fr/hr. Then, using Eq. (6.11),
MTTR =
X I q t A2 G + A3 7i
A1 + +
A2 A3
7 (6.13)
MTTR =
+
(0.001)(1) (0.002)(0.5) (0.002)(1) +
0.001 f 0.002 0.002 +9
or
0.004
MTTR = -= 0.8 hr, or 48 min.
0.005
6.5 MEAN ACTIVE CORRECTIVE

MAINTENANCE TIME,
It is defined the same way as the MTTR, except that emphasis is
on active corrective maintenance time, which means that no idle time
must be included when measuring the duration of maintenance tasks.
100 MAINTAINABILITY A N D ITS Q UANTIFICATION
Denoting the mean active maintenance time of a system by tMci

-
when the ith component with failure rate X i fails, the mean active
corrective maintenance time of the system is
N
CXi tM,i
-- i=1
tM, - (6.14)
b i ’
i=l
6.6 MEAN ACTIVE PREVENTIVE

MAINTENANCE TIME,
The mean active preventive maintenance time is defined as the arith-
metic mean of the active preventive maintenance times of an equipment
or system, and is
(6.15)
where
M = total number of different active preventive main-
tenance actions undertaken,
fj = frequency with which the jth preventive mainte-
nance task is performed, preventive maintenance
tasks per unit time,
and
-
tMpj = system’s mean active preventive maintenance
time when the j t h preventive maintenance task
is performed.
If the frequencies f j are given in -
maintenance tasks completed sat-
isfactorily per hour, the downtimes t M p , should be given in hours.
6.7 MEAN ACTIVE CORRECTIVE AND

PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE TIME, tM
The mean active corrective and preventive maintenance time is defined
as the mean of the distribution of the times of all maintenance actions,
EQUIPMENT REPAIR TIME 101
both corrective and przventive, of an equipment or system. It is given

by
(6.16)
where the terms Xi, fj,G,

-
and tMpj are as defined earlier. In this
equation the same units must be used for the Xis and fjs, and the
- -
same time units for the values of tMci and tMpj.
6.8 EQUIPMENT REPAIR TIME, ERT

The equipment repair time is defined as the median of the distribution
of the total repair times of an equipment or system. As seen in Fig. 6.2,
the ERT corresponds to that repair time within which 50% of all repair
actions can be accomplished successfully. The numerical relationships
between ERT and MTTR are different for different distributions. For
the normal distribution, because of its symmetry, the median and the
mean coincide, or
ERT = MTTR. (6.17)
For the exponential distribution, we have approximately
ERT Y 0.7 MTTR. (6.18)
For the lognormal distribution
MTTR
ERT =
e
(*) ’ (6.19)
where ,o is the variance around the mean of the natural logarithm of

:
the repair times.
6.9 GEOMETRIC MEAN TIME

TO REPAIR, MTT&
The geometric mean time to repair concept is used in connection with
the lognormal distribution, where it happens to be identical with the
ERT. It is given by Eq. (6.20)which is identical with Eq. (6.19);i.e.,
ERT = MTTRG = MTTR/e

(4). (6.20)
It can also be directly obtained from the estimate of the mean,
the natural logarithms of the mean repair times, 5,or
e,
of
(6.21)
and the MTTRG estimate, MTTRG, is then given by

MTTR~
= emrl,
-h
(6.22)
or
-
i = et'.
6.10 MAXIMUM MAINTENANCE TIME, t M M a x

The maximum maintenance time is defined as the 95th percentile of
the maintainability function M ( t ) , as shown in Fig. 6.2. tMMAXis that
maintenance time within which 95% of all maintenance actions can be
accomplished satisfactorily; i.e., not more than 5% of the maintenance
times may exceed t M M A XFor
. the normal distribution
tMMAX= MTTR + 1.65 Ot, (6.23)
where q is the standard deviation of the normally distributed main-
tenance times.
For the exponential distribution
tMMAXY 3 MTTR. (6.24)
For the lognormal distribution
-
h
log, tMMAx= mtt t 1.65 6t1, (6.25)

where e, is given by Eq. (6.21), and Btt is the standard deviation of
the natural logarithm of the repair times.
EXAMPLE 6-3
An exponential equipment has a mean time to restore of 2 hr. Do
the following:
MAXIMUM MAINTENANCE TIME 103
1. Write the times-to-restore distribution equation in terms of the

MTTR.
2 . Write the times-to-restore distribution equation in terms of the
repair rate.
3. Calculate the maintainability of this equipment for a time t o
restore of 0.5,1,2,4, 6, 8, and 10 hr. Put these values in a neat
table.
4. Plot carefully the results obtained in Case 3, and identify the X
and Y axes scales and values used on the plot.
5. What should the allowable time to restore be for a maintainabil-
ity of SO%, 90%, 95% and 99%?
6. Interpret the results of Case 5.
7. What should the MTTR be for a 95% maintainability require-
ment and an allowable time to restore of 3 hr?
1. The times-to-restore distribution equation in terms of the MTTR,
for an exponential equipment, is
where
MTTR = 2 hr.
Therefore,
2. The times-to-restore distribution equation in terms of the repair

rate, for an exponential equipment, is
g(t) = p e-pt
where
1
or
’= MTTR = repair rate,
1
p = - = 0.5 repair/hr.
2
Therefore,
e-o.5 i
g ( t ) = 0.5
104 MAINTAINABILITY A N D ITS QUANTIFICATION
TABLE 6.2 - Maintainability versus time to restore for

Example 6-3.
1 1 . 1 2
3. The maintainability is given by

M(t)= 1 - e-*,
where
MTTR = 2 hr.
Therefore,
~ ( t= )1 - e-3.
The maintainabilities for the different t values are given in Table
6.2.
4. A plot of the results obtained in Case 3 is shown in Fig. 6.3.
5. The allowable times to restore, for a maintainability of 50%, 90%,
95% and 99%, are determined from
M(t)= 1 - e - p t ,
e-LL' = 1 - M(t),
- p t = log,[l - M ( t ) ] ,
The corresponding times to restore, for the given maintainabili-

ties, are given in Table 6.3.
1.oo
0 . 9 9 2
0.95-
0.90
,
I,,
,
0 1 2 3 4 5 / r 6 7 0 9 10 11 12 13 14
1 9 4 1 5.99 9 1
lime to restore, t, hr
Fig. 6.3 - Plot of the maintainability function for the times to restore of Example 6-3.
106 MAINTMNABILITY A N D ITS QUANTIFICATION
TABLE 6.3 - Times to restore versus maintainability for

Example 6-3.
rn
1 1 1 2 I
50 1.38629
90 4.60517
95 5.99146
99 9.21034
6. The results of Case 5 show that as time t increases, the prob-

ability of successfully completing the maintenance action( s) in-
creases.
7. The MTTR for a maintainability of 95% and an allowable time
to restore of 3 hr is given by
or
3
MTTR = -
Zoge( 1 - 0.95) = 1.00142 hr.
6.11 THE LOGNORMAL CASE

If the times to restore the equipment are lognormally distributed, the
equipment’s maintainability can be evaluated using Eq. (6.1), as fol-
lows:
where LN stands for lognormal,N for normal, and 4 for the standard
normal distribution,
t’ = log, t , (6.27)
-
t; - t‘
z(t’l) = -, (6.28)
Qt’
LOGNORMAL CASE 107
and 7 and q t , are given by Eqs. (5.1) and (5.2), and (5.3) and (5.4),
respectively. Entering the standard normal distribution probability
tables with % ( t i )yields M(t1) quantitatively.
It is also desirable to determine the maintenance time by which
a specific percentage of the maintenance actions will be completed
satisfactorily. This is also the time tl-, for which the maintainability
is 1 - a,or
(6.30)
and
(6.31)
The commonly used maintainability, or (1 - a),values are 0.80, 0.85,

0.90, 0.95 and 0.99. Consequently, the z(t{-,) values which would be
used most commonly would be those given in Table 6.4. Using Eq.
(6.31), the time tl,, would then be calculated from
-
t i - , = t’ + z(ti-,) Qt‘, (6.32)
or
EXAMPLE 6 4
Given the times-to-restore data of Example 5-1, do the following:
1. Determine the maintainability function and plot it.
2. Determine the maintainability for this part if the maintenance
action needs t o be completed within 5 hr.
3. Determine the maintainability for a 20 hr completion time.
4. Determine the time within which 90% of the maintenance actions
for such parts will be completed.
TABLE 6.4 - Values of for the most commonly used

maintainabilities for use in Eq. (6.26).
1-a 4t;-a 1
0.80 0.8416
1.036
1.282
1.645
2.326
5. Determine the time within which 95% of the maintenance actions

for such parts will be completed.
SOLUTIONS T O E X A M P L E 6 4
1. The maintainability function for the system, when this part fails,
M ( t ) , from Eq. (6.26), is
J-03
where
-
%(t')= -,
- t'
2'
Qt'
t' = log, t ,
-
t' = 0.65879,
and
01' = 1.11435.
The quantified M ( t ) values are shown plotted in Fig. 6.4.
2. The maintainability for this system, for a maintenance time of
5 hr is
4(4 dz.
1.o
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 9 10
Time to restore, t, hr
Fig. 6.4 - Plot of the maintainability function for the times to repair of Example 6-4.
With
t = 5 hr, t' = log, 5 = 1.6094,
and
%(loge5) =
-
1.6094 0.65879
= 0.85310,
1.11435
or
M(5 hr) = 0.8032, or 80.32%.
This means that there is about an 80% chance that the mainte-
nance action on these systems, when this part fails, will last 5 hr
or less, or the probability of completing the maintenance action
satisfactorily within 5 hr is about 80%.
3. The maintainability for this system when this part fails, for a
maintenance time of 20 hr, is
M(20 hr) = [-z( 1% 20)

4(4 d.5
where
loge 20 = 2.9957
and
2.9957 - 0.65879 = 2.0972.
%(loge20) =
1.11435
Therefore,
or
M(20 hr) = 0.9820, or 98.20%.
Statements similar to those made for the previous case can be

made for this case also.
WEIBULL CASE 111
4. The time within which 90% of the maintenance actions will be

completed, from Eqs. (6.33) and (6.34), and Table 6.4, is
t0.w = antilog,(? t 1.2820p),
+
= antilog,(0.65879 1.282 x 1.11435),
= antilog, (2.08739),
5 . The time within which 95% of the maintenance actions will be

completed, from Eqs. (6.33) and (6.34), and Table 6.4, is
t0.95 = antilog,.(? t 1.645ap),
= antilog,(0.65879 + 1.645 X 1.11435),
= antilog, (2.491896),
or
t0.95 - e2.491896 -
- - 12.08 hr.
It can be seen from Cases 4 and 5 that approximately 50% more
time is required for a 5% point improvement in M ( t ) .
6.12 MAINTAINABILITY FOR GIVEN

RESTORATION TIME WITH A WEIBULL
TIMES-TO-RESTORE DISTRIBUTION
The maintainability for tl hours of restoration time is given by
(6.35)
where
g(t) = time-to-restore distribution.
The Weibull times-to-restore distribution is
(6.36)
Substitution of Eq. (6.36) into Eq. (6.35) yields the maintainability

-( L 3 ) P
M(t1) = 1 - e (6.37)
112 MAINTAINABILITY A N D ITS Q U ANTIFICATIO N
If the times-to-restore distribution parameters are given as y =

0.5 hr,p = 2.5 and 9 = 3.0 hr, the maintainability for a restoration
time of tl = 5.0 hr, from Eq. (6.37),is
M(t1 = 5.0 hr) = 1 -e (5.0-0.5

3.0
2.5
,
or
M(t1 = 5.0 hr) = 0.936, or 93.6%.
This means that 93.6% of the restorative actions will last 5 hr or
less, or that 93.6% of the restorative actions will be completed suc-
cessfully within 5 hr, or the probability that the restoration will be
completed successfully within 5 hr is 93.6%.
6.13 TIME TO RESTORE FOR GIVEN

MAINTAINABILITY WITH A WEIBULL
TIMES-TO-RESTORE DISTRIBUTION
The time to restore, t l , for a desired maintainability, M ( t l ) , is obtained
by solving Eq. (6.37)for t 1 , or
tl = y t 9 {-log,[l - M(tl)]}W (6.38)

If the maintainability is M(t1)= 90% then
ti = 7 t 9 (2.302585)'lp, (6.39)
if M(t1)= 95% then
ti =y + 7 (2.995732)1'p. (6.40)
If the times-to-restore distribution parameters are y = 0.5 hr,P =
2.5 and 7 = 3.0 hr, the time to restore this equipment, t l , for a main-
tainability of M(t1)= 95%, from Eq. (6.40),is
ti = 0.5 + 3.0 (2.995732)'/2*5,
or
$1 = 5.15 hr.
This means that 95% of the maintenance, or restorative, actions
will last 5.15 hr or less; or that if we allow 5.15 hr for maintenance
to be completed successfully, 95% of these maintenance actions will be
completed successfully within 5.15 hr.
WEIBULL CASE 113
EXAMPLE 6-5
Given is the following Weibull times-to-restore pdf of equipment
which requires restoration to satisfactory function when its components
fail:
where t is in hours.
Do the following:
1. Write down the maintainability function for this equipment.
2. Calculate the maintainability of this equipment for an allowable
time-to-restore period of 5 hr.
3. Calculate the mean time t o restore this equipment.
4. Calculate the median time t o restore this equipment.
5, Calculate the time t o restore for a maintainability of 95%.
1. The maintainability function for the equipment is given by
M(l) = 1 - C-0.25 3.5
.
2. The maintainability of this equipment for an allowable time-to-
restore period of 5 hr is
5-0.23 3 5
M ( t = 5 hr) = 1 - ~-(-4Tii-) '
or
M(l = 5 hr) = 0.83875, or 83.875%.
3. The mean time to restore this equipment is given by
M T T R = 0.25 t 4.0 I' - t 1

(3!5 ),
where
Therefore,
M T T R = 0.25 + 4.0 (0.8998),
or
M T T R = 3.84920 hr.
4. The median time to restore this equipment is

i = 0.25 + 4.0 [- log,(l - 0.50)]1/3.5,
t' = 0.25 + 4.0 (0.69315)'/3*5,
or
i = 3.85231 hr.
5. The time to restore this equipment for a maintainability of 95%
is
t = 0.25 + 4.0 [- log,(l- 0.95)] 1/35 ,
t = 0.25 + 4.0 (2.99573)1/3*5,
6.14 A PRIOR1 VERSUS A POSTERIORI

MAINTAINABILITY DETERMINATION
The a priori maintainability, M ( t l ) , is that predicted from
where
g ( t ) = time-to-restore distribution, which needs to
be known ahead of time,
and
11 = restoration period for which the maintainability
is to be predicted.
PROBLEMS 115
The a posteriori maintainability is determined from
where
N(t 5 tl) = number of maintenance actions which were com-
pleted successfully in time tl or less; or the num-
ber of maintenance actions that required t l or
less time to complete successfully, or were clocked
to have been completed successfully in time tl or
less,
and
NT = total number of maintenance actions undertaken,

out of which N(t 5 t l ) were completed success-
fully in time tl or less.
EXAMPLE 6-6
Failures were simulated in identical equipment operating in identi-
cal environments, and the same maintenance crew restored this equip-
ment to satisfactory function. Out of the 120 restoration times that
were clocked, 115 lasted 35 minutes or less.
Determine the a posteriori maintainability of this equipment for a
required restoration time of 35 minutes.
The a posteriori maintainability is given by
-
h
115
M ( t l = 35 min) = - = 0.958,
120
or
-
h
M ( t 1 = 35 min) = 95.8%.
Consequently, the average maintainability that has been demonstrated
is 95.8010, and that on the average 95.8% of the restorative or mainte-
nance actions lasted 35 minutes or less.
PROBLEMS

1.
Times-to-repair, Frequency of observation,

t,, hr ~~
n
0.4 1
0.6 1
1.o 2
1.2 3
1.4 4
1.6 5
2.0 6
2.2 7
2.6 7
3.0 6
4.0 5
4.4 4
5 .O 4
5.4 3
6.O 2
6.6 2
8.0 1
9.0 1
9.4 1
10.0 1
11.0 1
13.0 1
19.0 1
25.0 1
44.0 1
PROBLEMS 117
(1) Determine the probability density function of the times

to repair of this part in its system, assuming a lognormal
distribution.
( 5 ) Same as in Case 4, but for 20 hr.
( 6 ) What is the mean time to repair this part?
completed?
6-2.Given is the times-to-repair data of Table 6.6 for a specific part
repair this part in its system assuming a lognormal distri-
bution.
( 5 ) Same as in Case 4,but for 20 hr.
completed?
6-3.Given is the following times-to-restore distribution of an equip-
components fail:
Do the following:

2.

tr,hr n
0.2 1
0.3 1
0.5 4
0.6 5
0.7 4
0.8 3
1.o 2
1.1 1
1.3 1
1.5 1
2.0 2
2.2 2
2.5 2
2.7 1
3.0 2
3.3 2
4.0 2
4.5 1
4.7 1
5.0 1
5.4 1
5.5 1
7.0 1
9.0 1
24.5 1
PROBLEMS 119

lowable time t o restore of 5 hr.
6-4. Given is the following times t o restore distribution of an equip-
components fail:
1 e-3 ( 2'-0
T i ?3 )2 .
g(t) = t (2.5) 6
Do the following:
lowable time t o restore of 5 hr.
(4) Calculate the 50% confidence level time t o restore.
6-5. A system is made up of three exponentially failing subsystems
having the following mean times between failures, and mean
times to actively restore the system when a subsystem fails:
-
Subsystem 1 MTBFl = 800 hr, M T T R l = tM,, = 1.5 hr,
-
Subsystem 2 MTBFz = 600 hr, MTTR2 = tM, = 1.8 hr,
and
Sybsystem 3 MTBF3 = 400 hr, MTTR3 = tM, = 2.0 hr,
-
Do the following:
(1) Calculate the mean time t o actively and correctively restore
the system when any one of the subsystems fails.
(2) If Subsystem 1 is subjected to three preventive maintenance
tasks, Subsystem 2 t o two and Subsystem 3 t o three, with
the frequencies and active times given in Table 6.7, calculate
the mean active preventive maintenance time of this system.
(3) Calculate the mean active corrective and preventive main-
tenance time of this system.
TABLE 6.7 - Preventive maintenance tasks, their fre-

quency and duration for the system in
Problem 6-6.
per hr per hr per hr

0.001 3.5 0.002 1.75 0.005 1.5
Subsystem 2 0.003 4.6 0.006 2.00 - -
Subsystem 3 0.001 5.9 0.020 4.50 0.015 2.5
6-6.Prove Eqs. (6.18)through (6.26).

6-7.Given is the following times-to-restore distribution of an equip-
components fail:
1
e
-1
2
(t'--O.?)2
1.2 .
Do the following:
6-8.Given is the following time-to-restore distribution of an equip-
components fail:
Do the following:
PROBLEMS 121
TABLE 6.8 - Preventive maintenance tasks, their fke-

quency and duration for the system in
Problem 6-9.
- -
fly IMpi, f2, tMpz, f3, tMp~,
per hr hr per hr hr per hr hr
Subsystem 1 0.002 3.75 0.004 1.95 0.003 1.0
Subsystem 2 0.005 4.00 0.008 2.20 - -

6-9.A system is made up of two exponentially failing subsystems hav-
ing the followixig mean times between failures, and mean times
to actively restore the system when a subsystem fails:
-
Subsystem 1 MTBFl = 1,000 hr, MTTRl = tMel = 1.3 hr,
and
Subsystem 2 MTBFz = 500 hr, MTTRz = T M =
~ 2.0 hr,
Do the following:
(1) Calculate the mean time to actively and correctively restore
the system when any one of the subsystems fails.
(2) If Subsystem 1 is subjected to three preventive maintenance
tasks and Subsystem 2 to two, with the frequencies and
active times given in Table 6.8, calculate the mean active
preventive maintenance time of this system.
(3) Calculate the mean active corrective and preventive main-
tenance time of this system.
6-10. An exponential equipment has a repair rate of 4 repairs per hour.

Do the following:
the repair rate.
the MTTR.
MAINTAINABILITY AND ITS Q UANTIFICATXON
Calculate the maintainability of this equipment for a time

to restore of 0.5,0.75,1,1.25,1.50,1.75 and 2 hr. Put these
values in a neat table.
Plot carefully the results obtained in Case 3, and identify
the x and y axes scales and values used.
What should the allowable time to restore be for a main-
tainability of 50%, 90% and 99%?
Interpret the results of Case 5.
What should the MTTR be for a 95% maintainability re-
quirement and an allowable time to restore of 1 hr?
6-11. Using the system of Problem 6-1 do the following:
(1) Determine the maintainability function for this system and
plot it.
(2) Determine the maintainability for this system if the main-
tenance action needs to be completed within 8 hours.
(3) Determine the maintainability for a 10-hr completion time.
(4) Determine the time within which 90% of the maintenance
actions for such systems will be completed.
(5) Determine the time within which 95% of the maintenance
actions for such systems will be completed.
Chapter 7
STEADY STATE MEAN TIMES

TO ACTIVELY RESTORE,
REPAIR AND/OR REPLACE
COMPONENTS IN AN
EQUIPMENT
7.1 MEAN TIME TO ACTIVELY RESTORE AN

EQUIPMENT
In maintainability, calculations of major interest are the steady-state

values of the mean time to restore an equipment when considering ac-
tive repair time only. This establishes the average downtime for the
equipment while it is undergoing active repair. If the equipment con-
-
sists of N units each with M T B F ' s of m l , m2, m3, - +,mN, and when
Unit 1 fails it requires on the average hours to correctively restore
(replace or repair and reinstall the repaired unit) the equipment, and
when Unit 2 fails 6 hours, and when Unit N fails
. . a , hours, the
mean time to correctively restore tlie downed equipment for t hours of
operation, 5, when all units fail eventually, is given by
123
124 MEAN TIME TO ACTIVELY RESTORE AN EQUIPMENT
or
where
-
t~ = mean time t o correctively restore the downed equip-
ment t o successful function for t hours of operation,
N = number of units in the equipment,

-t i = mean time t o restore the equipment when the ith
unit fails
and
rn; = mean time between failures of the ith unit.
- The mean time to restore the equipment per one operating hour,
t k , is given by
The above apply regardless of the underlying times-to-failure dis-

tribution of each unit, under steady state conditions, or after several
(approximately three or more) corrective maintenance actions on each
unit, according to renewal theory.
If the units have a constant failure rate, then
N
and
N
i=l
This 5
time should be minimized to reduce the downtime per op-
erating hour, to reduce the cost of corrective maintenance, to increase
the availability of equipment, t o increase the production per hour and
to reduce the unit cost of production.
If the failed units must be repaired elsewhere and brought to the
equipment for installation, or repaired on the spot, and the mean time
RESTORATION EFFICIENCY AND CONSISTENCY 125
consumed for this effort is & for Unit 1, & for Unit 2, etc..., then Eq.
(7.1) becomes
where
-
tf = mean time to replace a failed unit with a fresh
one.
7.2 EQUIPMENT RESTORATION TIME

EFFICIENCY AND CONSISTENCY
The ith maintenance crew's equipment restomtion time efficiency, Eri,
may be determined from
ET, = % 1 F, (7.6)
where
ET~= maintenance time efficiency of Crew i ,
-
to = intrinsic mean restoration time of equipment,
when the equipment fails, by a specially selected
skilled maintenance Crew 0,
and
-
t; = mean restoration time by the designated ith
Crew.
Figure 7.1 shows the relative values of and c.
To compare the restoration time efficiency of maintenance Crew 1,
determine and G, then calculate
E T ~= / G.
As the value of l . 3 ~approaches
~ 1 then Crew 1 approaches Crew 0
in restoration time efficiency.
- If two different crews are to be compared, then determine and
t 2 for Crew 1 and Crew 2, respectively, and calculate
r I I
0
Restoration time, t
Fig. 7.1 - Time-to-restore distributions for two crews, their parameters

and the intrinsic equipment restoration mean time, c.
RESTORATION EFFICIENCY AND CONSISTENCY 127
The crew with the larger ET should be preferred. However, it is

desirable t o conduct statistical tests of comparison t o determine the
confidence level a t which E T ~is greater than ET,, if E T ~> E T ~were
the case.
It may also be desirable to determine the ith maintenance crew’s
restoration time consistency, C T ~defined
, by
CTi = 1 - ui / G, (7.7)
where
CT~= restoration time consistency of maintenance Crew i ,
a; = standard deviation of the restoration time of main-

tenance Crew i,
and
u; / = coefficient of variation of the restoration time of
maintenance Crew i.
The closer the value of CT~is to 1 the better the ith crew’s restora-
tion time consistency would be, because the lower the variability of the
maintenance crew’s restoration time of the equipment when it fails,
the closer the value of oiK would be to zero, thus yielding a CT~value
closer to 1.
If two different crews are to be compared then determine u1 and
0 2 for Crew 1 and Crew 2, respectively, and calculate
C T ~= 1 - u1 / CT,= 1 - u2 / G, u; < c.
and
The crew with the larger CT should be preferred. Figure 7.1 shows
the relative values of u1 and u2. Again, it is desirable t o conduct sta-
tistical tests of comparison t o determine the confidence level at which
C T ~is greater than C T ~if, CT, > C T ~were the case.
EXAMPLE 7-1
It has been established that an equipment’s intrinsic mean restora-
tion time clocked for a select, skilled crew is 36 minutes. Two other
crews of the equipment manufacturer’s Service Department are selected
to restore the equipment shipped to a key customer. The times t o re-
store this equipment by each crew are determined with the following
results:
Crew 1: = 42 min and u1 = 4 min.
Crew 2: = 48 min and 62 = 8 min.
128 MEAN TIME TO ACTIVELY RESTORE A N EQUIPMENT
Determine the following:
1. Each maintenance crew’s restoration time efficiency.
2. Each maintenance crew’s restoration time consistency.
3. Which crew would you select from the restoration time efficiency
point of view?
4. Which crew would you select from the restoration time consis-
tency point of view?
5. Which crew should be selected overall?
1. The restoration time efficiency of Crew 1 is
The restoration time efficiency of Crew 2 is

-/ -
E T ~= t o
36
t 2 = - = 0.750.
48
2. The restoration time consistency of Crew 1 is
The restoration time consistency of Crew 2 is

8
C2 = 1 - 0 2 / = 1 - - = 0.833.
48
3. Crew 1 should be preferred from the restoration time efficiency

point of view.
4. Crew 1 should be preferred from the restoration time consistency

point of view.
5. Crew 1 should be selected overall.

MEAN MAINTENANCE MAN-HOURS 129
7.3 MEAN MAINTENANCE MAN-HOURS

If Unit 1 requires n1 maintenance men to replace or repair and reinstall
--
the repaired Unit 1, Unit 2 requires n2 maintenance men, -,and Unit
N requires nN maintenance men, then for t cumulative operating hours
-
the mean comctive maintenance man-hours to replace failed units,
DR,is given by
or
For one operating hour, or t = 1 hr, the mean maintenance man-hours

to replace the failed units, 5,is given by
(7.10)
If each unit has a constant failure rate, then the mean maintenance
man-hours for t cumulative operating hours is given by
N
(7.11)
i=l
and for one cumulative operating hour by

N
(7.12)
i=l
also known as
-
D;i = M M H / O H , (7.13)
or Mean Maintenance Man-Hours to Correctively Replace the Failed

Units per Equipment Operating-Hour.
130 MEAN MAINTENANCE MAN-HOURS
7.4 MEAN MAINTENANCE MAN-HOURS TO

REPAIR AND REPLACE AN EQUIPMENT
If the failed units have to be repaired by more than one repairman,
and Unit 1 requires 5 hours to repair, on the spot, or elsewhere and
reinstalled, on the average, with r1 repairmen, Unit 2 requires & hours
with r2 repairmen,...,and Unit N requires dN hours with rN repairmen,
-
then the total mean man-hours to repair and replace the failed units in
the equipment, for t cumulative hours of equipment operation, DRR,
is given by
(7.14)
(7.15)
This value may be used to calculate the average labor cost, CL,for
repairing and replacing failed equipment on the spot and/or in a repair
shop for t cumulative hours of operation of the equipment from
7
CL = D R R - C L , (7.16)
where
CL = average labor cost to repair and replace, $, for t
operating hours of the equipment,
and
CL = averagelabor cost per hour, or the average hourly
labor rate.
EXAMPLE 7-2
A subsystem consists of three units, which are reliabilitywise in
series. Their useful life failure rates and wear-out pdf parameters are
given in Table 7.1.
Useful life Wear-out life

XC, 7 , 17,
Unit fr/106 hr hr hr p
1 300 0 300 2.5
2 GOO 0 500 3.5
3 450 0 400 4.5
%
with i = 1,2 a.nd 3. Ta.ke = 0.25 and % = 0.75.
The average replacement times, F,
and the required number of ser-
vice men, n;, as well as the werage repair times, z,
and the required
number of repairmen, ri, are given in Table i.2.
TABLE 7.2 - Additioiia.1 data for Example i-2.
0.75 2
1.00 3
0.50 2
1. What is the mean time t o replace these three units, per subsys-
tem operating hour?
2. Wha,t is the mean time t o repair these three units, per subsystem
operating hour?
3. What is the mean time to repair and replace these three units,
per subsystem operating hour?
4. Same as Case I h u t for operating liours equal to the stabilized
M T B F of this subsystem with units reliabilitywise in series,
given by
1
Subsystem MTBF = rnss = 7.
Note that for each unit
or use Simpson’s Rule with 8 or 16 intervals.

5. Same as Case 2 but for operating hours equal to the stabilized
MTBF of this subsystem with units reliabilitywise in series.
6. Same as Case 3 but for operating hours equal to the stabilized
MTBF of this subsystem with units reliabilitywise in series.
7. Same as Case 1 but for operating hours equal to the regular
statistical MTBF of this subsystem, given by
MTBF~G
=
I” Rss(T)dT,
where Rss(T)is the reliability function for the configuration and

the types of units comprising the configuration.
statistical MTBF of this subsystem.
statistical MTBF of this subsystem.
10. What is the average total maintenance man-hours to repair and
replace, per subsystem operating hour, if the failed units are
not disposable but require repair in a workshop before they are
replaced?
11. What will the results of Case 10 be if Units 1 and 3 can be
repaired and replaced simultaneously, but by the two separate
crews used in Case lo?
12. What will be the mean time to repair and replace these three
units, per subsystem operating hour, for Case ll?
1. The mean time to replace these three units, per subsystem oper-
ating hour, is determined from
The M T B F for each unit is calculated from

00
mi = Ri(T) d T .
For Unit 1
ml = L m R 1 ( T )dT
= Jrn
(0.25 e-0*0003
0
* + 0.75 e-[5551 ) d T ,
T 9.5
ml = 0.25 0.0003
1
-+ 0.75 [Tl+ o1 r (+ i, 1)]
ml = -0.25
0.0003
+ 0.75 [o + 300 r (A+ 1)],
where
Therefore,
0.25
ml =
0.0003
+ 0.75 [(300)(0.88726)] = 1,032.96683 hr.
Similarly,
m2 =
- /m
0
(0.25 e-o*ooo6 * + 0.75 T 3.5
) dT,
m2 = -0.25
0.0006
+ 0.75 [o + 500 r (A+ 1)] ,
where
r (A+ 1) = r(i.2857)= 0.89975,
therefore,
0.25
m2 = -+ 0.75 [(500)(0.89975)]= 754.07292 hr;
0.0006
m3 =
0.25
0.00045
+0.75 [o + 400 r (f+ i)] ,
where
r (A+ 1) = r(1.22) = 0.91257.
Therefore,
0.25
m3 = -+ 0.75 [(400)(0.91257)]= 829.32656 hr.
0.00045
Substituting these values into the equation for F, yields
-
'* = i= 1
-
(z) 0.50 0.80
= 1,032.96683+ 754.07292
t* = 0.001846397 hr/subsystem operating hr

+
0.25
829.32656'
2. The mean time to repair these three units, per subsystem oper-
5 (z),
ating hour when all units require repair, is determined from
-
d* =
r=l
-
- 0.75 1.00 0.50
1,032.96683 754.07292 + 829.32656'
or
-
d* = 0.002655094 hr/subsystem operating hr.
3. The mean time to repair and replace these three units, per sub-
system operating hour, is given by
-- (0.75 t 0.50) +
(1.00 0.80) (0.50 t 0.25)
1,032.96683 754.07292 -t 829.32656 ’
or
-
d& = 0.004501492 hr/subsystem operating hr.
4. The mean time to replace these three units for operating hours
equal to the stabilized M T B F of this subsystem
-
2 = ma, tL,
-
where
1
m,, = subsystem M T B F = 7,
x*
i=l
1
m88 = 1 1 1 ’
1,032.96683 + 754.07292 + 829.323656
or
mss = 285.71309 hr.
Therefore,
-
2 = (285.71309)(0.001846397),
or
-
1 = 0.527539796 hr.
5. The mean time to repair these three units for operating hours
equal to the stabilized M T B F of this subsystem is given by
- -
d = mss-dC,
= (285.71309)(0.002655094),
or
-
d = 0.758595111 hr.
6. The mean time to repair and replace these three units for oper-
ating hours equal to the stabilized MTBF of this subsystem is
given by
- -
d m = ma, d h ,
*
= (285.71309)(0.004501492),
or
-
dRR = 1.286135189 hr.
7. The mean time to replace these three units for operating hours
equal to the regular, statistical M T B F of this subsystem is
-T = MTBFREG.F,
where
MTBF-G =
/," Raa(T)dT,
= J,- &(T) Rz(T) R3(T) dT,
- (0.25 e-0-00045 + 0.75 e-[Zk]'*') ] dT.

This integral can be evaluated using Simpson's Rule with 16 in-
tervals to get
MTBF-G m 260 hr.
Therefore,
-
1 = MTBFREG *P= (260)(0.001846397),
or
-
5 = 0.48006 hr.
8. The mean time to repair these three units for operating hours
equal to the regular, statistical M T B F of this subsystem is
-
d =MTBF~G '3,
= (260)(0.002655094),
or
-
d = 0.690324440 hr.
9. The mean time t o repair and replace these three units for oper-
ating hours equal t o the regular, statistical MTBF of this sub-
system is
- -
dm = M T B F ~ G * dm,
= (260)(0.004501492),
or
-
dm = 1.170387920 hr.
10. The average total maintenance man-hours to repair and replace,

per subsystem operating hour, if the failed units are not dispos-
able but require repair in a workshop before they are replaced is
determined from
-
where Dj, is the total mean man-hours to repair and replace
the failed units in the subsystem per one operating hour, then
-
D;1R =
(0.75)(2) t (0.50)(1) + (1.00)(3) t (0.80)(3)
1,032.96683 754.07292
(0.50)(2) t (0.25)(2)
829.32656 '
or
-
D;iR = 0.010905978 MMHlsubsystem operating hr.
-
11. The Dizp of Case 10, if Units 1 and 3 can be repaired and re-
placed simultaneously, but by the two separate crews, is the same
since the replacing and repairing man-hours are independent of
simultaneity, as long as these two crews are putting in their time
anyway. Thus, even though the repair and replacement of Units
1 and 3 occur simultaneously, the mean man-hours per operating
hour remain unchanged.
12. The mean time to repair and replace these three units, per sub-
system operating hour, for Case 11 is given by
138 MEAN TIME FOR MAINTENANCE
however, since Units 1 and 3 are being repaired and replaced si-
+
multaneously, we use the larger of ( d l q)/rnland (&+ g)/m3.
Thus, for Unit 1
-
dl + +
-- - 0.75 0.50
= 0.001210107,
ml 1,032.96683
and for Unit 3
+ +
Since (& q ) / m l > (% g ) / m 3 the MTTR of the subsystem
per operating hour is
- +
0.75 0.50 1.00 0.80 +
diiR = 1,032.96683 754.07292 '
or
-
dhR = 0.002387037 hr/subsystem operating hr.
7.5 MEAN TIME FOR CORRECTIVE AND

PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE
If in addition to corrective maintenance, also preventive maintenance
is performed on the equipment every T p hours, such that the mean cor-
rective failure rate for the ith unit, with the unit undergoing preventive
maintenance, is A&, the mean corrective repair time of the equipment
when the ith unit fails is K, the mean preventive replacement rate of
the ith unit is X p i , and the mean time to maintain the ith unit pre-
ventively isG, then the mean time to restore the equipment while it
is undergoing both preventive and corrective maintenance, MTT R , is
given by
(7.17)
where
A,; = mean corrective failure rate for the ith unit
while the equipment undergoes preventive main-
tenance, also in corrective failures per hour,
which is also the number of corrective restorative
actions required per equipment operating hour,
MEAN TIME FOR MAINTENANCE 139
= mean corrective repair time of the equipment when

the tth unit fails, in hours,
A~ = mean preventive replacement rate for the ith unit
when the equipment undergoes preventive and cor-
rective maintenance, in preventive replacements per
equipment operating hour,
and
dpi = mean preventive maintenance time of the equipment
when the ith unit is preventively replaced, in hours.
The expressions for Ad and AH are functions of the preventive main-
tenance policy exercised in the equipment, and on Tp,and are derived
in chapter 9.
The M T T R given by Eq. (7.17) is a fundamental statistic of the
equipment and is the value that should be used in the steady-state
availability equations, in conjunction with the appropriate MTBF.
EXAMPLE 7-3
A system consists of three units and is subjected to corrective as
well as preventive maintenance. Given the mean corrective failure
rates, Ad, the mean corrective repair times, g,the mean preventive
replacement rates, A, and the mean times to maintain the units pre-
ventively,6, in Table 7.3, determine the mean time to restore the
equipment, M T T R , while it is undergoing both preventive and correc-
tive maintenance.
TABLE 7.3 - Additional data for Example 7-3.
fr/106 hr hr prev. repl./l@ hr

0.55 6.667 0.25
310 0.75 2.273 0.35
179 0.33 3.333 0.15
Using Q. (7.17) the mean time to restore the system can be oh
tained as follows:
N
C(A, g+x, q)
MTTR = 1
N
c 0,+ A,)
i=1
where
N
~ ( X G + Xpi G)= (289 X (0.55) + (310 x (0.75)
i=l
t (179 x (0.33)
+(6.667 x (0.25)
+(2.273 x (0.35)
t (3.333 x 10'~) (o.i5),
= 0.003413,
and
N
C(Xk+ Xpi) = (289 X + 310 X t 179 X
i=l
+6.667 x 1 0 ' ~t 2.273 x 1 0 ' ~t 3.333 x
= 0.013051.
Then, the MTTR is given by
0.003413
MTTR =
0.013051 '
or
MTTR = 0.261513 hr.
PROBLEMS
7-1. A subsystem consists of three units, which are reliabilitywise in

series. Their useful life failure rates and wear-out pdf parameters
axe given in Table 7.4.
TABLE 7.4 - Useful life and wear-out data associated
with the three units of the subsystem
for Problem 7-1.
Xc, 7,I 17, I
PROBLEMS 141
Use the following reliability model for each unit:
with i = 1,2 and 3. Take = 0.20 and = 0.80. Determine

the following:
1. What is the mean time to replace these three units per system
operating hour if the average replacement times,
follows:
e, are as
t; = 0.50 hr,
$ = 0.80 hr,
and
= 0.25.
Furthermore, the required number of service men, ni, are
the following:
n1 = 1,
n2 = 3,
and
n3 = 2.
2. Same as Case 1but for operating hours equal to the stabilized

MTBF of the units.
3. What is the average total maintenance-man hours t o repair
and replace per system operating hour, if the failed units
are not disposable but require repair in a workshop before
they are replaced and the average repair times, &,are as
follows:
d1 = 0.75,
&! = 1.00
and
cis = 0.50.
The number of required repairmen, ~ i are, as follows:
T i = 2,
T2 = 3 ,
and
T 3 = 2.
4. What will be the results of Case 3 if parts 1 and 3 can be

repaired and replaced simultaneously?
Note that the stabilized MTBF for a system with units reliability-
wise in series is given by
Also note that
or use Simpson’s Rule with 8 or 16 intervals. Note that the

regular, statistical MTBF for any configuration is given by
=
MTBF~G 1 A,, dT,
00
where R,, is the reliability function for the configuration and the
types of units comprising the configuration.
7-2.A system consists of three units which are reliabilitywise in series.
Their useful life failure rates and wear-out probability density
function parameters are given in Table 7.5.
for Problem 7-2.

A, , T, UT,
Unit fr/106 hr hr hr
1 0.5 3,000 500
2 1.0 10,000 1,000
3 0.7 5,000 800

following:
c,are the
< = 0.55 hr,

= 0.75 hr,
PROBLEMS 143
and
f: = 0.33.
Assume the stabilized MTBF of each unit is given by
1
MTBFi =
A,. + 1
2. What is the average total maintenance man-hours to repair

they are replaced? The required number of service men, ni,
are as follows:
nl = 1,
n2 = 3 ,
and
713 =2
The average repair times, &, are as follows:
d; = 1.5 hr,
& = 2.0 hr,
and
23 = 1.0 hr.
The number of required repairmen, Ti, are as follows:
r1 = 2,
r2 = 3 ,
and
r3 = 2.
7-3. A subsystem consists of three units, which are reliabilitywise in
series. Their useful life failure rates and wear-out pdf parameters
are given in Table 7.6.

for Problem 7-3.
Useful life I Wear-out life I

500
Use the following reliability model for each unit:
with i = 1,2 and 3. Take % = 0.25 and = 0.75.

operating hour if the average replacement times, q,
are as
follows:
= 0.55 hr,
t'; = 0.75 hr,
and
= 0.33.
Furthermore, the required number of service men, ni, are
the following:
n1 = 1,
n2 = 3,
and
n3 = 2.
2. Same as Case 1but for operating hours equal to the stabilized
MTBF of the units.
3. What is the average total maintenance-man hours to repair
PROBLEMS 145
they are replaced and the average repair times, d;, are as
follows:
d1 = 1.5,
d; = 2.0
and
23 = 1.0.
The number of required repairmen, ri, are as follows:
T i = 2,
r2 = 3,
and
T3 = 2.
4. What will be the results of Case 3 if parts 1 and 3 can be

repaired and replaced simultaneously?
Note that the stabilized MTBF for a system with units reliabil-
itywise in series is given by
1-
mss = -.
c mi
N
I=1
1
Also note that
or use Simpson’s Rule with 8 or 16 intervals.

7-4. A system consists of three units which are reliabilitywise in series.
Their useful life failure rates and wear-out probability density
function parameters are given in Table 7.7.
for Problem 7-4.
I
XC, T, OT,
Unit fr/106 hr hr hr
1 0.5 1,000 150
2 1 .o 5,000 800
3 0.7 3,000 500

following:
c, are the
= 0.55 hr,
= 0.75 hr,
and
< = 0.33.
Assume the stabilized MTBF of each unit is given by
1
MTBFi =
Li+&
2. What is the average total maintenance man-hours t o repair
they are replaced? The required number of service men, ni,
are as follows:
nl = 1,
n2 = 3,
and
n3 =2
The average repair times, d;, are as follows:
d; = 1.5 hr,
d; = 2.0 hr,
and
& = 1.0 hr.
The number of required repairmen, r i , are as follows:
= 2,
T2 = 3,
and
T3 = 2.
Chapter 8
MAINTAINABILITY
ENGINEERING
SPECIFICATIONS AND THEIR
APPLICATIONS
8.1 GOVERNMENT MAINTAINABILITY

SPECIFICATIONS
The following maintainability engineering specifications are available
and their use is recommended:
1. Maintainability Program Requirements - MIL - S T D - 470.

2. Maintainability Verification/Demonstration/Evaluation - MIL -
S T D - 472.
3. Maintainability Prediction - MIL - HDBK - 472.

4. Maintainability Verification/Demonstration/Evaluationfor Aero-
nautical Systems - MIL-STD-471.
5. Definitions of Effectiveness Terms for Reliability, Maintainability,

Human Factors, and Safety - MIL - STD - 721.
6. Maintainability Terms and Definitions - MIL - S T D - 778.
147
148 MAINTAINABILITY ENGINEERING SPECIFICATIONS
8.2 -
MIL STD 470 -
This standard provides requirements for establishing a maintainabil-
ity program and guidelines for the preparation of a Maintainability
Program Plan.
The following tasks are required t o be incorporated into the Main-
tainability Program:
1. Prepare a maintainability program plan.
2. Perform maintainability analyses.
3. Prepare inputs into the detailed maintenance concept and de-

tailed maintenance plan.
4. Establish maintainability design criteria.
5. Perform design trade-offs.
6. Predict maintainability parameter values.
7. Incorporate and enforce maintainability requirements in subcon-

tractor and vendor contract specifications.
8. Integrate other items.
9. Participate in design reviews.

10. Establish data collection, analysis and corrective action system.
11. Demonstrate achievement of maintainability requirements.
12. Prepare maintainability status reports.
8.3 -
MIL STD 471 -
This standard provides procedures and test methods for verification,
demonstration, and evaluation of qualitative and quantitative main-
tainability requirements. It also provides for qualitative assessment of
various Integrated Logistic Support factors related to, and impacting,
the achievement of maintainability parameters and item downtimes,
such as technical manuals, personnel, tools and test equipment, main-
tenance concepts and provisioning.
MIL - STD - 471 149
8.3.1 REQUIREMENTS
Maintainability verification, demonstration, and evaluation are required
to be performed in accordance with the maintainability, M, test plan
prepared by the contractor and approved by the procuring activity.
The M test plan shall be totally responsive to the qualitative and
quantitative requirements and supplemental information contained in
the procurement documents and the M program plan required by MIL
- STD - 470. The plan shall embody three phases at the system level:
1. Phase I - Verification.
2. Phase I1 - Demonstration.
3. Phase 111 - Evaluation.

To accomplish the procedures contained in this standard of great im-
portance is the contractor’s maintainability analysis as defined in MIL
- STD - 470, which should contain a comprehensive description of the
predicted maintenance tasks.
The maintainability analysis shall contain the following:
1. Failure mode or symptom and “How malfunction code,” which
would initiate the corrective maintenance task.
2. Frequency of occurrence of each failure mode and symptom of
every maintenance task.
3. Appropriate “Action taken codes” and “Work unit codes” for
each maintenance task.
4. Predicted times for each element of maintenance time as defined
in MIL - STD - 721.
5 . Skill levels and number of people required for each maintenance
task.
6. Support equipment and tools required for each maintenance task.
7. Technical order interface for each maintenance task.

8. Identification of preventive maintenance tasks.
9. Identification of those maintenance tasks which are not normally,
or under any circumstances will not be, permitted t o be per-
formed concurrently with other maintenance tasks.
It is assumed that all other maintenance tasks can be performed un-

restricted by the performance of ongoing maintenance. This standard
contains two appendices:
Appendix A - Maintenance task sampling for use with failure sim-
ulation.
This appendix outlines a procedure for the selection of a sample of
corrective maintenance tasks for maintainability demonstration when
the tasks result from failure simulation.
-
Appendix B Test Methods and data analysis.
This appendix provides the test methods and criteria for demon-
strating the achievement of specified quantitative maintainability re-
quirements. These test methods are presented next.
8.4 TEST METHOD 1 - TEST OF THE MEAN

Multiple nomenclature is used in this section giving the author’s nomen-
clature, as well as that used in MIL-STD-471. The procedure for this
method is the following:
1. Choose
-
HO = po = tL1 = lower, one-sided confidence limit on
the mean time to restore the failed equipment,
-
HI = = tul = upper, one-sided confidence limit on
the mean time to restore the failed equipment,
p = consumer’s risk,
CY = producer’s risk,
and
Plan A, which assumes a lognormal g(t),
or
Plan B, for which selection of a g(t) is not necessary.
- as they relate to the mean-
Figure 8.1 illustrates these parameters
time-to-restore distribution, g(t);and Fig. 8.2 as they relate to
the Operating Characteristic (OC) Curve.
2. Calculate the demonstration sample size, It, for Test Plan A ,
from
TABLE 8.1 - Stratification procedure.
Eguipmena ~ Radar X Y Z
u = producer's risk = manufacturer's risk

p = consumer's risk = buyer's risk
n
IY
W
M
0 €, = M l T l goal €, = max. acceptable

= design-to M7TR MTTR
'cb = PI
€ , mean time to restore, M'ITR
Fig. 8.1- Test Method 1 parameters illustrated on the g(?)

plot.
P
0
1 --
Fig. 8.2- Test Method 1 parameters illustrated on the OC

curve.
TEST METHOD 1 153
where &I must be known from prior information, or reasonably

precise estimates thereof must be obtained. The practical range
of & I appears t o be 0.5 5 S ~ 5I 1.3.
For Test Plan B use
n = ( y ) ,
where
cr = producer’s risk,
or
-
P(P L Po = tL1) L a’
and
d^ = standard deviation of the maintenance times.
;must be known from prior information, or reasonably precise

estimates thereof must be obtained.
3. Demonstrate the n maintenance actions accoding to Test Plan
A or B.
Simulate the failures as chosen according to Table 8.1 procedure.

Use random sampling for the task to be demonstrated and the
sequence. See Tables 8.1 and 8.2 for the procedure.
Also the actual operation of the equipment may be monitored,
and if it fails, the times t o restore may be clocked, recorded, and
used.
4. Apply the Decision Criteria
For Test A
Accept if
0.
1 2 3 4 5
Relative
frequency of Cumulative
Maintenance FdUn occurrence, range,
t d mode Effect percent percent
Receiver 1. Component 1. Noise 20 -
O.Oo0 0.199
remove/ out of
replace tolerance
2. Component 2. Receiver 35 -
0.200 0.549
shorted/open inoperative
3. Tuning 3. Cannot change 45 -

0.550 1.000
failure frequency
otherwise reject.
For Test B
Accept if
otherwise reject.
Here
and
EXAMPLE 8-1
The maximum acceptable mean maintenance time is
-
p1 = tul = 55 minutes,
TEST METHOD 1 155
with a consumer's risk, p, of lo%, such that
P(F 2 7 m ) 5 p = 10%.
The desirable, design-to, mean maintenance time is
-
PO = tL1 = 35 minutes,
with a producer's risk, a,of 5%, such that
h
P(7 5 'itl) 5 0 = 5%.

Find the number of the maintenance actions that have to be demon-
strated, n, according t o Plan A, and according t o Plan B.
Plan A sample size
n=
+
(1.65 x 35 1.28 x 55)2
(eoa6 - 1) = 33.67,
(55 - 35)2
or
n = 34,
with
Z,: = 0.6, a prior estimate.
Plan B sample size
where the prior estimate of the standard deviation, 2, of the mainte-

nance times is taken to be
d^= 38 minutes.
See Section 8.4.1 for the justification of this value.
156 MAINTAINABILITY E N G I N E E N N G SPECIFICATIONS
Then,
( )
2
1.65 t 1.28
n= = 30.99,
or
n = 31.
EXAMPLE 8-2
If? = 40 minutes and Ct = 30 minutes, determine if the equipment
passes its maintainability demonstration test according to Plan A, and
according to Plan B.
Plan A
or
n 30
2 5 35 t 1.65-
a= 43.49.
Since
40 5 43.49,
the equipment passes the test.
Plan B
or
30
40 5 35 + 1.65-
m = 43.89.
Since
40 5 43.89,
the equipment passes the test.
TEST METHOD 1 157
8.4.1 HOW TO DETERMINE JFROMqt

If i?ft = 0.6, then
A realistic estimate of 7,the true mean of the- times to restore the

equipment, is needed. One way is to start with Z = po = 35 minutes
and increase it as experience indicates.
We know from the lognormal pdf's properties that
#.
2 = e (-" + L-
A
2q*
Solving this for yields

. = 2
log, t = t f + 1-2
ZO",
or
-t f = log, =t - -1O- 2t / .
h
Substituting the f and 3.tt values chosen previously yields

-t' = log,35 - -1 (0.6),
h
2
or
-t f = 3.255.
A
Substitution of this value into Eq. (8.1) for 2 yields

2 = e(2X3.255+0.6) . (e0.6 - 11,
P = 1,006.3,
or
?i = 31.7 minutes.
Consequently, the value that should be used should preferably be
greater than 35.0, and d^ = 38 minutes is realistic as it does not vi-
olate the assumed value of 5;, and yields a more conservative (larger)
demonstration sample size.
158 MAINTAINABILITY ENGINEERTNG SPECIFICATIONS
8.5 TEST METHOD 2 - TEST ON CRITICAL

PERCENTILE
Two times to restore the equipment are specified for the same desired
maintainability, and the associated risks /3 and a. The times-to-restore
distribution is taken to be lognormal, and the variance of the times t o
restore needs to be known from prior information on such or similar
equipment.
The following are chosen:
1. M = fixed maintainability, such as 90%, 95% or 99%.
2. tL such that P(t 5 t ~= )M ,

tL = design-to, or design goal of, time
to restore the equipment,
tL = To.
3. tu such that P(t 5 t u ) = M . This M is the same as before.
tu = maximum allowable, or required, time t o

restore the equipment,
t = Ti.
U
4. /3 = consumer’s risk.
5. a = producer’s risk.
The two times-to-restore distributions for the same chosen, fixed
maintainability are shown in Fig. 8.3. The corresponding OC curve is
shown in Fig. 8.4.
8.5.1 SAMPLE SIZE DETERMINATION

The demonstration sample size is calculated from
where 3;,, is a prior estimate of the variance of the logarithms of the

times t o restore.
Y
159
0
tL t
Maintenance time, t, for a fixed maintainability
Fig. 8.4- OC curve for Test Method 2.
8.5.2 DECISION PROCEDURE

Conduct the required number, n, of maintenance actions, record the
times to restore, and calculate
n
n
=
c log, ti
is1
n
and
L J
The decision criterion is
Accept if
n
-I
2 -I-Z(1-M) 6 5 2'**
TEST METHOD 2 161
Reject otherwise.
EXAMPLE 8-3
It is specified that for a maintainability of 95% the desired mainte-
nance time of the equipment be 35 minutes, and the 95% maintenance
time is not to exceed 55 minutes.
The consumer's risk is specified as lo%, and the producer's risk a6
5%.
Determine the maintenance actions that have to be demonstrated,
assuming = 1.2.
G'iven are
a = 0.05, /3 = 0.10,
M = 95%, 100%- M = 5%,
t L = 35 minutes,
tu = 55 minutes.
2
, = z0.05, zp = t O . 1 0 ,
t, = 1 . 6 5 , =
~ ~1.28,
t'u = log,55 = 4.00733,
and
t'L = log, 35 = 3.55535.
Then,
+ (1.65)?
or
= [ 2
2 ] 1*65t 1'28 ) ? = 142.88,
(1'2)2 (4.00733 - 3.55535
n = 143.
EXAMPLE 8 4
The maintenance actions of Example 8-3 are demonstrated with
the following results:
A
7' = 3.0 log, minutes,

h
nt#= 1.5 log, minutes,
and
t' = log, t .
Were the n = 143 maintenance actions demonstrated in Example 8-3
adequate? How many additional maintenance tasks need to be demon-
strated?

Since q t is found to be 1.5 instead of 1.2,and since all other quan-
tities in the sample size equation remain the same,
(1 .5)2
-
nnew = (1.2)2 no1d7
nnew = -
2'25 (142.88)= 223.25,
1.44
or
nnew = 224.
Therefore, n = 143 is not adequate and the additional maintenance
tasks that have to be demonstrated are
nadd = 224 - 143 = 81.
EXAMPLE 8-5
At the conclusion of the total required maintenance tasks the fol-
lowing updated results are obtained:
A
3' = 2.9 logeminutes,

and
= 1.49 log, minutes.
Determine if the equipment has met the desired maintenance time
requirement of 35 minutes.
Since utl is near, and slightly below, the value on which the new
sample size was based, no new additional tasks need to be demon-
strated.
The decision criterion now becomes
t'* = log, 35
[
+- (1.65)(1.49) 4-
:2
+ 2(224 - 1)
tt8 = 3.55535 + 0.25274 = 3.808,
or
ti* = 3.81,
and
TEST METHOD 3 163
Since
5.36 p 3.81,
the equipment has not met the tL = 35 minutes requirement.
8.6 TEST METHOD 3 - TEST ON CRITICAL

MAINTENANCE TIME OR MAN-HOURS
One critical maintenance time, or maintenance manhours, t o restore
the equipment is specified for two different maintainability levels, and
the associated two risks: ,b' and a.
8.6.1 TEST PLAN

No specific distribution for the times t o restore is chosen.
T = time, or maintenance man-hours, to restore the
equipment is chosen.
ML = least acceptable maintainability is chosen.
Mu = design-to maintainability goal is chosen.
,b' = consumer's risk is chosen.
a = producer's risk is chosen.
The two chosen maintainabilities for one desired time to restore the
equipment are shown in Fig. 8.5. The corresponding OC curve is
shown in Fig. 8.6.
8.6.2 SAMPLE SIZE, n; AND ACCEPTANCE NUMBER, c.

1. If 0.20 5 Mu 0.80, the normal approximation to the binomial
distribution is employed to find n from
nv= z p [ M ~ (-l M L ) ] ' / t~ .~,[Mu(l-
Mv)]~'~
M u - ML
Use next high integer value. Next find c from
7 M,,:a I T
0 T
t
Fig. 8.5- Two maintainabilities for one time to restore, T.

TEST METHOD 3 165
Fig. 8.6- OC curve of maintainability for fixed time T.

and
[B]= zQIMu(l - Mu)]'/2f z p [ M ~ ( l -ML)]'/~.
Use next lower integer value. Also
Po = 1- Mu,
and
2. If Mu > 0.80, n and c are found from

5 e-n(l-Mu) ,
r=O
and
Table 8.3 provides sampling plans for various CY and P risks and
ratios of
~-ML
k = Pi/Po = when M u > 0.80.
1-Mv

Conduct the required number, n, of maintenance actions, record the
associated times to restore, t , count the number of the recorded t values
that exceed the specified time T,and designate it as r .
Accept if T 5 c. Reject otherwise.
EXAMPLE 8-6
It is specified that the critical maintenance time of T = 20 min-
utes be at least the 70th percentile (acceptable to the consumer), or
a maintainability ML of 70%, and T = 20 minutes also be the time
of the design goal with a maintainability M u of 90%. The consumer's
risk is specified as 0 = lo%, and the producer's risk as CY = 5%.
1. Determine the number of maintenance actions that have to be
demonstrated per MIL-STD-471, Test Method 3.
2. Determine the acceptance number of these maintenance actions,
C.
TABLE 8.3- Sampling plans for specified f i , p l , a and p
when po is small (e.g., po < 0.20).
k I p-0.05
C D
1.5 a6 54.100
2.0 a2 15.700
2.5 13 8.400
3.0 9 5.430 7 3.980 0 3.290 7 4.000 5 3.150 4 2.430 4 3.090 3 2.500 2 1.540
4.0 0 3.290 5 2.010 4 1.970 4 2.430 3 1.750 2 1.100 3 2.300 2 1.540 1 0.824
5.0 4 1.970 3 1.370 3 1.370 3 1.750 2 1.100 2 1.100 2 1.540 1 0.824 1 0.824
10.0 2 0.018 2 0.818 1 0.353 1 0.532 1 0.532 1 0.532 1 0.824 1 0.824 0 0.227
To Bnd the rarnplc h e , b r given po.pI ,a and , divide the appropriate D vdae by p~ and use the greatest
integer less than the qnotient. Example: pD = 0.05yp1 E 0.10, a E 0.10, p f 0.05 and L = = 4.
Then n = & = ## = 40. The acceptance number ir c = 4.
3. If 5 of these maintenance actions exceeded 20 minutes in dura-

tion, determine if the equipment should be accepted or rejected.
4. Same as in Case 3, but when 25% of the maintenance actions
exceed the required critical maintenance time of T = 20 minutes.
1. Mu = 0.90, then
Po = 1 - M u = 1 - 0.90 = 0.10.
Since Po < 0.20, Table 8.3 is used to find c and n as follows:
Q = 0.05, ,B = 0.10,
and
1 - ML
PI
k=-=
Po 1 - Mu
- 11 -- 0.70
0.90
0.3
= - = 3.
0.1
Then, from Table 8.3
D = 3.98;
consequently,
n=-=
D D - 3.98
Po 1-Mu 1-0.90,
or
ri = 39.8.
Use the greater integer value less than the quotient, then n = 39.
Therefore, 39 maintenance actions have to be demonstrated.
2. From Table 8.3 with a = 0.05, p = 0.10, and k = 3,
c = 7.
3. Accept if r 5 c. Here,
r = 5<c=7;
consequently, the equipment should be accepted as having demon-
<
straked a maintainability of at least M = 70% with p lo%, for
a critical, desired maintenance time of T = 20 minutes.
TEST METHOD 4 169
4. In this case
T = (0.25) n,
or
T = (0.25)(39) = 9.75, or T = 10.
Since, in this case,
T = 10 > c = 7.
the equipment should be rejected.
8.7 TEST METHOD 4 - TEST ON THE MEDIAN,

ERT
This method provides for demonstration of maintainability when the
requirement is stated in terms of an equipment repair time, ERT, or
the median time, that is specified.
This method assumes the underlying distribution of the corrective
maintenance task times is the lognormal.
8.7.1 SAMPLE SIZE

The sample size required is 20. This sample size must be used t o
employ the decision criterion equation.
8.7.2 TASK SELECTION AND PERFORMANCE

Sample tasks shall be selected in accordance with the procedure out-
lined in Table 8.1. The duration of each shall be recorded and used to
compute the following statistics:
log,,, M T T R c =
5 (log,,
i=l
tci 1 -
= t" = log,, i,
n C
and
s = tlp =
2(log,,
i=l
tCd2 - nc(log1, MTTRc)*
nc - 1 (8.3)
where log,, t = t", and MTTRc is the measured geometric mean time
to repair, or ic.

The equipment under test will be considered t o have met the maintain-
ability requirement, ERT, when the measured geometric mean time to
repair, MTTRG,and the standard deviation, up,as determined by Eq.
(8.3), satisfy the following expression:
Accept if loglo MTTRG ,< log,, ERT t 0.397up1 (8.4)
where
log,, E R T = logarithm of the equipment repair time,
loglo MTTRG = value determined from Eq. (8.2),
and
uttt = value determined from Eq. (8.3).
8.7.4 DISCUSSION
The value of the equipment repair time, E R T , t o be specified in the
detailed equipment specification should be determined from:
ERT(specified) = 0.37 ERTmaS, (8.5)
where ERTma, is the maximum value of E R T that should be accepted
no more than 10% of the time, and 0.37 is a value resulting from the
application of the “Student’s t” operating characteristics that assures
a 95% probability that an equipment having an acceptable ERT will
not be rejected as a result of the maintainability test when the sample
size is 20, and assuming a population standard deviation u p of 0.55.
EXAMPLE 8-7
A specific equipment’s median repair time, E RT, requirement is
2.50 hours. Twenty (20) corrective maintenance tasks are performed,
in accordance with the procedure outlined in Appendix A of MIL-STD-
471, or Table 8.1, and their duration is recorded. Using these times to
repair, the following are calculated:
logl0MTTRG = 0.65,
where -
logl0MTTRG = t”.
Also
- = log,oi,
tl‘
as
TEST METHOD 5 171
It may be seen that MTTRG is the median time to restore the equip-
ment t o satisfactory function. The standard deviation of the twenty
(20) corrective maintenance actions is calculated t o be u p = S = 0.85.
Determine if the equipment is meeting its repair time, E R T , require-
ment.
Accept the equipment as having met its ERT requirement if
+
loglo MTTRG 5 loglo ERT 0.3970t8#,
+
0.65 5 log10 2.50 0.397(0.85),
+
0.65 5 0.3979 0.3375,
or
0.65 5 0.7354;
therefore, this equipment is meeting its ERT requirement.
8.8 TEST METHOD 5 - TEST ON CHARGEABLE

MAINTENANCE DOWNTIME PER FLIGHT
8.8.1 C M D T PER FLIGHT
Due to the relatively small size of the demonstration fleet of aircraft,
and the administrative and operational differences between the demon-
stration fleet and the fully operational units, operational availability
rate cannot be demonstrated directly. However, a contractual require-
ment for chargeable downtime per flight can be obtained from an opera-
tional requirement of operational readiness. This chargeable downtime
per flight can be thought of as the allowable time for performing main-
tenance given that the aircraft has an associated operational readiness.
The following definitions will be used in this method:
A = availability, or operational readiness,
TOT = total “active time” in hours per day,
DUR = daily utilization rate,
= number of flight hours per day,
AFL = average flight length,
= average flying hours per flight,
N O F = number of flights per day,
172 MAINTAINABILITY ENGINE ERIN G SPECIFICATIONS
DT = downtime, in hours, during which the aircraft

is unavailable for fight,
CMDT = chargeable maintenance downtime, in hours,
during which crews are working
on the aircraft,
N C M D T = nonchargeable maintenance downtime, in hours,
during which the aircraft is unadlable for 5ight,
but no chargeable maintenance is being performed,
DDT = delay downtime, in hours, such as logistics and
administrative downtime,
Q = producer's risk,
p,- = MI= m1= maximum mean CMDT per flight,

po = Mo = required, specified, mean CMDT per 5ight,
Xa = acceptance critical value,
B = consumer's risk,
u = true standard deviation of the parameter
(CMDT per flight) being tested.
Note that 'active time" is that time during which an aircraft is
assigned to an organization for the purpose of performing the organi-
zational mission. It is the time during which:
1. The aircraft is flying or is ready to fly.
2. Maintenance is being performed.
3. Maintenance is delayed for supply or administrative reasons.
Nonchargeable maintenance downtime, N C M D T , could include
any of the following situations:
1. Correction of maintenance or operational errors not attributable
to technical orders: contractor furnished training or faulty design.
2. Miscellaneous tasks such as record-keeping, or taxiing, or towing
the aircraft to or from the work area.
3. Repair of accident or battle damage.
4. Modification tasks.
5. Maintenance caused by test instrumentation.
TEST METHOD 5 173
The required C M D T per flight is obtained using the following:

CMDT - TOT - A ( T 0 T N) -ONFC M D T - DDT 9 (8.6)
NOF
where
CMDT
= C M D T per flight,
NOF
or
C M D T - 24(AFL) - A(24)(AFL) - N C M D T --DDT
NOF - DUR DUR NOF NOF'
EXAMPLE 8-8
An aircraft has a required operational readiness of 75%, with an
average daily usage of 2 hours per day and an average flight length of 4
hours per flight. The nonchargeable maintenance downtime per flight
is 0.2 hours per flight and the delay downtime is 1 hour er flight. Find
the chargeable maintenance downtime per flight, -m. C M J

Given
A = 0.75,
DUR = 2 hours per day,
AFL = 4 hours per flight,
NCMDT
= 0.2 hours per flight,
NOF
and
DDT
= 1 hour per flight.
NOF
Then, from Eq. (8.7),
C M D T =--
24 ( 4 ) (0.75)
, ( 2 4 ) (4)
, NOF 2
\ I
2
I \ I \ - I
- 0.2 - 1,
CMDT
= 48 - 36 - 0.2 - 1
NOF
or
CMDT
= 10.8 hours per flight.
NOF
8.8.2 SAMPLE SIZE

Given a producer's risk, Q , and a consumer's risk, B . the number of
actions to be demonstrated can be calculated by applying the Central
Limit Theorem. on the assumption that the expected distributioii of
the means approaches the normal distribution.
Let X be a random variable denoting the chargeable maintenance
downtime, and its mean and standard deviation are p and u , respec-
tively. But the mean, p , is unknown, the standard deviation, 0 , is
known from prior estimates, and u is constant for different mean p .
The test requirement is that if the time p is equal to or less than
po (Mo), -
the acceptance probability should not be less than 1 a, and
if p is equal to or larger than pm4+ (MI), the acceptance probability
should not be greater than p. That is
P(W 5 X a i p = PO) = 1 - Q,
and
where
Xi = chargeable maintenance downtimes,

n = sample size,
and
Xa = acceptance critical value of the chargeable maintenance
downtimes.
If n is large, according to the Central Limit Theorem,

-
- h - N(O,l),
U i f i
and
Equating these to their percentiles yields

TEST METHOD 5
and
Xa -c11 = -q.
of fi
Then, the test sample size can be shown to be
If n < 50, then a sample of 50 shall be used.

EXAMPLE 8-9
For a requirement of po = 2.0 hours, the following parameters were
agreed upon by the procuring agency and the contractor:
Q = 0.10,
p = 0.10,
111 - po = 0.3 hours,
and
u = 1 hour.
Find the required number, TI, for maintainability demonstration.
Since a = fi = 0.10,
za = 1.28,
and
zg = 1.28.
n=
+
(1.28 1.28)* = -6.57
-
o.09 - 72.8,
(0.3f 1)2
or
n = 73.

The decision is arrived at by measuring the charmeable maintenance
downtime, Xi: after each fli ht and, at the end or the test: the total
h:
chargeable downtime is divi ed by the total number of flights to obtain
176 MAINTAINABILITY ENGINEERING SPECIFIC.4TZO.YS
The standard deviation is obtained by
or
(8.10)
The decision procedure is as follows:

Accept if
Reject if
EXAMPLE 8-10
A prototype aircraft has completed a demonstration test period of 8
flights. The chargeable maintenance time for each flight is given in the
next table. If the required mean chargeable maintenance downtime is 5
hours per flight, has the aircraft met its C M D T requirement? Assume
0 = 0.10.
Flight CMDT,
number hr
1 3.0
2 12.0
3 1.5
4 5.0
5 3.0
6 6.0
7 8.5
8 2.0
TEST METHOD 5 177

B y Eq. (8.9), with N O F = 8,
3 + 12 + 1.5 + 5 + 3 + 6 + 8.5 + 2
= -41
8'
or
-
X = 5.13 hours.
By Eq. (8.10),
s=
\(NOF
1 -l) [ c Xf-
NOF
._
I- 1
(NOF) 4,
where
a
X X f = (3)2 + (12)2+ (1.5)2+ (5)2 + (3)2
i=l
+
+(6)2 (8.5)2 (2)2, +
+ +
= 9 + 144 2.25 + 25 9 + 36 + 72.25 + 4.
= 301.5.
Then, Eq.(8.10) becomes
-71 [(301.5) - (8) (5.125)2],
or
s = 3.6130 hours.
Since a = 0.10, q, = 1.28, and the test for the decision procedure
is
%a s (1.28) (3.6130)
jQ+-=5+
drn J8 7
+
= 5 1.6351,
= 6.6351, or 6.64hr/ f light.
Then, since
-
X = 5.13 < 6.64,
the aircraft system has met its target CA4DT requirement.
8.9 TEST METHOD 6 - TEST ON MAN-HOUR

RATE
This test for demonstrating the man-hour rate, man-hours per flight
hour, M H R , is based on the total accumulated chargeable mainte-
nance man-hours and the total accumulated demonstrated flight hours
obtained in testing. The demonstrated man-hour rate is calculated
from
CMM
MHR=- (8.11)
DFH ’
where
C M M = total chargeable maintenance man-hours,
and
DFH = total demonstrated flight hours.
If the demonstrated M H R value is less than or equal to the re-
quired man-hour rate, M H R o , plus a value of maximum difference,
A M R , then the requirement is said to have been met. The value of
A h , l R is provided by the procuring agency, usually as a percentage of
the required system man-hour rate. This value is not based on the de-
termination of quantitative producer’s and coiisumer’s risk levels, but
is based on prior esperience with similar systems.
The decision procedure is as follows:
Accept if
M H R _< hdHRo +AMR. (8.12)
Reject if
h l H R > h4HRo + Ah4R. (8.13)
EXAMPLE 8-11
During testing of a new aircraft system, a. total of 1,500 flight hours
are accuniula.ted. Also, 7,560 hours of chargeable maintenance down-
time a.re incurred during the testing. If the required maintenance iiian-
hours for the syst.em is 5 man-hours per flight hour. with a 4 h 4 R of
lo%, has the aircra,ft met the man-hour rate requirement?
TEST METHOD 7 179

Given are
C M M = 7,560 hours,
D F H = 1,500 hours,
and
M H & = 5 man-hours/flight hour.
Calculate A M R by
A M R = 0.10. M H R Q ,
= 0.10-5,
or
A M R = 0.50 man-hours/flight hour.
Calculate M B R by Eq.(8.11):
CMM
MHR= -
DFH '
--7,560
-
1,500'
or
M H R = 5.04 man-hours/flight hour.
Since, by Eq. (8.12),
M H R 5 MHRo+ AMR.
5.04 5 +
5 0.50,
5.04 5 5.50,
the aircraft system passes the test.
8.10 TEST METHOD 7 - TEST ON MAN-HOUR

RATE USING SIMULATED FAULTS
This test is used to demonstrate the man-hour rate (man-hours per
equipment operating hour). It is based on (a) the predicted total
failure rate, AT, of the equipment as determined in Column 9 of Table
8.1, and the associated AlTBF = AT, and (b) the total cumulative
chargeable ma.intenance man-hours and the total cumulative simulated
demonstration opera.ting hours, T . The demonstrated man-hour rate
is then calculated from

Total chargeable maintenance man-hours
Man-hour rate = 9
Total operating time
(8.14)
where
X,. = man-hours for corrective maintenance Task i,
n = number of corrective maintenance tasks sampled,
which shall not be less than 30,
M T B F = MTBF of the unit = ~ / X T , where AT is the value
in Table 8.1, Column 9,
(PS)= estimated total man-hours required for
preventive maintenance during a period of
operating time equal to n (MTBF)hours,
and
T = total operating time = n ( M T B F )
8.10.1 TEST PROCEDURE

The man-hour rate, M H R ,requirement is specified, and a producer’s
risk, a, is chosen. The 30 or more corrective maintenance tasks are
sampled (Table 8.1 may be used), and their duration, Xk,are recorded.
Then,
x,- i-15 x c i
-
n
and
are calculated.
Table 8.1 is used to determine the total equipment failure rate, AT,
and the MTBF from ~ / X T .
The specified preventive maintenance tasks that will be required to
be performed in operating time,
T = n .(MTBF)
TEST METHOD 7 181
hours, are performed in a simulated manner, or are estimated, to obtain

(PS).
8.10.2 DECISION CRITERION
If
- PS 2
X c5 M H R . ( M T B F ) - -n + z a z ,
accept the equipment as having met the M H R requirement, and the

producer's risk cannot exceed a.
Reject otherwise.
8.10.3 DECISION CRITERION DERIVATION
where all quantities except xccan be taken to be constants. Using

the central limit theorem with n large it may be assumed that is
normally distributed, with variance
2
qfc= (5). 2
If rcis normally distributed, it can be shown that

M T1B F (xt ?)
is also normally distributed, around the mean of the M H R with
variance = -
Consequently,
Rearranging yields
Solving for x,yields the decision criterion
EXAMPLE 8-12
In a specific equipment with a designed-in M T B F of 200 hours, 30
corrective maintenance actions, sampled per Table 8.1, are simulated.
The corrective maintenance man-hours expended for each action are
recorded. The average man-hours per corrective maintenance task is
calculated to be
30
- c xci
X, = -
i=l
= 2.5 man-hours,
30
and the standard deviation of the man-hours expended for the correc-
tive maintenance tasks is calculated to be
h
d = 0.55 man-hours.
It is estimated that in a time period of
- -
T = n ( M T B F ) = 30 (200),
or
T = 6,000 hours,
the average total man-hours that will be required for all preventive
(scheduled) maintenance tasks would be
PS = 85 man-hours.
The producer’s risk is chosen to be CY = 5%.
Determine if this equipment has met its man-hour rate, M H R ,
requirement of M H R = 0.050 man-hours per operating hour.
The decision criterion for Test Method 7 is the following:
If
- PS 2
X , 5 M H R . ( M T B F ) - - n t &-$,
accept the equipment.
TEST METHOD 8 183
In this case
85 0.55
2.5 5 0.050(200) - -
30
+ 1.645-
rn’
2.5 5 10 - 2.833 + 0.1652,
or
2.5 _< 7.332.
Consequently, the equipment is accepted because it has met its M H R
requirement.
8.11 TEST METHOD 8 - TEST ON A COMBINED

MEAN/PERCENTILE REQUIREMENT
This is a constant probability ratio sequential test. In this test either
(1) the mean time t o restore the equipment, T, or the MTTR (which
is close to the 61% value of a lognormal times-to-restore distri-
bution) and the maximum time to restore for a maintainability
Of 90% (tMmoz = 90%)~Or
(2)the mean time to restore the equipment, 3, or the MTTR and the
maximum time to restore for a maintainability of 95% (tMmoz =
95%) are specified.
It may be seen that through this test a duality of requirements are
met simultaneously, as it is required that for an accept decision an
accept decision has to be reached on both 2 and tMm,,.
The method is based on a maximum possible consumer’s and pro-
ducer’s risk of 16%.
The test constraints are the following:
< 100 minutes.
*
I. 10 minutes 5 ?specified
2. 5 3.
It is asserted that most maintainability demonstrations comply with
these restrictions.
1. If the test plan is that of and tMmnz = 90%, then Table 8.4
(Plan A l ) is used in conjunction with Table 8.5 (Plan B1).
2. If the test plan is that of 7 and t ~ , . , , ~=
, 95%, then Table 8.4
(Plan A l ) is used in conjunction with Table 8.6 (Plan Bz).
When one plan yields an accept decision, attention to that plan

ceases and the remaining plan is continued until a decision is reached
for it. The equipment is rejected when a reject decision is reached on
either plan.
To accept the equipment both plans must result in an accept deci-
sion.
If no accept or reject decision is reached after 100equipment restora-
tion demonstrations, the find decision shall be made according to the
following rules:
1. Plan A1: Accept only if 29 or fewer restorative actions exceed ‘i.
2. Plan B1: Accept only if 5 or fewer restorative actions exceed
tMma==W%*
3. Plan B2: Accept only if 2 or fewer restorative actions exceed

tMma,=95% -
These plans are illustrated in Figs. 8.7 and 8.8.
8.11.1 RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH PLANS Al, B1 AND Bz

PLAN A1
Producer’s Risk, a = 6% at k 5 0.22.

Consumer’s Risk, p = 6% at k 2 0.39.
Here
k = - -T ( A ) - proportion of repair times exceeding T,

Nc
T ( A) = number of repair times exceeding 1,
and
Nc = number of corrective maintenance tasks performed in the
test.
Note that 1 is the specified mean corrective maintenance downtime.
PLAN B1
Producer’s Risk, a = 10% at k 5 0.02.

Consumer’s Risk, p = 10% at k >, 0.10.
TEST METHOD 8
TABLE 8.4- Test Method 8, Table 1, Plan A , .

i Observations exceeding the value of the mean, 1
MAINTAINABILITY ENGINEERING SPECIFICATIONS
TEST METHOD 8 187
87
29 - Accept
26 truncation
Reject region
C-L
00
00
/
wept
I I II
0 5 20 40 60 80 100
Number of equipment restorationdemonstrations,or

number of corrective maintenance actions performed
Fig. 8.7- Plan A1, Test Method 8.
- 73
6 - 6
5 - 5
4
Y 3 - 3
bo
(0
2 - 2
1 - 1
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Number of maintenance tasks to be performed
Fig. 8.8- Plans B1 and Bz, Test Method 8.
PLAN B2
Producer’s Risk, ct = 10% at k 5 0.01.

Consumer’s Risk, p = 10% at k 2 0.05.
Here
T ( B )= number of repair times exceeding t M m O Z c t ,

and
tMmo+ct = maximum corrective maintenance downtime.

Specify
-
and tMma==gO%,
or
Choose the sample tasks by preparing Table 8.1 and basing Column
12 on a total sample size of 100. Choose variable sampling in conjunc-
tion with a random number table uniformly distributed between 0 and
1, as per procedure of Column 13. Total up the maintenance tasks with
a duration exceeding the required values of 5 and tMm,, . Compare these
totals with those given in Tables 8.4, 8.5 and 8.6, as applicable t o the
two maintenance time requirements, for an accept or reject decision.
EXAMPLE 8-13
It is specified that the maintainability of the equipment be demon-
strated on the following dual requirement basis:
1. A mean time to restore o f ? = 30 minutes.
2. A time for a 95% maintainability or for a tMmos = 45 minutes.
1. If 25 maintenance tasks were demonstrated, what is the maxi-
mum number of tasks that should exceed 30 minutes in duration
for an accept decision?
2. Same as Case 1, but for a reject decision.
TEST METHOD 9 191
3. If 25 maintenance tasks were demonstrated, how many of these

tasks should exceed 45 minutes for an accept decision?
5. If the test on the mean time and the test on the 95% maintain-
ability time both resulted in an accept decision, would you accept
or reject the equipment?
6. If the test on the mean time resulted in an accept decision and
the test on the 95% maintainability resulted in a reject decision,
would you accept or reject the equipment?
7. If the test on the mean time resulted in a reject decision and
the test on the 95% maintainability time resulted in an accept
decision, would you accept or reject the equipment?
1. From Table 8.4, Nc 5 4 tasks for an accept decision.

2. From Table 8.4, Nc 2 11 tasks for a reject decision.
3. From Table 8.6, the minimum required number of observations
for an accept decision is 57. Consequently, with only 25 tasks no
decision could be reached. With 57 tasks none should exceed 45
minutes!
4. From Table 8.6, the required number of observations for a reject
decision is 2.
5. Accept!
6. Reject! Both tests have t o be accept decisions!
7. Reject!
8.12 TEST METHOD 9 - TEST FOR MEAN MAIN-

TENANCE TIME AND Mmaz
This test is used to demonstrate the following:
1. Mean corrective maintenance time, Zc = pc.
2. Mean preventive maintenance time, Z p = ppm.
192 M AIN TAINABILIT Y ENGINEERING SPECIFICATIONS
3. Mean maintenance time of the combined corrective and preven-

tive maintenance actions, TcIp = pcIp.
4. Maximum time t o correctively restore the equipment for a main-
tainability of Mmaz, = 90% or Mmazc = %%, tM,,,.,,.
The tests to demonstrate I,, I, and tclp apply to any distribution
of maintenance times as they are based on the Central Limit Theorem,
provided the minimum sample size is 30. No prior knowledge of the
variance of the maintenance times is required.
The test to demonstrate tM,,,,,c applies t o lognormally distributed
corrective maintenance task times.
The order of the sample maintenance tasks shall be selected ac-
cording to Table 8.1.

-* -* 7
1. Specify any one of t,,t,,t,l, or M:,zc with t;M,orc,or any corn-
bination of them.
2. -Specify
- the consumer's risk, /3, when the demonstration involves
tc or 2,.
3. Decide on a sample size of maintenance actions t o be demon-
strated for Tc,TP or Tclp.The sample size, n, for each equipment
type should be n 2 30.
4. Demonstrate the number of maintenance actions chosen accord-
ing to Table 8.1, and record the duration of each corrective main-
tenance task, t b , and each preventive maintenance task, t,i.
5 . Calculate the following:
- c 5 tci
(a) c = x c -
is1
nc 9
where
t& = corrective maintenance times,
and
n, = number of corrective maintenance tasks
demonst rated.
where
TEST METHOD 9 193
tpi = preventive maintenance times,

and
np = number of preventive maintenance tasks
demonstrated.
where
f, = number of expected corrective maintenance
tasks occurring during a representative
operating time T,
fp = number of expected preventive maintenance tasks
tasks occurring during the same
operating time T,
and
f, = ACTand f p = APT.
Also the following may be used:
where the t& and tpj are determined for the same represen-
tative time.
where
t; = log, t,.
h
ZL is calculated from Eq. (5.1), z(thmarc)

is obtained from
Table 6.4, and u ? is calculated from Eq. (5.4).
8.12.2 DECISION CRITERIA

The decision criterion for each demonstrated statistic is calculated as
follows:
8.12.2.1 - TEST FOR Zc

A
Accept if 7; (specified) 2 tz p z .
Otherwise reject.
194 MAINTAINABILITY ENGINEERlNG SPECIFICATIONS
-
8.12.2.2 TEST FOR fp
h
Accept if f; (specified) 2 +z p g.
Otherwise reject.
8.12.2.3 - TEST FOR TClp
Otherwise reject.
8.12.2.4 - TEST FOR tM,,,,,,

Accept if tbm,,,specified 2 tMm,,,,.
Otherwise reject.
EXAMPLE 8-14
For a special, maintainabilitywise vital equipment the following are
specified:
-*
t , = 5.250 hr,
-*
t, = 1.500 hr,
p = 0.05 for lcand lp,
-1
tcIp = 3.000 hr,
and
tkmar, = 12.50 hr, for M,,,, = 95%.
In a series of maintainability demonstration tests the following are
determined:
nc = 46,Zc = 3.595 hr, and sc= 5.641 hr,
A
np = 60,Z, = 1.356 hr, and sp

e
= 0.375 hr,
-tcIp = 2.350 hr, and uGp = 3.135 hr, with fc
h
= 20 and
fp = 40,
and
t0.95 = 12.08 hr, for M,,,,,, = 95%.
Determine if the specified requirements have been met by these
maintainability demonstration results.
TEST METHOD 9 195
1. Test f o r t c .
.. 6
-
tc + zp- = 3.595 t 1.645-
5.641
= 4.963 hr.
6 a
Since
Sy = 5.250 hr > 4.963 hr,
we accept the equipment as having met the mean corrective main-
tenance time requirement.
2. Test f o r t p .
- 6- 0.375
t p + z P - p = 1.356 t 1.645 -= 1.436 hr.
A
6 m
Since
S i = 1.500 hr > 1.436 hr,
we accept the equipment as having met the mean preventive
maintenance time requirement.
3. Test for T c / p .
+
= 2.350 + 1.645
= 2.809 hr.
[ 46 x 60(20 + 40)2 I’
60(20 x 5.641)2 46(40 x 0.375)2 ‘ I 2
Since
tclp= 3.000 > 2.809,
1
we accept the equipment as having met the requirement for the

mean maintenance time of the combined corrective and preven-
tive maintenance actions; i.e., the mean of all maintenance ac-
tions.
4. Test for tMrnaZc.

to.95 was determined, as shown in Example 6-4, Case 5, to be
12.08 hr.
Since
tbrna, = 12.50 hr > 12.08 hr, for Mmazc
= 95%,
we accept the equipment as having met the requirement for the
time by which 95% of the corrective maintenance actions should
be completed satisfactorily.
8.13 TEST METHOD 10 - TESTS FOR

PERCENTILES AND MAINTENANCE
TIME (CORRECTIVE OR
PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE)
This method employs a test of proportion t o demonstrate achievement
of ic,ip,95th percentile of the corrective maintenance times, tMrna,,,
and the 95th percentile of the preventive maintenance times, tMmatp,
when the distribution of the corrective maintenance repair times is un-
known. It is intended for use in cases where no information is available
on the underlying distribution of the maintenance task times. The
plan holds the confidence level at 75% or 90%, whichever is specified,
and requires a minimum sample size, N , of 50 tasks.
Any one, or a combination of these times, may be specified to be
demonstrated.

This method requires the specification of ic,ip,tMrnazc (95th percentile)
or tMrnazp (95th percentile), and the selection of one of the following
confidence levels: 75% or 90%.
The sample tasks are selected in accordance with the procedures
of Table 8.1. The duration of each task is compared to the required
vdue(s) of the specified index or indices ( & , i P , t M r n a r c and t M r n a z p ) ,
and are recorded as greater than or less than each index.
8.13.2 ACCEPT/REJECT CRITERIA

The item under test shall be accepted when the number of observed
task times, which exceed the required value of the specified index,
T EST METHOD 10 197
Table 8.7- Acceptance table for ic or ip,

sample size = 50.
Acceptance level
Table 8.8- Acceptance table for tMm,,c or t M m o r p , sample

size = 50.
L2-l
Acceptance level
is less than or equal to that shown in Table 8.7 and/or Table 8.8,
corresponding t o each index for the specified confidence level.
EXAMPLE 8-15
The following are specified for a specific equipment:
1. Median value of the corrective maintenance times =
ic = 2.75 hours.
2. Median value of the preventive maintenance times =
ip= 1.35 hours.
3. 95th percentile of the corrective maintenance times =
tMmoSc = tQ,95= 3.45 hours.
4. 95th percentile of the preventive maintenance times =

tMmotp - tpo.es= 2.15 hours.
All of these times are t o be demonstrated at a 90% confidence level.

Fifty corrective maintenance tasks are to be performed in accor-
dance with the procedures of Table 8.1.
Similarly, fifty preventive maintenance tasks are to be performed
in accordance with the procedures of Table 8.1.
198 MAINTAINABILITY ENGINEERJNG SPE CIFICATIONS
The duration of each corrective maintenance task is compared with

and it is found that out of 50 such times, 5 exceed iC = 2.75 hours.
iC
The duration of each preventive maintenance task is compared with
ipand it is found that out of 50 such times, 20 exceed &, = 1.35 hours.
It is found that none of the corrective maintenance times exceeds
tMmot, = 3.45 hours.
It is also found that two of the preventive maintenance times exceed
tMmorp = 2.15 hours.
Determine if the equipment is meeting the four specified time re-
quirements at the 90% confidence level.
1. From Table 8.7 if the number of the corrective maintenance tasks

that exceed in duration the ,value of i, = 2.75 hours is equal to
or less than 20, the equipment should be accepted because it is
meeting this requirement. Since this number in our case is only 5 ,
which is less than 20, the equipment should be accepted because
it is meeting its iC requirement at the 90% confidence level.
2. From Table 8.7 again if the number of tbe preventive maintenance
tasks exceed in duration the value oft, = 1.35 hours is equal to
or less than 20, the equipment should be accepted because it is
meeting this requirement. Since this numberjs 20, the equipment
should be accepted because it is meeting its t , requirement at the
90% confidence level.
3. From Table 8.8 if none of the corrective maintenance times ex-
ceeds tMm,,, = 3.45 hours, then the equipment should be ac-
cepted since it is meeting this requirement. Since this number is
0, the equipment should be accepted because it is meeting this
requirement at the 90% CL.
4. From Table 8.8 again if none of the preventive maintenance times
exceeds tMmarp = 2.15 hours then the equipment should be ac-
cepted because it is meeting this requirement. Since two preven-
tive maintenance times out of 50 exceed tMmatp = 2.15 hours,
the equipment should be rejected because it is not meeting this
requirement at the 90% CL.
TEST METHOD 11 199
8.14 TEST METHOD 11 - TEST FOR PREVEN-

TIVE MAINTENANCE TIMES
This method provides for maintainability demonstration when the spec-
ified index involves zp(pp)and/or tMmorpand when all possible preven-
tive maintenance tasks are to be performed.
All possible tasks are to be performed and no allowance need be
made for the underlying distribution.
8.14.1 QUANTITATIVE REQUIREMENTS

Application of this plan requires quantitative specification of the index
or indices of interest; namely, the target mean preventive maintenance
time. In addition, the percentile point defining tMmorp,the maximum
preventive maintenance time or the desired upper percentile value of
the preventive maintenance times, must be stipulated when tMmorpis
of interest.
8.14.2 TASK SELECTION AND PERFORMANCE

All preventive maintenance tasks will be performed. The total popu-
lation of the preventive maintenance tasks will be defined by properly
weighing each task in accordance with the relative frequency of oc-
currence as follows: Select the preventive maintenance task duration
which occurred after the greatest equipment operating time as the ref-
erence period, or time grouping interval.
8.14.3 TEST FOR Tp(pp)

Calculate the mean preventive maintenance time from
k
- -c i-1
fPi * x p i
t , = p,(actual) - k 9
C
i=l fpi
where
fpi -frequency of occurrence of the ith task in the
referenced period,
Ic = number of different preventive maintenance tasks
performed,
fpi = total number of preventive maintenance tasks
200 MAINTAINABILITY EN GINEElUNG SPECIFICATIONS
performed,
XPi = midpoint of the time intervals in which the
different maintenance tasks were performed,
p,(actual) = actual mean preventive maintenance time
-
calculated using this formula = t,.
Accept if T,(p,) required l-Zp(pp)actual.
Reject if Z,(pp) required < tp(p,) actual.
8.14.4 TEST FOR tMmotp

The preventive maintenance tasks are ranked by magnitude (lowest to
highest value). The equipment is accepted if the magnitude of the task
time at the percentile of interest is equal to or less than the required
e"' of 'Mmarp (',mas 1.
EXAMPLE 8-16
1. A specific equipment requires a 40-minute mean preventive main-

tenance time when all possible preventive maintenance tasks are
performed. It is observed that the preventive maintenance task
duration (reference period) which had t o be performed after the
greatest equipment operating time is 10 minutes. This then is the
reference period, or time interval used t o group the frequencies
of the preventive maintenance tasks. The actual time intervals
and the number (frequency) of the preventive maintenance tasks
performed are given in Table 8.9.
2. It is also required that the 95th percentile of the preventive main-
tenance times be 58 minutes.
Determine whether the equipment has demonstrated the above two

maintainability requirements per MIL-STD-471, Test Method 11.
TEST METHOD 11 201
TABLE 8.9- Duration and frequency of preventive mainte-

nance tasks.
Time intervals, Frequency of preventive
minutes maintenance tasks
0 - under 10 1
10 - under 20 4
20 - under 30 5
30 - under 40 7
40 - under 50 8
50 - under 60 3
TABLE 8.10- Calculations for Table 8.9 data to obtain pLp(ac-

tual).
Requency of
Time preventive Class
interval, maintenance tasks, midpoint,
Class minutes fpi Xpi fpi * X p i
1 0 - under 10 1 5 5
2 10- under 20 4 15 60
3 2 0 - under 30 5 25 125
4 3 0 - under 40 7 35 245
5 4 0 - under 50 8 45 360
6 5 0 - under 60 3 55 165
k=6 N = kz
=6
i=l
fpi = 28
k =6
C fpi
i=l
.X p i = 960
1. Per MIL-STD-471, Test Method 11, the decision criteria are:

Accept if: pp (required) 2 p p (actual).
Iteject if: p p (required) < p p (actual).
In this case, pp (required) = 40 minutes.
Now calculate p p (actual) as follows:
Arrange the data as shown in Table 8.10 and calculate
where
fpi = frequency of occurrence of the ith task in the
referenced period,
k = number of different preventive maintenance
tasks performed,
C j p i = total number of preventive maintenance tasks
performed,
Xpi = midpoint of the time interval in which the dif-
ferent maintenance tasks were performed,
pp(actual) = actual mean preventive maintenance time
calculated using this formula.
Therefore, from Table 8.10,

960
pp (actual) = - = 34.3 minutes.
28
Since
pp(required) = 40 min > pp(actual) 34.3 min,
we accept the equipment as having met this requirement.
2. The 28 maintenance task durations are ranked by magnitude
from the lowest to highest value. The 95th percentile observation
is found to be
( N 4- 1)0.95 = (28 + 1)0.95 = 27.55.
TEST METHOD 11 203
The 27th ranked value is 55 minutes and the 28th ranked value
is 57 minutes. Consequently, the duration of the 27.55th obser-
vation, or of the preventive maintenance task time, is
55 + (27.55 - 27.00)(57 - 55) = 56.10 min.
Since
tMrnlSZ, (required) = 58 min. > tMmo+p(actud)
= 56.10 min.
we accept the equipment.
PROBLEMS
8-1. The mean maintenance time of an equipment is to be demon-

strated. The maximum acceptable mean maintenance time is 60
minutes and the desirable maintenance time is 35 minutes. The
consumer’s risk is specified as 10% and the producer’s risk as 5%.
Do the following:
1. Determine the number of maintenance actions that have t o

be demonstrated per MIL-STD-471, Test Method 1, Plan
A, under the lognormal assumption of a prior estimate of
6tt = 1.2.
2. Same as in Case 1but for Plan B, under the distribution-free

assumption of a prior estimate of d’ = 45 minutes.
3. The maintenance actions required by Plan A are demon-
strated and the following results are obtained:
-
t = 40 minutes,
and
ut = 20 minutes,
where
Z = mean time to restore the equipment,
and
ut = standard deviation of the times to restore.
Determine if this equipment passed its maintainability demon-

stration test according t o Plan A.
4. Same as in Case 3, but for Plan B.
5 . Find the mean maintenance time t o reject the equipment
according to Plan A.
8-2. The mean maintenance time of an equipment is to be demon-
strated. The maximum acceptable mean maintenance time is 75
minutes and the desirable maintenance time is 35 minutes. The
consumer’s risk is specified as 10% and the producer’s risk as 5%.
Do the following:
PROBLEMS 205
1, Determine the number of maintenance actions that have to

be demonstrated per MIL-STD-471, Test Method 1, Plan
A, under the assumption of a lognormal times-to-restore
distribution with a prior estimate of = 0.6.
2. Same as Case 1, but for Plan B under the distribution-free
h
assumption of a prior estimate of d = 30 minutes.

3. The maintenance actions required by Plan A are demon-
strated and the following results are obtained:
5 = 40 minutes,
and
at = 10 minutes,
where
-
2 = mean time to restore the equipment,
and
at = standard deviation of the times to restore.
Determine if this equipment passed its maintainability demon-

stration test according to Plan A.
5. Find the mean maintenance time to reject the equipment
according to Plan A.
8-3. It is specified that for a maintainability of 95% the desired main-
tenance time of the equipment be 60 minutes, and the 95% main-
tainability maintenance time not exceed 75 minutes, The con-
sumer’s risk is specified as 10% and the producer’s risk as 5%.
Do the following:
1. Determine the number of maintenance tasks that have t o be
demonstrated per MIL-STD-471, Test Method 2, assuming
the standard deviation from prior maintainability tests is
1.0 lo&.
2. These maintenance actions are demonstrated with the fol-
lowing results:
3’ = 3 . 0 1 0 ~minutes,
ott = logeminutes,
and
t' = log, t .
Determine the additional maintenance tasks that have to be
demonstrated.
3. If at the conclusion of the required maintenance tasks the
following updated results are obtained:
? = 2.9 log, minutes,
and
ott = 1.19 lo& minutes,
Determine if the equipment has met the desired mainte-
nance time requirement of 60 minutes.
4. Same as in Case 3 but for the maximum allowable mainte-
nance time of 75 minutes.

tainability maintenance time not to exceed 55 minutes. The con-
sumer's risk is specified as 10% and the producer's risk as 5%.
Do the following:

1.210&.
2. These maintenance tasks are demonstrated with the follow-
ing results:
1' = 3.0 lo& minutes,
ntt = 1.5 lo& minutes,
and
t' = log, t.
demonstrated.
1' = 2.9 log, minutes,
and
ot1 = 1.4 log, minutes.
PROBLEMS 207


tainability time not to exceed 90 minutes. The consumer’s risk
is specified at 10% and the producer’s risk as 5%.
Do the following:

0.8 lo&.
lowing results:
t‘ = 3.010& minutes,
ot’ = 0 . 9 1 0 ~
minutes,
and
t‘ = log, t.
demonstrated.
3‘ = 2.9 lo& minutes,
and
utt = 0.95 l o g minutes.

4. Same as in Case 3, but for the maximum allowable mainte-
nance time of 90 minutes.
8-6. It is specified that the critical maintenance time of 20 minutes

be at least the 70th percentile (acceptable to the consumer, or a
maintainability of 70%), and also be the time of the design goal
with a maintainability of 90%. The consumer’s risk is specified
as 10% and the producer’s risk as 5%.
Do the following:
1. Determine the number of maintenance actions that have to

be demonstrated per MIL-STD-471, Test Method 3.
2. Determine the acceptance number of these maintenance a&
tions, c.
3. If 5 of these maintenance actions exceed 20 minutes in du-
ration, determine if the equipment should be accepted or
rejected.
4. Same as in Case 3, but only if 15% of the maintenance
actions do not exceed the required critical maintenance time
of 20 minutes.
8-7. An aircraft has a required operational readiness of 80%. The

aircraft has an average flight time of 8 hours per flight and an
average daily usage of 6 hours per day. The nonchargeable main-
tenance downtime per flight is 0.35 hours per flight and the delay
downtime is 1 hour per flight. Find the chargeable maintenance
downtime per flight.
8-8. A new aircraft system is to be tested. A point of concern for the
maintainability demonstration aspect of the tests is the charge-
able downtime per flight. The required mean C M D T per flight,
po is specified as 3.5 hours. Do the following:
1. The following parameters were agreed upon by the contrac-

tor and the procuring agency:
a, = 0.05,
p = 0.10,
p1 - po = 0.5 hours,
Q = 0.75 hours.
Find the required number of flights, n, for the maintainabil-
ity demonstration.
2. Using the results of Case 1, n demonstrations were made.
The average chargeable maintenance downtime per flight,
X,was found to be 3.77 hours. The standard deviation was
found to be 0.29 hours. Determine if the aircraft system has
met its C M D T goal.
8-9. A new aircraft system has accumulated 5,000 flight hours during
testing. During this time, 8,100 hours of chargeable maintenance
downtime is accumulated. The required maintenance man-hours
for the system is 1.5 hours, and the A M R is specified as 7.5%.
Has the aircraft met the man-hour requirement?
PROBLEMS 209
8-10. If a prototype aircraft system has accumulated 3,500 hours of

test time and 7,800 hours of chargeable maintenance downtime,
what is the minimum value of A M R for the system to meet a
required maintenance man-hour goal of 1.2 hours?
8-11. An equipment’s ERT is specified as 16 hours. Twenty corrective
maintenance tasks are performed in accordance with the proce-
dure outlined in MIL-STD-471, or Table 8.1. Using the times t o
repair from the tasks, the following are calculated:
log,, MTTRG = 0.82,
and
Otii = 0.40.
Determine if the equipment is meeting its ERT requirement.
8-12. A prototype radar system has a designed-in M T B F of 400 hours.
25 corrective maintenance actions are sampled, per Table 8.1.
The average man-hours per corrective action, X,,is calculated
to be 4.2 man-hours. The standard deviation, 2, is calculated t o
be 0.7 man-hours. It is estimated that in a time period of
T = n * ( M T B F ) = 25 - (400),
or
T = 10,000 hours,
the average total man-hours that will be required for all scheduled
preventive maintenance tasks will be
PS = 120 man-hours.
If the producer’s risk, a is specified as 5%, has the radar sys-
tem met its M H R requirement of 0.075 man-hours per operating
hour?
8-13. It is specified that the maintainability of the equipment be demon-
strated on a dual requirement basis: (1) A mean time to restore
of 30 minutes. (2) A time for a maintainability of 95% of 45
minutes.
Do the following:
1. Draw the sequential Test Plan A1 of MIL-STD-471, Test
Method 8.
210 MAINTAzlvABILITY ENGINEEMNG SPECIFICATIONS
2. If 25 maintenance tasks were demonstrated, determine how

many of these tasks should exceed 30 minutes in duration
for an accept decision.
4. Draw the sequential test Plan B2 of MIL-STD-471, Test
Method 8.
5. If 25 maintenance tasks were demonstrated, determine how
many of these tasks should exceed 45 minutes in duration
for an accept decision.
6. Same as Case 5 , but for a reject decision.
7. If the test on the mean time and the test on the 95% main-
tainability time both resulted in an accept decision, deter-
mine whether you would accept or reject the equipment.
8. If the test on the mean time resulted in an accept decision
and on the 95% maintainability time resulted in a reject
decision, determine whether you would accept or reject the
equipment.
9. If the test on the mean time resulted in a reject decision
and on the 95% maintainability resulted in an accept de-
cision, determine whether you would accept or reject the
equipment.
10. Same as in Case 2, but for 100 demonstrated maintenance
tasks.
sumer’s and producer’s risks are specified as 5%.
Do the following:
1. Determine the number of maintenance tasks that have to be
0.95 lo&.
lowing results:
T = 3.5 log, minutes,
at, = 1.1lo& minutes,
and
PROBLEMS 211
t' = log, t .
demonstrated.
3. At the conclusion of the required maintenance tasks the
5' = 3.1 lo& minutes,
and
at#= l.Olog,minutes.

sumer's and producer's risks are specified as 10%.
Do the following;
1. Determine the number of maintenance tasks that have to be

0.95 lo&.
lowing results:
5' = 3 . 5 1 0 ~minutes,
gt1 = l.llo&minutes,
and
t' = log, t.
demonstrated.
3. At the conclusion of the required maintenance tasks the
5' = 3.1log, minutes,
and
at, = l.Olo&minutes.
8-16. For a special, maintainabilitywise vital equipment the following

axe specified:
-*
1, = 4.3 hr,
-*
t , = 1.0 hr,
P = 0.10 for 3, and T,,
7
tcIp = 3.5 hr,
and
%mwC = 15 hr, for M,,,, = 95%.
In a series of maintainability demonstration tests the following

are determined:
A
n, = 51, 1, = 2.985 hr, and Gc= 6.158 hr,
-
h
np = 55, 3, = 1.980 hr, and sp
= 0.275 hr,
tcIp = 1.050 hr, and cfGp= 4.005 hr, withf, = 19 and f p = 45,
and
t0.95 = 13 hr, for MmcrOc
= 95%.
Determine if the specified requirements have been met by these
maintainability demonstration results.
8-17. The following are specified for a specific equipment:
1. Median value of the corrective maintenance times =
ic = 4.25 hours.
2. Median value of the preventive maintenance times =
ip= 2.85 hours.
3. 95th percentile of the corrective maintenance time =
tMm,,, - tQ.95= 4.95 hours.
4. 95th percentile of the preventive maintenance time =

tMmarp - tPo,es= 3.65 hours.
All of these times are to be demonstrated at a 90% confidence

level.
Forty maintenance tasks are to be performed in accordance with
the procedures of Table 8.1.
213
Time intervals, Frequency of preventive

minutes maintenance tasks
0 - under 10 2
10 - under 20 3
20 - under 30 6
30 - under 40 10
40 - under 50 7
50 - under 60 5
Similarly, forty preventive maintenance tasks are t o be performed

in accordance with the procedures of Table 8.1.
The duration of each corrective maintenance task is compared
with ic and it is found that out of 40 such times, 6 exceed ic =
4.25 hours.
The duration of each preventive maintenance task is compared
with ip and it is found that out of 40 such times, 16 exceed
&, = 2.85 hours.
It is found that one of the corrective maintenance times exceeds
tM,,,, = 4.95 hours.
It is also found that one of the preventive maintenance times
exceeds tMmoIp = 3.65 hours.
Determine if the equipment is meeting the four specified time
requirements at the 90% confidence level.
8-18. A specific equipment requires a 60-minute mean preventive main-
tenance time when all possible preventive maintenance tasks are
performed. It is observed that the preventive maintenance task
duration (reference period) which had to be performed after the
greatest equipment operating time is 35 minutes. This then is
the reference period, or the time interval to be used t o group the
frequencies of the preventive maintenance tasks. The actual time
intervals and the number (frequency) of the preventive mainte-
nance tasks performed are given in Table 8.11.
It is also required that the 95th percentile of the preventive main-
tenance times be 85 minutes.
Determine whether the equipment has demonstrated the above

two maintainability requirements per MIL-STD-471, Test Method
11.
APPENDICES 215
APPENDICES FOR THE DERIVATION

OF THE FORMULAS OF SAMPLE
SIZE, n, FOR TEST METHODS
GIVEN IN MIL-STD-471
APPENDIX 8A - TEST METHOD 1
The time to restore, X , is lognormally distributed, and the follow-
ing values are given:
po = design goal of the mean time to restore = t ~ ~ ,
p1 = required mean time to restore or acceptable M T T R = t U 1 ,
a = producer's risk ,
-p = consumer's risk ,
X, = acceptable critical value of x,
and
d = the standard deviation of X .
The test hypothesis is
Ho : E ( X ) = Po,
and
HI : E ( X ) = P I .
For given cr and p, if the hypothesis HO is true, then the probability
that the equipment passes the test should be
P(F5 X a I E ( X ) = P O ) = 1 - a, (8A.1)
and if the alternate hypothesis H I is true, then the probability that
the equipment passes the test should be
P(T5 X=aIE(X)= P I ) = p. (8A.2)
Equation (8A.1) may be put in the form
(8A.3)
By the central limit theorem, the sample mean, X, is approximately

normally distributed for large n with mean E ( x ) and variance 0s.
Hence, if the hypothesis HO is true, then E ( x ) = P O , a7 = do/+,
and
(8A.4)
From Eq. (8A.3),
(8A.5)
where z, is the (l-cr)th percentile of the standard normal distribution.

Rearranging Eq. (8A.5) yields
-
x, = Po t %Y(do/JiE). (8A.6)
Similarly, Eq. (8A.2) yields
-
x4 = P 1 - q3(dl/fi). (8A.7)
Equating Eqs. (8A.6) and (8A.7) yields
P1 - Po = (.tp dl t 2, do)/JiE. (8A.8)
Dividing both sides by (p1 - P O ) , multiplying both sides by 6,
squar-
ing both sides and solving for n yields
(8A.9)
the Test Method 1 sample size.

Test Plan A
For Test Plan A, since X is lognormally distributed,
E ( X )= e p + 0 2 / 2 (8A.10)
and
2
ax = p(e' - I)'/,~, (8A. 11)
where p and Q denote the mean and standard deviation of log X .
For E ( X ) = PO, from Eq. (8A.11)
do = p0(eu2 - (8A.12)
and for E(X)= p l ,
d1 = p l ( e u 2 - l)'/*. (8A.13)
Substitution of Eqs. (8A.12) and (8A.13) into Eq. (8A.9) yields
(8A.14)
APPENDICES 217
Test Plan B
For Test Plan B
d l = do = d^ ( 8 A .15)
where $is the prior estimate of the standard deviation of the mainte-
nance time. Substitution of ;for do and d l in Eq. (8A.9) yields
(8A.16)
APPENDIX 8B - TEST METHOD 2

The time t o restore, X ,is lognormally distributed and the following
are given:
X, = ( 1 - p)th percentile of the distribution of X ,
TO= design goal the (1- p)th percentile value = t L ,
21' = required ( 1 - p)th percentile value = t U ,
a = producer's risk,
p = consumer's risk,
X,, = acceptance critical value of X,,
and
X' = log,X,,.
Ho : E(X,) = To,
and
H1 : E(X,) = TI.
According to the hypothesis for given a and p, if hypothesis Ho is
true, the probability that the equipment passes the test should be
~ ( 2 5p XpaIHo) = 1- a, (8B.1)
and if the alternate hypothesis HI is true, the probability that the
equipment passes the test should be
~ ( 2 5p x p a I H 1 ) = P , (8B.2)
where %, stands for the M L E of X,. Taking the logarithm of both
sides of the inequalities in Eqs. (8B.1)and (8B.2)yields
P(lOg, 2, 5 log, XpaIHo) = 1- a, (8B.3)
218 MAINTAINABILITY ENGINEEMNG SPECIFICATIONS
(8B.4)
(8B.5)
and
It can be shown that log,zp is approximately normally distributed

when n is large, then
(8B.7)
(8B.8)
where p and o is the mean and standard deviation of log,X, respec-
tively, and zp is the (1 - p)th percentile of the normal distribution.
Then
log, x p =p + zp 0, (8B.9)
and the MLE of log, Xp is
A
l0geXp = Y
-
+ zp S/-, n -n1 (8B.10)
where
. n
APPENDICES 219
and X2. ..X, is a random sample. Then,

XI,
E(log, zp)= E(T)t z p /ny- 1E ( S ) . (8B.11)
In Eq. (8A.11)
E(Y)= P9 (8B.12)
and if n is large
E(S)2 Q 11, pp. 137-1391, (8B.13)
and
/F' E 1.0. (8B.14)
Therefore
E(log, X,)
h
p + zpu. (8B.15)
For the variance of log, Zp,

2 XP
0 loge =vm (Y+*, JTs).
Since P and S are independent
(8B.16)
Also if n is large, then

U2
Var(S) % -
2n
[l,pp. 137-1391, (8B.17)
and
n-1
-n
2 1.0. (8B. 18)
Therefore, Eq. (8B.16) becomes
(8B.19)
(8B.20)
(8B.21)
(8 B .22)
(8B.23)
(8B.24)
Substitution of Eqs. (8B.22),(8B.23) and (8B.24) into Eqs. (SB.20)

and (8B.21) yields
(8B.25)
and
(8B.26)
Equating the right hand side of Eqs. (8B.25) and (8B.26) yields
(8B.27)
Rearranging Eq. (8B.27)yields
(8B.28)
REFERENCE
1. Duncan, Acheson J . , Quality Control and Industrial Statisiics, Richard
D. Irwin, Inc.,'992 pp., 1974:
APPENDIX 8C - TEST METHOD 3
If X I , XJ,.. .,X , is a random sample indicating a series of main-
tenance actions,
0, if the maintenance action is completed before
the specified maintenance time, T*,
1 , otherwise,
APPENDICES 221
i = 1,. . .,n, (8C.1)

and
P ( X ; = O ) = l - p , P(X;=l)=p. (8C.2)
n
Then x = C X ; is the number of maintenance actions that failed to be
i=l
completed before T*in n trials. x is binomial distributed, consequently
(
P ( x = Ic) = ;)p*(l -p y , (8C.3)
and
Var(X) = n p (1 - P). (8C.5)
El0 : T = X p , ,
and
HI : T = Xp, > ( P I > PO).
It is equal to the hypothesis
Ho :p = PO = Mu,
and
H1: p = p l = ML.
Considering the second hy othesis, the test problem chan es to
K
finding the sample size n and t e acceptance value c which satis y the B
(8C.6)
and
(8C.7)
( 1 ) If n is large and 0.20 5 po I pl 5 0.80, then according to the

Central Limit Theorem, then
= 1-0, (SC.8)
222 MAINTAINABILITY ENGINEERTN G SPECIFICATION S
-
1
e'@ j 2 dt ,
6
= P, (8C.9)
that is
c-npo
dn Po (1- P o ) = zu, (8C.10)
and
(8C.11)
and (8C.11)
Rearranging Eqs. (8C.10) yield
c = n Po t %a& Po (1 - P o ) , (8C. 12)

and
c = n Pl - -Zm/n Pl (1 - P l ) . (8C.13)
from Eq. (8C.13)
Subtracting Eq. (8C.12) yields
(8C.15)
where Q;= 1-pi ( i = 0,l). Dividing both sides by ( p l -PO) and then
squaring both sides yields
= ( z a m + z p r n
(8C.16)
Pl -Po )2-
Equation (8C.16)gives the sample size needed. Substitution of Eq.

(8C.16)into Eq. (8C.11)and rearranging Eq. (8C.11) yields the ac-
ceptance critical value, c, as
c = n [ zp P o r n t f a P l r n
am t z p m
(8C.17)
APPENDICES 223
(2) If n is large, but po < 0.20, then the normal distribution is

not used t o approximate the binomial distribution, but the Poisson
distribution. Then, from Eq. (8C.8),
(8C.18)
r=O
..
and
(8C.19)
Solving Eqs. (8C.18) and (8C.19) yields the sample size n and the
acceptance critical value c.
APPENDIX 8D - TEST METHOD 4
If the underlying distribution of the corrective maintenance task
time, X , is lognormal, and XI, X 2 , . +,
Xn, is a random sample from
X, then Y = lo X is normally distributed and = logX1,yz =
-
log X2, . .,ync =qog Xnc is a random sample from p.
Define
MTTRG = geometric, or mean time to repair = (e

r=l
X;)
l/nc
,
and
E RT = specified equipment repair time.
Then
1
log,, MTTRG = - cnc
nc ;=I
1
loglo X;= -
nc ;=I
c
nc -
y; = Y , (8D.1)
and
(80.2)
Assume
1' = loglo x N N ( p , 2), (80.3)
then
-
- N - N(O,l), (80.4)
.I&
224 MAINTAINABILITY ENGINE ERTN G SPE CIFICATI0NS
(80.5)
and
-
Y-p ncS2
-
U l f i and -are independent.
U2
Consequently,
(80.6)
is Student’s t distributed.
(80.7)
therefore
loglo MTTRG - log10 ERT
T=
S
&= i - 1).
N t(nc (80.8)
If the test criterion is a probability of 0.95 of accepting an equip-

ment or system as a result of one test when the true geometric mean
a
time to re air is equal t o the specified equipment repair time, E R T ,
it is then esired to find a value, T0.05,whch satisfies the probabilistic
equation
P(T 5 T0.05,nc-1)= 0.957 (8D.9)
where T0.05,~,-1is the (1 - 0.05)th percentile of the “Student’s t” dis-
tribution with (n, - 1) degrees of freedom. Entering the Student’s t
distribution tables with degrees of freedom = (n, - 1) = 19 yields
= 1.729.
T0.05,~~-1 (80.10)
Substitution of this value into Eq. (8C.18) yields
loglo MTTRG - log10 ERT 5 1.729, (80.11)

S
or
loglo MTTRG 5 loglo ERT + 0.397(S). (80.12)
APPENDICES 225
APPENDIX 8E - TEST METHOD 5

Given
A = availability,
T O T = total active time in hours per day,
D U R = daily utilization rate,
= number of flight hours per day,
AFL = average fight length,
= average flying hours per flight,
N O F = number of flights per day,
DT = downtime,
C M DT = chargeable maintenance downtime,
N C M D T = nonchargeable maintenance downtime,
D D T = delay downtime,
cr = producer’s risk,
M = maximum mean C M D T per flight,
Mo = required mean C M D T per fight,
u = true standard deviation of the parameter
( C M D T per flight) being tested.
T O T is that time during which an aircraft is assigned t o an orga-
nization for the pur ose of performing the organizational mission. It
is the time during w ch%i
( 1 ) the aircraft is flying or is ready to fly,
(2) maintenance is being performed, and
(3) maintenance is delayed for supply or administrative reasons.
DERIVATION OF C M D T PER FLIGHT

It is known that
T O T = Uptime + Downtime, (8E.1)
and
A=
Uptime - T O T - Downtime =I-- DT
-
(8E.2)
TOT TOT TOT *
But since
DT = C M D T + N C M D T + DDT, (8E.3)
C M D T + N C M D T + DDT
A=l- (8E.4)
TOT
Multiplying both sides of Eq. (8E.4) by T O T and then rearranging

yields
CMDT = TOT - A ( T 0 T )- N C M D T - DDT. (8E.5)
Dividing both sides of Eq. (8E.5) by N O F yields
CMDT - T O T - A ( T 0 T )- N C M D T - DDT 9 (8E.G)
NOF NOF
where
CMDT
= C M D T per flight.
NOF
Since
Total fight time in hours per day
NOF = ' (8E.7)
Average flight length in hours
and
DUR
Total fight time in hours per day = T O T (14), (8E.8)
then
T O T (D U R )
NOF = (8E.9)
24(AFL) *
Substitution of Eq. (8E.9)into Eq. (8E.6) yields
CMDT - 24(AFL) - A(24)(AFL)

NQF - DUR DUR
- N C M D T -- D T
D
(8E. l o )
NOF NOF'
SAMPLE SIZE DETERMINATION

X is a random variable denotin the chargeable maintenance down-
%
time, and its mean and standard eviation are L./ and u , respectively.
But the mean, p, is unknown, the standard deviation u is known from
prior estimates, and u is constant for different mean, p.
The test requirement is that if p is equal to or less than Mo, the
acceptance probability should not be less than 1 - a,and if p is equal
to or lar er than M I , the acceptance probability should not be greater
than p. %hat is
P ( X 5 X , ) p = Mo)= 1 - a, (8E.11)
APPENDICES 227
(8E .12)
where
. n
n = sample size
and
X , = acceptance critical value.
Considering the alternative forms of Eqs. (8E.11) and (8E.12):
(8E.13)
and
( 8 E .14)
If n is large, according to the Central Limit Theorem,
(8E. 15)
and
(8E.16)
Equating Eqs. (8E.13) and (8E.14)

yields
Xa - MO
= &, (8E.17)
dfi
and
Xa - MI = - t p .
(8E .IS)
46
Rearranging Eqs. (8E.17) and (8E.18) yields
(SE.19j
and
(8E.20)
Subtracting Eq. (8E.19)from Eq. (8E.20)yields
M i - MO = ( +
~ n ZP)-
U
fi'
(8E.21)
Then, the test sample size, from Eq. (8E.21),becomes
(8E .22)
APPENDIX 8F - TEST METHOD 7

Define
Total chargeable maintenance hours
Man-hour rate =
Total operating time ,
E xc;+ (PS)
-- i=l 9 (8F.1)
T
where
= man-hours for corrective maintenance task i,
Xd
n = number of corrective maintenance tasks sampled,
n shall not be less than 30,
M T B F = M T B F of the unit,
(PS) = estimated average total man-hours which would
be required for preventive maintenance during
a period of operating time equal to n ( M T B F )
hours,
T = operating time = n ( M T B F )
and
-l n -
X,;= X, = average number of corrective maintenance
;=1
man-hours per corrective maintenance task.
Also
n
c 5x,;t (PS)-
i= 1
xci
T
t (PS)- ;=I
-
n (MTBF)
1
- MTBF [x+ 3.
(8F.2)
APPENDICES 229
If n is large, according to the Central Limit Theorem,r, can be con-

sidered to be normally distributed. In Eq. (8F.2), M T B F and ( P S )
are considered to be constant, therefore
1
MTBF
is also normally distributed.
If p and d2 are the mean and variance of X,,respectively, then,
when n is large,
(8F.3)
and
(8F.4)
Furthermore assume that ph is the required man-hour rate. The pro-
ducer's risk is a,and the acceptance critical value is ph, then
Subtracting ph from both sides of the inequality of Eq. (8A.F5) and

then dividing by
yields
(8F.6)
Since
(8F.7)
(8F.8)
Rearranging Eq. (8F.8) yields

d
P k = Pk t 2, (8F.9)
MTBFfi'
Therefore, from Eq. (8F.5),accept if
(8F.10)
that is, accept if

- PS
x,5 pk ( M T B F )- -n
+ Z a J di i . (8F.11)
Since d is unknown, estimating d by 2, and substituting d by 2 i n Eq.

( 8F. 11) yields
- PS 2
X, 5 j.~h( M T B F ) - -n
+ Z&Jii (8F.12)
where pk = M H R.
APPENDIX 8G - TEST METHOD 8
Test Method 8 is a constant probability ratio sequential test, n
items are under test, and X is a random variable such that
X = 1,if the item failed t o pass the test,
and
X = 0,if the item passed the test.
Assume that
P(X = 1) = p , (8G.1 )
P(X = 0) = 1 - p , (8G.2)
then
n
N, =EX;
i=l
is the total number of items which failed to pass the test, where X;
has a value of either 0 or 1.
Ho : P = Po,
HI : P = PI.
APPENDICES 23 1
The producer’s risk is a and the consumer’s risk is P , therefore,

P (accept(P = PO)= 1- a, (8G.3)
and
P (acceptlP = PI)= P. (8G.4)
Then, according to the theory of the probability ratio sequential test,
the acceptance criterion is as follows:
Accept HOif
Nn 5 cn + dl. (8G.5)
Reject HOif
Nn 2 cn + d2. (8G.6)
Continue test if
cn + dl < N,, < cn + dz, (8G.7)
where
n = number of the sequential test,
(8G.8)
(8G.9)
(8G.10)
A = - 1, - P (8G.11)
(21
and
B=-. P (8G.12)
1-a
If cn+dl is a negative number, no acceptance value exists. ( c n + d l )
+
takes on the next smaller integer value and ( c n d2) takes on the next
larger integer.
1 - FOR PLAN A1
Producer’s risk: a = 0.06 at k 5 0.22. Consumer’s risk: ,f3 = 0.06
at k 2 0.39.
Here
k=-- - proportion of repair times exceeding 3,

NC
r ( A ) = number of repair times exceeding ?,
Nc = number of corrective maintenance tasks performed
in the test,
and
S = specified mean corrective maintenance downtime.
Ilo : P = 0.22 (Po= 0.22),
and
1Pi : P = 0.39 (Pi= 0.39).
In this case
0.94
log, A = log, -
0.06
= 2.75,
0.06
log, B = log, - = -2.75,
0.94
1-0 22
log, 1-0.39 --
- 0.25
c = log 0.39[1-0.22{ 0.82 = 0.305,
e 0.22 1-0.39
-2.75
di=--
0.82
- -3.35,
and
2.75
d2 = - = 3.35.
0.82
The acceptance test criteria are the following:
Accept if
N,, 5 0.305 n - 3.35. (8G.13)
Reject if
N,, 2 0.305 n + 3.35. (,8G.14)
APPENDICES 233
Continue test if
0.305 n - 3.35 < n < 0.305 n + 3.35. (8G.15)
2 - FOR PLAN B1 AND PLAN B2
For Plan B1
0 = 0.10, Po = 0.02,
p = 0.10,PI = 0.10,
therefore
0.90
log, A = log, -
0.10
= 2-20?
0.10
log, B = log, - - -2.20,
0.90
1-0.02
loge 1-0.10 0.085
= log 0.10~1-0.02f= -1.69 = 0.050,
e 0.02 1-0.10
-2.20
d 1 ---- - -1.30,
1.69
and
2.20
d2 = - = 1.30.
1.69
The acce t a me test criteria are the following:
Accept i P
N,, 5 0.050n - 1.30. (8G.16)
Reject if
+
N , 2 0.050n 1.30. (8G.17)
Continue test if
0.050n - 1.30 < n < 0.050n + 1.30. (8G.18)
For Plan B 2
cr = O . l O , P O = 0.01,
p = 0.10, Pi = 0.05,
therefore
log,A = 2.20,
loge B = -2.20,
1-0.01
loge 1-0.05 0.041
= log 0.05[1-0.01] - 1.651 - 0.025,
e 0.01 1-0.05
-2.20
dl = -= -1.33,
1.651
and
2.20
&=--1.651 - 1'33'
The acceptance test criteria are the following:
Accept if
Nn 5 0.025n - 1.33. (8G.19)
Reject if
Nn 2 0.025n -I-1.33. (8G.20)
Continue test if
0.025n - 1.33 < n < 0.025n 4-1.33. (8G.21)
APPENDIX 8H - TEST METHOD 9

This method is used to demonstrate the maintainability indices
P c 7 Ppm, Pp/c and Mma,, where
Pc = mean corrective maintenance time,
Ppm = mean preventive maintenance time,
PPIC
-- mean maintenance time which includes preventive
and corrective maintenance actions,
90th or 95th percentile of the repair time.
TESTS FOR ~c 9 Ppm AND P p / c
The tests for p c , p p m and pPlc are based on the Central Limit The-
orem.
Assume that X is a random variable with mean and standard
..
deviation d. XI, X2,. ,Xn is a random sample from X ,then
(8H.1)
If n is large
-
- N (8H.2)
If the mean value is specified as p,, it is required that
P(X s Xalp = ~ s =
) P, (8H .3)
APPENDICES 235
where
Xa = acceptance critical value.
Subtracting pa from both sides of the inequality in Eq. (8G.10) and
dividing both sides by d l f i yields
(8H.4)
From Eq. (8H.4)
(8H.5)
-
where zp is the corresponding value for 1 a = P found in Table 6.4.
Consequently, the critical value, X,, is
Xa = ps - 20 dlfi, (8H.6)
Since d is unknown, estimating d by i f r o r n
(8H.7)
and substituting d by ;in Eq. (8H.6) yields
Xa = ps - ZP Z/fi. (8H.8)
Then, the accept and reject criteria become the following:
Accept if
p, 2 T +zp i/fi. (8H.9)

Reject if
ps < x t zp ;/fi. (8H. 10)

Test for pc
Accept if
pc(specified) 2 X c + -
*'
'ZP dc
(SH.ll)
236 MAINTAINABILITY ENGINEENNG SPECIFICATIONS
Reject if
p,(specified) < xc+ -

zp z c
(8H .12)
fi
Test for ppm
Accept if
(8H.
13)
(8H.14)
(8H.15)
where fc and fpm are the number of corrective and preventive mainte-
nance actions, respectively. Then
-
xp/c =
f c x c t fpmxpm
(8H.16)
fc + fpm 9
and
(8H.17)
The estimate of Var(xPlc)is
(8H.18)
and the estimate of the standard deviation of rp/,

is
Substitution of Eqs. (8H.16) and (8H.17) into Eqs. (8H.9) and

(8H.10) yields the following accept and reject criteria:
APPENDICES 237
Accept if
(8H.20)
Reject if
ppl,(specified) < XP/, + zp

(8H.21)
Test for tM,,,
In this test it is assumed that the underlying distribution of the
corrective maintenance task time, X c , is lognormal, and the pdf of X ,
is
(8H.22)
Then Y = l o g e x, is normally distributed with mean p and standard

deviation u.
Mmaz is the (1 - a)th percentile of the distribution, or
p(X,5 tM,,,) = 1 - a. (88.23)
Taking the logarithms of both sides of the inequality in Eq. ( 8 8 . 2 3 ) ,
subtracting p from both sides and then dividing both sides by u yields
(8H.24)
U
Since
loge xc- N N ( 0 ,I ) , (8H.25)

U
then
loge tMmaz - CL - 2,. ( 8 H- 2 6 )
U
Rearranging Eq. ( 8 H . 2 6 ) yields

loge t ~ , , * = CL t z a g , (8H.27)
or
tMmar = antilog, ( p + k,Q) = u). (88.28)
Equation (811.28) says that if X, has a distribution as defihed by
Eq. (8H.22), then its ( 1 - a ) t h percentile is equal to antilog ( p + 2,~).
Estimating p and u by
(8H.29)
and
(8H.30)
and substituting p and u by their estimators in Eq. (8H.28) yields

'Mrnar =
( 8H.31)
tMmal 5 (specified) 9
and the acceptance criteria are the following:
Accept if
(specified) 2
tLrnas
( 8H.32)
APPENDICES 239
(8H.33)
APPENDIX 81 - TEST METHOD 10

This method is used to test that the median (the 50th percentile),
or the 95th percentile maintenance times are equal to or less than
the specified values. n maintenance actions are erformed and their
A
duration is recorded as t l , t 2 , . . . ,t,. t, is the speci ed percentile main-
tenance time either for the 50th percentile (median) or the 95th per-
centile.
Define a new random variable, X, such that
1, if t; > t,,
xj = 0 , if tj < t,,
i = 172,...,n. (81.1)
If the hypothesis
Ho : t , = t , , (81.2)
is true, where t, is the percentile value of the maintenance distribution,
then P(X; = 1) = 0.50 for the test for the median if the t, stands for
the 50th percentile, or P(X; = 1) = 0.05 for the test for the 95th
percentile if the t, stands for the 95th percentile.
So, the test for the median and the 95th percentile is changed to
test the hypothesis
Ho : P = Po, (81.3)
where the value of Po is e ual to 0.50 for the test for the median, or is
7
equal to 0.05 for the test or the 95th percentile.
If hypothesis (81.3) is true considering
n
Y = Cxj7 (a1.4)
i=l
240 MAINTAINABILITY ENGINEEHNG SPECIFICATIONS
then Y is a binomial distributed random variable with mean, n PO,

and standard deviation d n Po(1 - PO).
Denoting the acceptance value by C1 for the 75% confidence level,
and by Cz for the 90% confidence level, then for the 75% confidence
level
r
P E X i 5 C1IP = PO) = 0.25,
i=l
and for the 90% confidence level
(81.5)
/ n \
(81.6)
Test for the median

For large n, according to the Central Limit Theorem, since PO =
0.50,
(81.7)

c1- n Po (81.8)
= -%0,25,
d n PO(1- Po)
and from Eq. (81.6)
C 2 - n PO
= -20.10. (81.9)
d n PO(1- Po)
Substitution of the values of 20.25 and z0.10 into Eq. (81.8) and Eq.
(81.9) respectively, yields
C1 = n PO - 0.674n Po(1- PO), (81.10)
and
PO- 1.28Jnpo(l-po).
Cz = n (81.11)
Substitution of n = 50 and PO = 0.50 into Eqs. (81.10) and (81.11)
yields
C1 2 22.63, (81.12)
and
C2 2 20.47. (8I . 13)
But the acceptance level should be the next smaller integer of C1 and
Cz, hence the following table:
APPENDICES 24 1
Test for the 95th percentile

For large nl sinqe PO = 0.05*< 0.20, the Poisson distribution gives
a good approxlmatlon of the binomial distribution. Then from Eq.
(81.5)
(81.14)
'SO
..
and from Eq. (81.6)
(81.15)
I .
r=O
Enterin the tables of the cd of the Poisson distribution with n PO =

50 x 0.h
= 2.5 yields C1 = [and Cz = 0, hence the following table:
Confidence level
Acceptance level
tzrd
Chapter 9
PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE
AND ITS QUANTIFIED
ADVANTAGES
9.1 PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE

CONCEPTS
The reliability of equipment can be increased substantially by preven-
tive, or scheduled, maintenance whereby units which are about to enter
their wear-out life, or are partially worn out, or aged, or are due for
a minor or a major overhaul, are replaced with new units at prede-
termined periods of operation of the unit or of the equipment, thus
forestalling equipment failures during operation, reducing the average
failure rate of the equipment, reducing the cost of failures, increasing
equipment availability and productivity, and if it is production equip-
ment decreasing the unit-cost of production.
Failures during operation may be much more expensive than pre-
ventive maintenance, since they interrupt operation at an undesirable
time, and a failing part may damage many other parts adjacent t o it,
or may even destroy the equipment and damage other associated or
adjacent equipment. Preventive maintenance results in the reduction
of the total maintenance man-hours per equipment operating hour by
decreasing the number of primary and secondary failures. Thus, it is
often economically very advantageous to apply a policy of preventive
part replacement. Furthermore if the machine’s design reliability is
not adequate for the intended operational life of the system in which
the machine is used, its operating reliability may be increased substan-
243
244 P R E V E N T N E MAINTENANCE
tially by preventive maintenance as will be shown later. Consequently,

the total equipment operating and maintenance cost is decreased sub-
stantially through preventive maintenance.
Figure 9.1 illustrates the effect of preventive maintenance on the
reliability bathtub curve. It may be seen that preventive replacement
of equipment that goes into wear-out reduces the uncontrolled increase
in the equipment's failure rate, which stabilizes at a much lower level,
Aa,,(Tp),though at a higher level than A,, the useful life failure rate.
Figure 9.2 illustrates, in an exaggerated way, the effect of poor pre-
ventive maintenance on the reliability bathtub curve of the equipment.
If the preventive maintenance is not done properly, sufficient reduction
in the failure rate may not be affected.
9.2 PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE BY

AGE REPLACEMENT - POLICY I
If a unit is replaced preventively whenever Tp hours of operation are
accumulated, without a failure; and if the unit fails before Tphours are
accumulated it is repaired or replaced correctively, and replaced pre-
ventively again after it accumulates another Tphours from the previous
corrective maintenance action, such maintenance is called preventive
maintenance by age replacement, Policy I. Then, the following situa-
tions may prevail:
1. I
0 TP TP
t' q- TP -p- 7
2.
Or
I
0
Y
t,+TP
TP
t,+2 T, - Age of
equipment
where t 2 < Tp;t 3 < Tp,

and the *'s are failures.
AGE REPLACEMENT POLICY 245
I Failures reduced
0
I tl Age. T. hr
Fig 9.1 - Effect of good preventive maintenance on the re-

liability bathtub curve of equipment.
NF(t1) = N A, =
i’ 0
N(t) h(t) dt.
246 PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE
-
Fig. 9.2 Effect of poor preventive maintenance on the r e
To derive the reliability function, define a time period t as follows:

t = j Tpt 7,
where
j = 0,1,2,...,
O<r<Tp,
and
j = number of preventive maintenance actions.

Let RT,(~)be the reliability of a unit preventively maintained every
Tp hours. The reliability for a mission of t duration with preventive
maintenance every Tp hours would then be given by
R T , ( ~=
) R q ( j T~+ 7)= [ R ( T ~ )R] J( T ) . (9.1)
The mean life of an equipment consisting of units undergoing such
a sequence of preventive replacements is given by
MT, = I* RTp(t)dt,
01
through piecewise integration. Equation (9.2) can be put in a compu-

tationally tractable form by changing the variable t to 7,where
t = jTp+T.
Then,
dt = d r ,
t = j Tp when T = 0,
and
t = (j + 1) Tp when T = Tp.
Now, Eq. ( 9 . 2 ) becomes
24% PRE VENT N E MAINTENANCE
or
J”
al
MT,= x [ R ( T p ) ] J R ( T )d r . (9.3)
j=O 0
Recalling that
- -1 - Ed for z < 1,
1- j=o
if we take
then,
Substituting Eq. (9.4) into Eq. (9.3) yields
or
-
The equations for &,(t) and MT, apply for any component, or
equipment, as long as the R(Tp)and consequently R(r) can be formu-
lated. It applies for example to equipment with parallel or standby
redundancy when preventive maintenance may be exercised every Tp
hours without aborting the mission.
EXAMPLE 9-1
Consider an equipment consisting of two parallel, constant-failure-
rate units. Find (1) its RT, and ( 2 ) its MT,.

1. With no maintenance
~ ( t=)2 e-X t - e-2 '.
With maintenance
RT,(t) = P(TP)I N T ) ,
or
R T , ( ~ )= (2 e-' T~ - e-2 A T ~ ) j(2 e-' - e-2 '1, (9.7)
where
t = j Tp+ T , j = 0, 1,2, - - . , and 0 5 T < Tp.
Assume each unit has a constant failure rate of X = 0.01 fr/hr,
or a mean-life of rn = 100 hr.
For Tp -+ 00, or with no preventive maintenance, j = 0,
RT,+oo(t) -
- R(T)= 2 e-O'Ol T - e-0.02 T 9 (9.8)
and 05 ~~00.
For Tp = 150 hr, or with preventive maintenance every 150 hr,
%,=150 hr(t) = [' -(0.01)(150) - ,-(0.02)(150)]j

.(2 e-o.ol 7 - e-0.02 T
), (9.9)
with
j = 0 , 1 , 2 , - . - ; 0 5 T < 150 hr, and
+
t = j 150 T , and 0 5 t < 00.
For Tp = 10 hr, or with preventive maintenance every 10 hr,
%,=lo hr(t) = [2 e-
(0.01)( 10) - e- (0.02)( lo)] j
.(2 ,-0.01 7 - e-0.02 7 1, (9.10)

with
j = 0,1,2,...; 0 5 T < 10 hr, and
t = j 1 0 + ~ ,a n d O I t < o o .
The reliabilities given by Eqs. (9.8), (9.9) and (9.10) are plotted
in Fig. 9.3.
250 PRE VEN T N E M AIN TENANCE
50 hr
Fig. 0.3 - Reliability versus mission duration plot for a two-

unit parallel system maintained every Tp hours
and nonmaintained, with X = 0.01 fr/hr for each
unit.
Observations on Fig. 9.3:

1. There is a substantial increase in the reliability of the two-
unit parallel equipment with scheduled, preventive mainte-
nance over no preventive maintenance a t all.
) the same up to t = 10 hr for both cases, but they
2. R T , ( ~is
diverge for t > 10 hr.
3. RrP(t)undulates from one Tp period to the next, and stays
above the continuation of the curve if another preventive
maintenance action was not exercised.
4. As Tp + 0 RT,-,o(~)-+ 1. Therefore, if the units in the
equipment were replaced instantly continuously the equip-
ment will never fail as RT - o ( t ) + 1. However, this case is
not feasible, both physicdy and economically!
2. The mean time between corrective failures of this two-unit parallel

equipment, while it undergoes preventive maintenance every Tp
hours by age replacement, is given by
or
For
Tp --t 00 ; MT, = 150 hr = 1.5 m,
Tp = 150 ; MT, = 179 hr,
Tp = 10 ; MT, = 1,097 hr,
and for
Tp = 0 ; MT, = 00.
These MT, values for various Tpperiods have been plotted in Fig.
9.4.
u)
1100 --
a
2 1000--
900 --
I 800.-
s
r(
4 700 -- 100 208

150 179
E
600-
4.l
n
so0 --
P
.d
* 400-
300--
150 hours
200 --
+--- -- - ---- .--- --.- - ------
100 --
I
%p+ m
1
0 so 100 1so 200
Fig. 9.4 - MT, versus Tp plot for a two-units-in-parallel

equipment nonmaintained, and preventively
maintained every Tp hours with X = 0.01 fr/hr,
or m = 100 hr, for each unit.
SINGLE EXPONENTIAL UNIT CASE 253
Observations on Fig. 9.4:

1. MT, decreases as Tp increases, and substantially in the be-
ginnine.
2. As Tp + 0 MT, + 00.
3. As Tp+ 00 MT, + MTBF of equipment with no preven-
tive maintenance.
4. Note that even though each unit has a constant failure rate
the two-unit parallel equipment has an increasing failure
rate with mission time, resulting in reliability improvement
through preventive replacement. Therefore, RT, (t) >> R ( t )
with preventive maintenance if the equipment, or the units
which are subjected to preventive maintenance, have an in-
creasing failure rate with age sometime during their life.
5. The commonly made statement that preventive maintenance
is wasteN if the units are exponential is certainly not true
if redundancy exists. This is demonstrated in the case of
parallel redundancy, in Figs. 9.3 and 9.4.
9.3 THE CASE OF THE SINGLE EXPONENTIAL

UNIT SUBJECTED TO PREVENTIVE MAIN-
TENANCE
Let us see what happens in the case of a single unit which is exponen-
tial; i.e., has a constant failure rate. Then,
~ ( t=)e-’ (9.12)
with no maintenance, and with preventive maintenance every Tp hours
RT,(t) = [R(Tp)]j R(T), (9.13)
where
t=jTp+r.
Then, from Eq. (9.12)
R T , ( ~=) (e-’ T p ) j e-’ ‘9
(9.13‘)
therefore,
RTp(t)= e-’ = R(t)! (9.14)
In other words the reliability of the unit with preventive mainte-
nance every Tphours is not any different than that with no preventive
maintenance, if the unit has a constant failure rate!
If the single unit has an increasing failure rate there will be an
-
improvement in its reliability with preventive maintenance, because
then,
RTp(t)= [R(TP)li R(r) > \
R(j T p + r ) . (9.15)
7 d
age never is greater than Tp age at end of mission.
For a Weibullian unit, with p > 1, for example, its reliability for a
mission of t duration with preventive maintenance every Tp hours is
given by
(9.16)
and without preventive maintenance is given by
R(t) = e- ( j Tp?+T-y)B* (9.17)

It may be seen that
RTP(t) > R ( t ) .
When /5’ > 1 the Weibullian unit exhibits an increasing failure rate
characteristic with increasing operating time, hence the benefit of pre-
ventive replacement every Tpperiod of operation.
Let us find MT,for a single exponential unit. Then, from Eq. (9.5),
(9.18)
In other words the same as when there is no preventive maintenance,

or the same as when the unit is replaced as it fails!
We can prove by renewal theory that (21
- 1
(9.19)
or the long range failure rate of a unit approaches the reciprocal of

its mean life with preventive replacements every Tp hours, as shown
in Fig. 9.5. The average, stabilized corrective failure rate of the unit
which undergoes preventive maintenance every Tp hours according to
Policy I of age replacement is given by
(9.20)
As the unit’s failure rate is constant, on a stabilized basis, its stabilized

reliability is then given by
(9.21)
It is this A, that should be used in the MTTR expression for equip-
ment subjected t o both corrective and preventive maintenance. A good
estimate of the reliability of a unit or equipment undergoing such pre-
ventive maintenance ispbtained by using Eq. (9.20) to calculate its
corrective failure rate, AT,, and then Eq. (9.21) t o calculate its relia-
bility, R*,(t), for a mission of t duration.
EXAMPLE 0-2
A bearing is operating in an equipment. It has a Weibull times-to-
failure distribution with the following parameters:
/3 = 2.0, q = 2,000 hr, and 7 = 0 hr.
1. Find the reliability of this bearing with no preventive mainte-
nance for 10, 100, 500, or 1,000 hr of operation.
2. Find the reliability of this bearing with preventive maintenance,
assuming that the bearing is replaced preventively every 10, 100,
or 500 hr.
3. Find the mean life of this bearing with no preventive mainte-
nance.
256 PRE V E N T W E MAINTENANCE
with PO /
Age, T, hr
Fig. 9.6 - Effect of good preventive maintenance on the re-

4. Find the mean life of this bearing with preventive maintenance

every 10, 100, or 500 hr of operation.
1. The Weibull times-to-failure probability density function is
and the reliability function is

-( F ) P
R(T)= e
Substitution of the given parameters yields
R(T)= e - ( h ) ’ * O .
For T = 10 hr
10
R(T = 10 hr) = e-(-)’” = 0.999975,
for T = 100 hr
q . 0
R(T = 100 hr) = e-(llooo = 0.997503,
for T = 500 hr
500 2.0
R(T = 500 hr) = e - ( m ) = 0.939413,
and for T = 1,000 hr
1000 2.0
R(T = 1,000 hr) = e-(*) = 0.7788007.
2. The reliability of this bearing, with preventive maintenance is
&,(t) = [R(Tp)lJR W ,
where
t=jTP+r,
e
For this bearing

2 .o
RT,(t) = e- J (A) e-(*)2*o
For Tp = 10 hr
These R ~ , = l o ( t values
) are given in Table 9.1 for 0 < T 5 10 and
j = 0,1,2 and 3, and are plotted in Fig. 9.6.
For Tp = 100 hr
These R~,=lw(t)values are given in Table 9.2 for 0 < T 5 100

and j = 0,1,2, and 3, and are plotted in Fig. 9.7.
For Tp = 500 hr
These R~,=5w(t) values are given in Table 9.3 for 0 < T 5 500
and j = 0, 1,2, and 3, and are plotted in Fig. 9.8.
These RT ( t ) values for Tp = 10,100 and 500 hr are shown plot-
ted togetger in Fig. 9.9. A study of Tables 9.1, 9.2 and 9.3, and
of Figs. 9.6 through 9.9 indicates the substantial improvement in
the mission reliability of these bearings with preventive mainte-
nance, or replacement, every Tp= 10,100 or 500 hr. The smaller
the Tp the greater the reliability improvement.
Table 9.4 gives the reliability of these bearings with no preven-
tive replacement in Column 4, with preventive replacement every
Tp = 100 hr in Column 5 , and using the approximate Eq. (9.21)
in Column 6. A comparison of the results in Columns 4 and 5
brings out the great improvement of bearing reliability with pre-
ventive replacement. A comparison of the results in Columns 5
and 6 brings out the fact that after about the third preventive re-
placement of these bearings their reliability is well approximated
by Eq. (9.21) with at least a three-decimal-place accuracy. Fig-
ure 9.10 illustrates the difference in the bearing’s reliability as
calculated from Eqs. (9.21) and (9.16). It may be seen that
the two equations give essentially the same reliability value, with
five-decimal-place accuracy, at mission times that are a multiple
of T p ,The values deviate from each other at other mission times
with a maximum deviation of 0.000616 for t 2 3 Tp.
TABLE 9.1 - Values of RT,=lO(t) for Example 9-2 where

05r 5 Tp,t = j Tp+ r, and Tp= 10 hr.
7 j=O j=1 j=2 j=3

0 1,00000000 0.99997500 0.99995000 0.99992500
1 0.99999998 0.99997498 0.99994998 0.99992498
3 0.99999775 0.99997275 0.99994775 0.99992275
5 0.99999375 0.99996875 0.99994375 0.99991875
9 0.99997975 0.99995475 0.99992975 0.99990475
10 0.99997500 0.99995000 0.99992500 0.99990000
TABLE 9.2 - Values of RT,=lOo(t) for Example 9-2 where

0 5 r 5 Tp,t = j Tp+ r , and Tp = 100 hr.
RT+ .oo(t)
f j=O j=l j=2 j=3
0 1.00000000 0.99750312 0.99501236 0.99252796
15 0.99994378 0.99744692 0.99495653 ' 0.99247225
30 0.99977502 0.99727859 0.99478855 1 0.99230476
45 0.99949388 0.99699814 0.99450880 0.99202571
60 0.99910040 0.99660565 0.99411729 0.99163518
75 0.99859474 0.99610125 0.99361415 0.99113323
90 0.99797705 0.99548510 0.99299954 0.99052021
100 0.99750312 0.99501236 0.99252796 0.99004983
I
I I I
0 10 20 50 10
Mission time, t = j Tp + T, hours
Fig. 9.6 - Reliability versus mission time plot for the bear-
ing in Example 9-2 maintained preventively ev-
ery Tp = 10 hr.
SINGLE EXPONENTIAL UNIT CASE 26 1
1.000
0.999
0.998
0.997
0.996
0.995
0.994
0.993
0.992
0.991
0.990
I ! I I
100 200 300 400
Mission time, t = j T,+ T, hr
ery Tp = 100 hr.
0 500 1poo 1500 2000

Mission time, t = j Tp+ T, hours
ery'T, = 500 hr.
1.00 ~
/
1
-
-
,I 0 hours
0.98 -
It.% -
-
a4
h
0.94-
#i*
; 0.92
., 0.88
c 1 I I I I 1 1 m I
Ma
-
0 100 200 300 400 So0 600 700 mlpoo
Mlsslon t i n . t J 1
, i. hours
Fig. 9.9 - Reliabilityversus mission time plot for the bearing in Example 9-2 maintained
''2 = 10, 100, 500 or 00 (nonmaintained) hr.
preventively every
264 PRE V E N T N E MAINTENANCE
1.000
0.999
0.998
0.997
'\
0.9%
0.995
0.994
0.993
R(t)
0.992
0.991
0.990
0.989
0.988
0.987
0 1
0 100 200 300 4 00
Mission time, t = j Tp T, hours
ery Tp = 100 hr.
TABLE 0.3 - Values of R~,=500(t) for Example 0-2,
~~~ ~
j = O j=1 j=2 j=3

1.00000000 0.93941306 0.88249684 0.82902912
0.99937520 0.93882605 0.88 193861 0.82851102
0.99750312 0.93706740 0.88029252 0.82695902
0.99439080 0.934 14364 0.87754590 0.82437880
250 0.98449644 0.92484875 0.868814 17 0.81617610
300 0.9 7775124 0.91851222 0.86286156 0.81058413
0.96983919 0.91107955 0.85587921 0.80402482
400 0.96078944 0.90257809 0.84789370 0.79652231
450 0.95063509 0.89303896 0.83893252 0.78810406
500 0.93941306 0,88249684 0.82902912 0 .77880067
3. The mean Life of a nonmaintained unit, or for Tp = 00, is given

by
For this bearing

T = 2,000 r ( i + 1).
i? = 2,000 r(i.5),
i? = (2,000) (0.88623),
or
i? = 1,772.46 hr.
4. The mean life of a unit maintained preventively every Tp hours
is given by
- J? R ( r ) dr
MTp - 1 - R(Tp) '
and for this bearing, it is
TABLE 0.4 - Reliability of bcnrings without and with prcventivc rc-
placement every T,,= 100 hr, and also when using the
approximate equation, Eq. (0.21).
1 2 3 4 5 6
Mission
duration
t = T,
hr
j 7,
hr
& ( T ) = e-(:Ib nT,,(t)= [ R ( T , ) ~ ~ I Z ~( . (~ t)2) e -*
0 0 0 1.oooooo 1.000000 1.000000
50 0 50 0.999375 0.999375 0.998751
Kl
100 0+1 100 0.997503 0.997503 0.997504
a,
a, 150 1 50 0.994391 0.996880 0.996259
200 1-2 I00 0.990050 0.995012 0.995015
250 2 50 0.984496 0.994390 0.993772
300 2-3 100 0.977751 0.992528 0.992531
350 3 50 0.969839 0.991908 0.991292
400 3-4 100 0.960789 0.990050 0.990054
450 4 50 0.950G35 0.989431 0.988818
500 4-5 100 O.!J394 13 0.987567 0.987584
700 6-7 100 0.884700 0.982652 0.982560
1,000- 9+io ioo 0.778801 0.975309 0.975320
For Tp= 10 hr it is
The numerator may be evaluated by numerical integration, using

Simpson's Rule for example. This method yields
- 9.99994441
M T ~ = 1 0hr - 1 -
0.99997500'
or
M ~ p hr= =~399,998
~ hr.
Similarly, for Tp= 100 hr
- 99.91672914
M T ~ = l Ohr
O - 1- 0.99750312'
or
MTp=iwhr = 40,017hr.
Finally, for Tp = 500 hr
- 489.775803
MT~=500hr - 1 - 0.93941306'
or
M ~ p hr==~8,084
~ hr.
These and additional values are shown plotted in Fig. 9.11, to-
gether with the mean bearing life with no preventive mainte-
nance. It may be seen that the mean life of the bearing increases
substantially with preventive maintenance, as Tp decreases, over
that with no preventive maintenance when Tp = 00. Hence, the
great benefits that result through preventive maintenance at reg-
ular prechosen periods of operation of units which have an in-
creasing failure rate characteristic with increasing operating time,
like that exhibited by this bearing with p = 2.0 > 1.
268 PREVENTIVE MAIlVTENANCE
160,000-
150,000-
140, O O P
130,000- %P'
hours
120,000-
399.998
25 160,004
n 110,000-
50 80.008
8
.
.a
100,000-
100
300
40,017
13,383
8 500 8,084
u; 90,000
-
L
80,000
[
1 - 11,000 4,171
1,773 1
P
8 60,000
4
CI
; 50,000
Maan time between failures when the
bearing i s subjected t o preventive
40,000 naintmance every Tp hours.
30,000 Mean time between failures uhen the

bearing ii not r i n t 6 i n e d preventively.
20,000
10,000
I I I 1 I I I I I I I
0 100 200 300 400 SO0 600 700 800 900 1000
Preventive maintenance time, Tp, h a m
Fig. 9.11 - MT, versus TPplot for the bearing in Example

9-2 when it is nonmaintained and also when it is
preventively maintained every Tp hours.
CORRECTWE AND PREVENTIVE REPLACEMENT RATE 269
9.4 CORRECTIVE FAILURE RATE AND

PREVENTIVE REPLACEMENT RATE
FOR POLICY I
To determine the spares needed for corrective and preventive mainte-
nance, and to optimize the preventive maintenance schedule of a unit
undergoing preventive maintenance, its corrective failure rate and its
preventive replacement rate need to be known.
The term
1” R(r) d r
gives the mean time between both preventive replacements and correc-
tive failures. The total replacement rate, AT, is therefore given by
1
AT = = A, -I-A,. (9.22)
J? R(r) dr
Also
since
(9.23)
consequently, since
(9.24)
then,
(9.25)
where
A, = corrective failure rate, fr/hr,

270 PREVENTWE MAINTENANCE
and
A, = preventive replacement rate, prp/hr.
EXAMPLE 0-3
Given is the system of Fig. 9.12 which is subjected to preventive
maintenance every 1,000 hr according to Policy I. Its various failure
rates are given thereupon.
Fig. 9.12- Standby system subjected to preventive mainte-

nance.
1. What is the reliability of this system?

2. What is the MTBFT,, of this system?
3. What is its stabilized preventive replacement rate?
4. What is its stabilized corrective failure rate?
CORRECTIVE AND PREVENTIVE REPLACEMENT RATE 271
SOLUTIONS T O EXAMPLE 9-3
1. The reliability of this standby system for a mission of t duration,

and without preventive maintenance, can be obtained from
R(t) =
R(t) =
or
R(t) =
Substitution of the failure rate values yields

- 24.9975 e-0.00201
(1 - eo.00006 ) .
t
R ( t ) = e -0.00171 t t (9.26)
The reliability for a mission of t duration with preventive main-
tenance every 'T hours is given by
RTp(t) = [R(Tp)]jR(r),
or, using Eq. (9.26),
R T , ( ~ )= [e-0.00171 TP - 24.9975 e-o*oo201TP (1 - e 0 . m TP

)1j
- 24.9975 e-0.00201 1 -
* [e
-0.00171 T T
( eo.M)oo6 T
11 *
2. The mean time between failures can be obtained from Eq. (9.5),
or,
where, using Eq. (9.26),yields
-
-24.9975 e-o*oo201 ’ (1 e o * m ) dr,
= 967.46 - 584.80 e-0-00171 Tp
t 12,436.57e-0*00201 TP
- 12,819.23 e-0*00195 TP, (9.27)

and
1 - R(Tp)= 1 - e-0.00171 T p - 24.9975 e-0.00201 Tp

(9.28)
For Tp = 1,000 hr, Eq. (9.26)yields
J,” R ( r )d r = 1 1,cJocJ
R ( r ) dr = 704.20445,
and Eq. (9.28)yields

1 - R(Tp)= 1 - R(1,OOO)= 0.6120199.
Therefore,
so1,Ooo R(r) dr -- 704.20445 = 1,150.623hr.
MTp= 1 - R(1,OOO) 0.6120199
3. The stabilized preventive maintenance, or replacement, rate is
given by Eq. (9.25),or
From Case 2,
R(Tp) = R(1,OOO)= 1 - [I - R(l,OOO)]
= 1 - 0.6120199 = 0.3879801,
and
1,000
R ( r ) dr = 704.20445,
CORRECTIVE AND PREVENTIVE REPLACEMENT RATE 273
therefore,
= 0.000551 rpfhr,
” = 0‘3879801
704.20445
or
A, = 551 */lo6 hr.
4. The stabilized corrective failure rate is given by Eq. (9.24)
Substitution of the values from Case 2 yields
A, = 0*6120199= 0.000869fr/hr,
704.20445
or
A, = 869 fr/106 hr.
9.5 TOTAL AVERAGE NUMBER OF SPARES

FOR POLICY I
Over a long period of operation of the equipment, say t hours, the
total average number of spares is the total average number of spares
required for corrective plus preventive maintenance, N s p , or
NSP = N S P - c t NSP-P,
where
Nsp-c = average number of spares required for corrective

maintenance for t hours of operation of the equip-
ment,
and
Np-p = average number of spares required for preventive

maintenance for t hours of operation of the equip-
ment,
then, from Eqs. (9.22) and (9.23)
or
The number of total spares with an assurance, or c nfiden e, level of

CL = 1- Q is obtained by solving Eq. (9.29) for k, which is the actual
number of spares, or
(9.29)
j=O J‘
9.6 MINIMUM COST PREVENTIVE MAINTE-

NANCE PERIOD, Tp,FOR POLICY I
The total cost of preventive plus corrective maintenance for a period
of operation t, CT, is given by
(9.30)
where
Cp = cost of each preventive replacement, or maintenance, action,

and
C, = cost of each corrective replacement, or maintenance, action.

The C p and Cc costs may include parts, labor, supplies, overhead,
cost of money and downtime costs.
The total maintenance cost per operating hour, or for t = 1, is
(9.31)
From Eq. (9.31) the minimum cost preventive maintenance schedule,

or period, T;, can be found by differentiating it with respect t o T p ,
equating the result to zero, and solving for T p ,which is the optimum
BLOCK REPLACEMENT POLICY 275
Tp, or T;; i.e., by solving P

= 0 for Tp. This is not easy to do
analytically, hence computer and/or graphical solutions are used. CT-I
is calculated for various values of T p ,over a range that includes Ti or
the minimum value of C ' , as shown in Fig. 9.13. A minimum will
exist only if Cp < C,. If 8;; C, then the minimum cost policy is that
of no preventive maintenance at all!
It must also be ascertained that the equipment's mission reliability
is at least equal to, if not greater than, the reliability goal allocated to
it with the just found value of T;,or that
If the reliability goal is not met, then Tpshould be adjusted to the left,
or to a lower value, to obtain a A, which satisfies the requirement of
Eq. (9.32). This is usually possible without altering the CG-zvery
significantly, because the CT-Iversus Tp curve usually has a shallow
bottom in the minimum cost region, whereby a change in Tp does not
change the CT-Ivalue significantly, as may be seen in Fig. 9-13in the
region of Ti.

BLOCK REPLACEMENT-POLICY I1
In Policy I1 the unit subjected to preventive maintenance is replaced
preventively every Tphours if it does not fail; and correctively if it fails
before Tp,and is replaced again preventively when Tpoperating hours
are accumulated by the equipment in which the unit is functioning,
from time zero, or
0 TP
where the X'S are failures.
This policy is used when maintenance schedules are based on equip-
ment operating time rather than unit, component or part operating
0 Tr’ Tr, hours
Preventive maintenance schedule, Tp,hours

Fig. 9.13 - Relationship between the preventive maintenance schedule, T’, and the total cost
of corrective plus preventive maintenance, CT-Z.The optimum Tp,or Tp’,is also
shown.
time. Then, the preventive replacement rate is given by

1
A, = Tp, (9.33)
and the corrective replacement rate is determined by Eq. (9.22) into

which Eq. (9.33) is substituted. Then,
1 - . 1
- A,+- (9.34)
J? R(r) dr TP'
and
A, =
1
- -1 -- Tp- J2[1- Q ( T ) ]dr (9.35)
J? R ( r )dr TP TpJ? R(7) dr
Simplifying Eq. (9.35)yields
(9.36)
But this is the lower bound of A, because if no failures occur before Tp

then it is the same case as the corrective failure rate for Policy I.
Therefore,
- -
S?'Q(r) dr
TpJ? R ( r )d r
A, lower bound
for Policy I1
5 XCZI <
A,
Q(Tp)
J? R ( r ) dr
for Policy
I and upper
(9.37)
bound for Pol-

icy I1
Using these A, and A, values the necessary spares can be calculated
as before. Also the preventive maintenance period can be optimized.
The total cost will now be
(9.38)
Then, to optimize Tp set

and solve for Tp which is TP,the preventive maintenance schedule

which gives the minimum total corrective plus preventive maintenance
cost.
The lower bound on A, can also be used. It gives a lower A, and
a lower CT-II. In practical situations the numerical vdues of the two
bounds are relatively close to each other.
EXAMPLE 9-4
Given the subsystem of Example 7-2 wherein each unit is replaced
preventively, answer the following questions:
1. If Unit 1 is replaced preventively every 150 hours, Unit 2 every

440 hours, and Unit 3 every 300 hours, what is the stabilized
average corrective failure rate of each unit for Policy II?
2. What is the stabilized average preventive replacement rate of
each unit for Policy II?
3. What is the subsystem's stabilized M T T R (Mean Time t o Re-
pair) for Policy I1 if the mean corrective repair times of the sub-
system, &, when the i'th unit fails, are as follows:
d- ; =~0.55 hr,
d2R = 0.75 hr,
and
d 3 =
~ 0.33 hr,
and if the mean preventive replacement times, pip, of the units
are as follows:
Flp = 0.25 hr,
tT*p= 0.35 hr,
and
-
t*3p = 0.15 hr ?
4. What is the stabilized M T B F of the subsystem with corrective

and preventive maintenance for Policy II?
5 . What is the stabilized reliability of the subsystem with corrective
and preventive maintenance for a 10-hr mission for Policy II?
6. What is the reliability of the subsystem without any maintenance

for a 10-hr mission?
7. Compare the result of Case 6 with that found in Case 5 and give
reasons for the difference.
8. What is the reliability of the subsystem without any maintenance
for a 10-hrmission when the mission starts at the equipment age
of 500 hr?
9. Compare the result of Case 8 with that of Case 5 and give reasons
for the difference.
1. The stabilized average corrective failure rate of each unit €or Pol-
icy I1 is given by Eq. (9.35), or
1 1
For Unit No. 1
J,"' R(t) d t = / 0
150
[0.25e-O.OOo3 ' + 0.75 e-(A)2's]d t ,
Tpl 0.25
R ( t ) dt = -(1 - 0.9559975) + 0.75 (142.799),
A50
0.0003
where
1 150
e-(A)2's
dt = 142.799,
using Simpson's Rule with 16 intervals. Then,
LTP'
=IS0
and
0.25
R ( t ) dt = -(1 - 0.9559975)+ 0.75 (142.799)= 143.768,
0.0003
- 1 - -I- - 0.000289 fr/hr.

"' - 143.768 150
For Unit No. 2
/," R(t)dt = / 0
440
[0.25 e-O*OOo6 * + 0.75 e - ( h ) 3 ' 5 ] dt,
Tm =440
R ( t ) dt = -0.25
0.0006
(1- 0.76797) t 0.75 (387.25),
where
e-(&)3'5 dt = 387.25,
Tm =440
R(t)d t = -0 25
0.0006
(1-0.76797)+0.75(387.25) = 387.115,
and
1
A,, = -- - = 0.000310 fr/hr.
387.115 440
For Unit No. 3
LTp3=3w
where
0.25
R(t) d t = -(1- 0.873716)
0.00045
+ 0.75 (286.1135),
1 300
e - ( h ) 4 * 5 d t= 286.1135,
R(t) dt = - 0.25
0.00045
(1 - 0.873716) + 0.75 (286.1135) = 284.743.
and
A,, = - 1
284.743
--
300
= 0.000179 fr/hr.
2. T h e stabilized average preventive replacement rate of each unit

for Policy I1 is given by
xpi = -.1
iP'
For Unit No. 1,
1 1
XPI = TpI - - = 0.006667 preventive replacements/hr,
150
for Unit No. 2,
1 1
=-
A,, =- = 0.002273preventive replacements/hr,
Tpz 440
and for Unit No. 3,
Xp, = - 1 =- 1
= 0.003333 preventive replacements/hr.
Tp3 300
3. The subsystem's stabilized M T T R for Policy I1 is given by
N
C (A,, & t X p i F ~ P )
MTTR = '=' N 9
C ('ci + 'Pi)
i=l
where, from previous results,
N=3
C
i=l
q'( &R + Xpi T i p ) +
= [(0.000289) (0.55) (0.006667) (0.25)
I
t (0.000310) (0.75)+ (0.002273)(0.35)
[ I
+ [(0.000179)(0.33)+ (0.003333)(0.15) ,
= 0.003413,
I
and
N=3
(Aci+ xpi) = (0.000289)+ (0.006667)+ (0.000310)
i=l
+ (0.002273)+ (0.000179)+ (0.003333)
= 0.013051.
Therefore,
0.003413
MTTR = = 0.261513 hr.
0.013051
4. The stabilized M T B F of the subsystem with corrective and pre-
ventive maintenance for Policy I1 is given by
1
MTBF = N - ’
C ’ci
i=l
1
I
MTBF =
(0.000289) + (0.000310) + (0.000179)’
or
M T B F = 1,285.35 hr.
5. The stabilized reliability of the subsystem, with corrective and

preventive maintenance, for a 10-hr mission for Policy I1 is given
by
R(t = 10 hr) = e - h = e-11 0
385.35.
Then,
R(t = 10 hr) = 0.992250, or 99.2250%.
6. The reliability of the subsystem, without any maintenance, for a

10-hour mission is given by
or
R(t = 10 hr) = 0.996484, or 99.6484%.
7. In comparing the result of Case 6 with that found in Case 5 , it is

found that the reliability for a 10-hour mission without any main-
tenance is greater than that for a subsystem with corrective and
preventive maintenance! This is because the mission is too short
in duration for any preventive maintenance to be exercised. The
stabilized M T B F is lower than that with no preventive mainte-
nance if t << Tpi.See Case 8.
8. The reliability of the subsystem without any maintenance, for a
10-hour mission, when the mission starts at the equipment age
of 500 hr is given by
-
- R(500 t 10)
R(500) '
or
R(510 hr)
R(T, 2) =
R( 500 hr) '
Using Eq. (9.39),
R(T + t = 510 hr) = 0.024194,
and
R ( T = 500 hr) = 0.027045.
Therefore,
0.024 194
R ( T = 500 hr,t = 10 hr) =
0.027045'
R(T = 500 hr,t = 10 hr) = 0.894600, or 89.4600%.

9. The reliability for a 10-hr mission after an age of 500 hr, without
any maintenance, from Case 8, is 89.4600%, which compares with
the reliability for the subsystem with corrective plus preventive
muintenance found in Case 5 of 99.2250%. This difference is due
to the increasing failure rate of the subsystem in Case 8 with age,
and preventive maintenance being exercised in Case 5 t o reduce
this increase in the failure rate. Hence, the great improvement in
thc rclia.bility of this subsystem through preventive maintenance
is a n increase from 89.4600 % to 99.2250 %, or approximately a
lo-percen tage point improvement.

REPLACING GROUPS OF PARTS
It would be advantageous if groups of parts having similar life char-
acteristics are replaced preventively simultaneously. Figure 9.14 illus-
trates this case where Group 1 of three units, in the same equipment,
have approximately the same T p l ,because their wear-out life starts at
about the same age. Group 2 of four units, in the same equipment,
have approximately the same Tpz,because their wear-out life starts
at about the same age. If the units have an increasing failure rate
throughout their life, then the Tpl and Tp2should be so chosen that
they can be accessed simultaneously, and satisfy the reliability g o d re-
quirement of the equipment while yielding the minimum corrective and
preventive maintenance cost. This would substantially reduce equip-
ment downtime, and increase its availability for use or production.
Assume that an equipment consists of n parts, of which s parts are re-
placed preventively every Tpl hours, k parts are replaced preventively
+
every Tp2hours, and the remaining parts, n - ( k s) = h, are replaced
only correctively; that is, whenever they fail. The long-term, stabilized
equipment failure rate, if all of these parts functioned reliabilitywise in
series, may be approximated by
k
where
CD
mh = Rh(t) d t ,
or the regular MTBF of parts h,
mi(Tpl)= MTBF of s parts which are maintained preven-

tively every Tpl hours,
or
depending on which bound is used, and

mj(Tp2)= MTBF of the k parts which are preventively
maintained every Tp2 hours,
N
bn
0‘
rr
0
M
I
C
285
or
An estimate of the long-term stabilized reliability may then be obtained

from
R T , ( ~ ) = e-’EQ *.
The choice of Tpl and Tp2 affects both the reliability and the overall
equipment maintenance cost. The optimum Tpl and Tp2 should then
be chosen to minimize this cost and yet meet the equipment’s target
reliability requirements. The total corrective and preventive mainte-
nance cost per hour of operation of the equipment would then be given
by
k
(9.41)
using Policy 11. A similar equation can be written for Policy I also. The
optimum TPl and TP2 can be obtained now by piecewise optimization,
or by plotting the terms C and C separately, versus CT-ZZfor various
i j
values of Tpand separately finding TP; and TP2,as shown in Fig. 9.15.
Usually, further savings would be obtained by making Tp2 an integer
multiple of Tpl. Tpl may then become a minor overhaul and Tp2 a
major overhaul, preventively. Again, it should be checked to see that
the equipment’s reliability goal is being met with these TPl and T;2
preventive maintenance schedules.
If all components in the equipment are reliabilitywise in series, then
N
REQ(T,2) = n R i ( T i ,t ) ,
i=l
but the ages of all components in the equipment at the beginning of
every mission need to be known to be able t o evaluate the equipment’s
REPLACING GROUPS OF PARTS 287
Components of Croup 2
L
I
0 T* 'T
Pi P2
T = 2T
P2 PI
Preventive maintenance schedule, Tp, hr
Fig. 9.15 - Optimum preventive maintenance schedule for

two groups of components.
T A B L E 9.5 - The corrective and preventive mainte-

n a n c e costs for Example 9-5.
7-77
1
Corrective
maintenance
cost,
c, - $
75.00
Preventive
maintenance
cost,
cp- $
10.00
2 145.00 35.00
3 80.00 12.00
reliability for the next mission, if the equipment is under corrective

and preventive maintenance, as well as its respective times-to-failure
distributions.
EXAMPLE 9-5
Given is the subsystem of Example 7-2. Do the following:
1. Determine the minimum-cost , preventive maintenance schedule
for each one of the three units using Policy 11. The cost for each
corrective and preventive maintenance action is given in Table
9.5. Plot the total cost of corrective plus preventive maintenance
for each unit versus its preventive replacement period, T p .
2. Show how it is possible to achieve further savings by making TPz
and/or Tp3 an integer multiple of Tpl.
3. Discuss how you would check to see whether or not the opera-
tional reliability, or the reliability goal, of the subsystem is being
met with these minimum-cost preventive maintenance schedules.
S O L U T I O N S TO E X A M P L E 9-5
1. The preventive plus corrective maintenance cost per hour of op-
eration for Policy I1 is given by
where
C p = cost of each preventive maintenance action,

REPLA ClNG GROUPS OF PARTS 289
and
C, = cost of each corrective maintenance action.
For Unit 1
1
CT-II = (10.00) -
TPl
For Unit 2
For Unit 3
(80.00) { 1 - [(0.25) ,-(0.00045) + (0.75) e-(%)4'5

T ~ 3
+ + (0.75) e-(&)4'5
[(0.25) e-(0*00045)T
3 dT
The costs associated with the various preventive replacement pe-
riods, Tpi, are shown in Table 9.6 and are plotted in Fig. 9.lG
from which it is found that Til = 132 hr, Ti2 = 285 hr and
Ti3 = 213 hr.
2. To achieve further savings, T;2 and /or T;3 can be made an in-
teger multiple of Til. Since
-Tp;
= - - 28.5 hr - 2.1591,
Tpl 132 hr
and
-Ti3
= - - 213 hr - l.Gl3G.
TP; 132 hr
P r e v e n t i v e maintenance s c h e d u l e . T lir
D'
Fig. 9.16 - The total cost of corrective plus preventive maintenance as a function of preventive
maintenance schedule, Tp,for each unit in Example 9-5.
are close to two, further savings are possible if we take Ti2 and
T;3 to be
and
TP3 = 2 TP;.
Making TP; and T& integer multiples of TP; will minimize the
number of times the equipment must be down for preventive
maintenance.
3. To check to see whether or not the reliability goal of the sub-
system is being met with these minimum-cost preventive main-
tenance schedules, calculate the equipment’s reliability from
(9.42)
and compare R E Q ( T , with

~ ) the reliability goal. If
REQ(T,t ) 2 RCOAL(T,t ) , (9.43)
then the minimum cost TPi values have been well chosen; if not,
they should be readjusted to lower values to satisfy this condition.
EXAMPLE 9-6
Work out Example 7-2 again, as follows:
1. If an average, stabilized reliability goal of R = 0.980 is specified

for 8 hours of continuous operation, determine whether or not
this subsystem meets this reliability requirement using the up-
per bound of the corrective failure rate and the minimum cost
2. Determine the expected number of corrective (unscheduled) main-
tenance actions that will be required for each unit for Policy 11,
using the upper bound of the corrective failure rate and the min-
imum cost Tpi, for 3,000 cumulative hours of operation.
3. Determine the expected number of preventive (scheduled) main-
tenance actions that will be required for each unit for Policy I1
for 3,000 cumulative hours of operation using the minimum cost
Tpi.
TABLE 0.6 - The corrective and preventive mainte-

nance cost CT, versus preventive mainte-
nance schedule, Tp,for each one of the
three units of Example 9-1 for Example
9-5. The asterisked values are the mini-
mum cost Tpi.
-UNIT 1 I UNIT 2 -UNIT 3

TPl CTl TP2 CT2 TP3 cT3
hr
- $/hr hr $/hr hr
- $/hr
50 0.21467 260 0.19727 150 0.09365
80 0.15625 270 0.19624 200 0.08195
85 0.15130 279 0.19578 205 0.08165
90 0.14722 280 0.19575 210 0.08149
95 0.14389 281 0.19573 211 0.08147
100 0.14120 282 0.19571 212 0.08147
105 0.13906 283 0.19570 213* 0.081461
115 0.13617 284 0.195696 214 0.081462
125 0.13475 285' 0.195695 215 0.08147
130 0.13450 286 0.195698 216 0.08148
131 0.13448 287 0.19570 220 0.08158
132* 0.134472 290 0.19575 250 0.08726
133 0.134473 300 0.19623
135 0.13450 310 0.19712
140 0.13474 320 0.19840
150 0.13580
7
-
Unit Corrective Preventive +

downtime, downtime,
hr hr
1 0.55 0.25
2 0.75 0.35
3 0.33 0.15
4. Repeat Case 2 for the case when the T' and Tp'3are made integer
p2.
multiples of TP;.Make sure that the rehability goal of R = 0.980
is still met when the adjustments in the TG are made.
5 . Determine the total downtime, plus the corrective, plus the pre-
ventive maintenance costs for Policy Il for 3,000cumulative hours
of operation, using the downtimes given in Table 9.7 for each unit
with an overall cost of downtime of $10,000 per hour of subsystem
downtime, and the minimum cost TG.
6. Repeat Case 5 using the adjusted T; found in Case 4, the correc-
tive and preventive downtimes given in Table 9.7, the preventive
downtimes and costs given in Table 9.8, with the same overall
downtime cost of 510,000 per hour of subsystem downtime, for
3,000 cumulative hours of operation.
7. Discuss comparatively the results found in Cases 5 and 6.
SOLUTIONS TO E X A M P L E 9-6
1. Using the data of Example 7-2 the reliability model for each unit
is
R l ( T ) = 0.25 e-(O.OOo3) + 0.75 e-(soo
2 ) l . S
,
& ( T ) = 0.25 ,-(O.ooos) * + 0.75 e-(&)'",
(9.44)
TABLE 0.8 - Preventive maintenance downtimes when

the adjusted Tp( are used, and costs per
preventive maintenance action.
Combination Preventive Cost per

of downtime, preventive
units hr maintenance
action,
$
When Unit 1 alone

is preventively
maintained. 0.25 10.00
When Units 1 and 2
are maintained
preventively
simultaneously. 0.40 40.00
When Units 1 and 3
are maintained
preventively
1
When Units 2 and 3
are maintained
preventively
When Units 1, 2,
and 3 are maintained
preventively
simultaneously. 1 0.50 51.50
The stabilized equipment failure rate may be approximated by

the conservative upper limit, or
Evaluating the reliability of each unit using the minimum cost

Tpi,found in Example 9-5, and Eqs. (9.44)the following values
are found:
Rl(T’1) = 0.899067,
Rz(T’2) = 0.863154,
and
Rs(TpX33) = 0.933958,
where
Tpl = 132 hr,
TP; = 285 hr,
and
T;3 = 213 hr.
1 - 0.899067 1 - 0.863154 1 - 0.933958
XEQ =
128.3045
+
’272.8430
+
= (7.86671 5.01556 3.16203)
208.8540 ’
+
(9.46)
or
XEQ = 0.00160443 fr/hr.
The subsystem’s reliability for 8 hr of continuous operation, using
the minimum cost preventive maintenance schedules, is
Rss = e-’EQ t,
Rss(t = 8 hr) = e-o*00160443 ( 8 )
or
R s s ( t = 8 hr) = 0.9872466.
Since,
Rss(t = 8 hr) > &GOAL,
that is
0.9872466 > 0.980,
then the subsystem is meeting its reliability god using the up-
per bound of the corrective failure rate and the minimum cost
2. The expected number of corrective maintenance actions for 3,000
hr of cumulative operation for Policy I1 using the upper bound
of the corrective failure rate is given by
Nc;= A& t.
Therefore,
and
Then, using the A,; calculated in Eq. (9.46)

Ncl= (0.000786671)(3,000)= 2.360,
Ncz= (0.000501556) (3,000)= 1.505,
and
N d = (0.000316203)(3,000)= 0.9486.
3. The expected number of preventive maintenance actions that will
be required for each unit for Policy I1 for 3,000 cumulative hours
of operation, using the optimum TPi,is
t
Npi = Xpi t=-
Ti:.
Npl = 132- 22.7273,
37000
3,000
Np2-
- 285 -
- 10.5263,
and
3,000
4 3 = 213 = 14,0845.
T;2/T’l,
4. The ratio of and T$/TP; is found t o be approximately 2
from Example 9-5. Since Til = 132 hr, let 2’; = T;3 = 2 TP;=
2 (132) = 264, therefore the Ad may be calculated from
The calculated values for the new Tp;are

Xcl = 0.000786671 fr/hr,
XCz = 0.000411743 fr/hr,
and
Xc3 = 0.00053542 fr/hr.
To make sure that the reliability goal of R = 0.980 is still being

met, XEQ is calculated and is compared with RGOALas follows:
3
XEQ = EXc;,
i=l
XEQ = 0.000786671 t 0.000411743 t 0.00053542,
or
XEQ = 0.001733834 fr/hr,
and
R s s ( T = 8 hr) = e - ( A W ) (*I,
Rss(T = 8 hr) = e-(0.0001733834) (8) = 0.9862250825,
hence
R s s ( T ) = 0.9862250825 > RGOAL= 0.980;
that is, the subsystem is still meeting its reliability goal.
The expected number of corrective actions in 3,000 hours are
Ncl = (0.000786671) (3,000) = 2.360,
N,a = (0.000411743) (3,000) = 1.235,
and
Nc3 = (0.00053542) (3,000) = 1.606.
5. The total corrective, plus preventive maintenance, plus downtime

costs for Policy II, for 3,000 cumulative hours of operation, are
found using data from Example 9-5, Table 9.6, and the minimum
cost Tp*ia~ follows:
At TP; = 132,CFl = $0.134472 /hr,
at Tp2 = 285, C;2 = $0.195695 /hr,
and
at T;3 = 213,Ci3 = $0.081461 /hr.
For 3,000 hr of cumulative operation, the C T ~are
= (0.134472) (3,000) = $403.416,
cT1
CT=
~ (0.195695) (3,000) = $587.085,
and
~ (0.081461) (3,000) = $244.383.
C T=
The total corrective plus preventive replacement cost is
CTTOTAL= c T 1 + cT2 + cT3,
= $403.416 + $587.085 + $244.383,
= $1,234.884.
The total expected corrective downtime in 3,000 hr of cumulative
operation, using the N& values found in Case 2, is
3
C N d t; = (2.360) (0.55) + (1.505) (0.75) + (0.9486) (0.33))
i=l
or
c3
i=l
Nd t; = 2.73979 hr.
The total expected preventive downtime is

3
C N p i t i = (22.7273) (0.25)+(10.5263) (0.35)+(14.0845) (0.15))
i=l
or
c3
i=l
Np; t i = 11.47871 hr.
The total expected corrective plus preventive downtime cost for

3,000 hr of cumulative operation is
+
(2.73979 11.47871) 10,000 = $142,185.
6. Solution 1 - Method 1
The preventive maintenance schedules for Units 2 and 3, Tp*2and
TP’, can be taken as multiples of TPl. Consequently, take
T;2 = Ti3 = 2 T’; = 2 (132) = 264.
The total corrective, preventive, and downtime costs for Policy
I1 for 3,000 cumulative hours of operation can be found by using
r 3 1
CT =
where
CT = cost of corrective t cost of preventive actions
on Unit 1 when maintained alone t cost of pre-
ventive actions on Units 1 , 2 and 3 when main-
tained simultaneously,
N1 = number of preventive maintenance actions on
Unit 1 alone during the operating time of 3,000
hr ,
N1,2,3 = number of preventive maintenance actions on
Units 1, 2 and 3 simultaneously during the op-
erating time of 3,000 hr.,
A,; = rate of corrective actions for Unit i,
t d & = downtime for corrective actions for Unit i,
c d = downtime cost, $/hr,
Cc; = corrective maintenance cost for Unit i,
C1, = preventive maintenance cost for Unit 1 alone,
Cp1,2,3= cost per preventive maintenance action for
Units 1, 2 and 3 simultaneously, $/hr,
t d l = downtime when only Unit 1 is preventively
maintained,
and
td1,2,3 = downtime when Units 1 , 2 and 3 are maintained

preventively simultaneously.
From Fig. 9.17 N1 = 11 and N1,2,3 = 11. Therefore
Unit 2 + + + + + -4- 4- + + + + t
unit 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 i ~ i i l 1m 1 t t ~ 1 1 1 m . 1 r n m ~ l
0 132 264 396 792 1,188 1,584 1,980 2,376 2,772
Preventive maintenance times, hours

3 ;OOO
Fig. 8.17 - Preventive maintenance times for Units 1,2 and 3. Unit 1 gets replaced 11 times,
and Units 1,2 and 3 together also 11 times.
{ +
CT = 0.000786671 [(0.55) (10,000) 75.001
+ 0.000411743 [(0.75)(10,000)+ 145.001
+ 0.00053542 [(0.33) (10,000)+ 80.00)
+
{ 11 ([lo 4-(0.25)(10,OOO)]
1
+
or
{ 11 [51.50i- (0.50) (10,000)]
CT = $111,206.06.
Solution 1 - Method 2
Another way of calculating the total corrective and preventive
maintenance, and the downtime cost would be as follows: The
expected number of preventive maintenance actions for each unit
are:
3 000
For Unit 1, Npl = 132 = 22.7273 actions.
3000 -
For Unit 2, Np2 = 264 - 11.3636 actions.
3000
For Unit 3, Np3 = 264 = 11.3636 actions.
The preventive actions taken for the whole system will be 11.3636
actions for Unit 1 only, and 11.3636 actions for Units 1, 2 and
3 together. The preventive maintenance can be determined in a.
tabular form as given in Table 9.9.
Total preventive maintenance cost = $698.87 + $85,227
= $85,925.87.
The total corrective maintenance cost for the system is given by
cc =
l3
i=l
Xci ( t d c i
Substituting the corresponding values yields

1
cd + cci)
0.000786671 [(0.55)(10,000)+ 75.001

TABLE 9.9 - Cost of preventive maintenance for the system for 3,000 operating hours
for Solution 1 - Method 2 of Example 9-6 .
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Units involved Expected Cost per Preventive Downtime per Expected Preventive
in the maintenance number of action, maintenance cost, action, downtime, downtime cost,
action actions $ $ hr hr $
1 11.3636 10.00 113.64 0.25 2.8409 28,409
1,293 11.3636 51.50 585.23 0.50 I 5.6818 56,818
698.87 I 85,227
+ 0.000411743 [(0.75) (10,000) 4- 145.001
or
1
4-0.00053542 I(0.33) (10,000) t 80.001 (3,000),
C, = $28,029.56.
Then,
Total cost = Total preventive maintenance cost +
Total corrective maintenance cost,
or
Total cost = $85,925.87 t $28,029.56 = $113,955.43.
Other combinations of TP;, TP2 and Tp2 can be used t o calculate
the total cost for preventive and corrective maintenance actions;
e4.9
TPl = 132 hr, TP; = 3 TP;= 3 (132) = 396 hr,
and
T& = 2 TPl = 2 (132) = 264 hr.
The mean corrective maintenance rate for each unit can be cal-
culated using
The calculated values are

X c l = 0.0007866710 fr/hr,
Xc2 = 0.0010945965 fr/hr,
A d = 0.0005354200 fr/hr.
To make sure that the reliability goal of 0.980 is met, XEQ is

calculated using
XEQ = 0.000786671 -+ 0.0010945965 + 0.00053542,

304 PRE V E N T N E MAINTENANCE
or
AEQ = 0.0024166875.
Then
Rss(T = 8 hr) = e-’EQ @),
Rss(T = 8 hr) = e-0.0024166875 (8)
9
or
Rss(T = 8 hr) = 0.98085219 > 0.980.
The total cost can be calculated using the equation
CT = [k
i=l
Xci (tdci cd + cci)
1 ++ t N 1 (cp1 + cd)
id1
+ N 1 , 3 ( c p 1 , 3 + td1,3 cd) N 1 , 2 ( c p 1 , 2 + tdl,2 cd)

+ N l , 2 , 3 (cp1,2,3 -ttd1,2,3 Cd).
From Fig. 9.18 N1 = 7, N1,3 = 8, N1,2 = 4 and N1,2,3 = 3.
{
CT = 0.0007866710 [(0.55) (10,000) + 75)
+ 0.0010945965 [(0.75) (10,000) t 1451
+ 0.00053542 [(0.33) (10,000) + 801 (3,000)
+ 7 [ l o t (0.25) (10,000)]
1
+ 8 [16.50 t (0.30) (10,000)]
+ 4 [40 t (0.40) (10,000)]
+ 3 [51.50 + (0.50) (10, OOO)],
or
CT = $116,707.30.
Another way of calculating the total maintenance and downtime
cost would be as follows: The expected number of preventive
maintenance actions taken for each unit:
Unit 1 Npl = 3 000 = 22.7273,

3 000
Unit 2 Np2 = 396 = 7.5758,
Unit1 X % ) r x s x g x X I Y Y E J C I ( X ~ X x r * x x x
hit 2 4- + + + + + + +
w
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
cn Unit 3
I ” I ” I ” l ” I ‘ ” ’ ~ ’ ’ ~ ’ ~
0 132 264 396 792 1.188 1,584 1,980 2,376 2,772 3,168
Preventive maintenance times, hours I
3 , m
Fig. 9.18 - Preventive maintenance times for Units 1, 2 and 3. Unit 1 gets replaced 7 times,
Units 1 and 2,4 times, Units 1 and 3, 8 times and Units 1, 2 and 3, 3 times for
Example 9-6, Case 6 and Solution 2, Method 1.
Np3 =
3000 = 11.3636.
264
Unit 3
The preventive actions taken for the whole system will be 3.7879
actions for Units 1, 2, and 3 together, 3.7879 actions for Units
1 and 2 together, 7.5758 actions for Units 1 and 3 together, and
7.5758 actions for Unit 1 only. The preventive maintenance cost
can be determined in tabular form as given in Table 9.10.
From Table 9.10 the total preventive maintenance cost = $547.36$
$75,759= $76,306.36. The total corrective maintenance cost for
the system can be found by
Substituting the corresponding values we have
C, = { +
0.00078667l [(0.55) (10,000) 751
+ 0.00010945965 [(0.75) (10,000)+ 1451
+ 0.00053542 [(0.33) (10,000)+ 80)
or
C, = $43,690.80.
Then
Total cost = Total preventive maintenance cost +
total corrective maintenance cost,
or
Total cost = $76,306.36 + $43,690.80 = $119,997.16.
The comparison of the maintenance costs for the two different
preventive maintenance schedules is given in Table 9.11. The
comparison shows that Solution 2 schedules have lower preventive
maintenance but higher corrective maintenance costs than for
Solution 1 schedules. The overall cost for Solution 2 schedules is
about 5% higher. Other combinations can be tried in a similar
way to find the one with the least cost.
TABLE 9.10 - Cost of preventive maintenance for the system for 3,000 operating hours
for Case 6, Solution 2, Method 2.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Units involved in Expected Cost per I
Preventive Downtime per Expected Preventive
the maintenance number of action, maintenance cost, action, downtime, downtime cost,
0
0
action actions $ t hr hr $
4
1,233 3.7879 51.50 I 195.08 I 0.50 1.8940 18,940
1,2 3.7879 40.00 151.52 I 0.40 1.5152 15,152
1, 3 7.5758 16.50 125.00 0.30 2.2727 22,727
I
1 7.5758 10.00 75.76 0.25 1.8940 18,940
I 1 I
75,759
TABLE 9.11 - The comparison of the maintenance costs

for the two different preventive mainte
name schedules.
Solution 1 Solution 2
shedules: shedules:
T’i = 132 hr, Tp’r= 132 hr,
T2 = Tp3 = 264 hr. Tp’2= 396 hr,
T& = 264 hr.
maintenance cost
for 3,000 hr,
Method 2 S 85,925.87 S 76,306.36
Total corrective
maintenance cost
for 3,000 hr,
Method 2 S 28,029.56 S 43,690.80
Total cost for
3,000 hr,
Method 2 S 113,995.43 S 119,997.16
Total cost for
Method 1 $ 111,206.06 $ 116,707.30
Reliability 98.62% 98.09%
7. Tlie total cost in Case 5 is higher than the one in Case 6, com-
paratively, as follows:
In Case 5 it is $ 143,320.93.
In Case 6,Solution 1 it is $113,955.32far TP2 = TP3 = 2 TP;,

and for Solution 2 it is $ 119,997.16for Tp2 = 3 TPl, Tp3 = 2 TP;.
It may be seen that using the preventive maintenance schedules

of
TP; = 132 hr, T12 = 264 hr and T13 = 264 hr,
is Inore cost effective than using their optimum schedule values
of
TP; = 132 hr, Tp2 = 285 hr and Tp3 = 213 hr.
The reason is that multiples of one of them decrease the preven-
tive maintenance downtime cost which contributes very signifi-
cantly to the overall cost.
h,, = 2,000 fr/106hr

bE= 2,200 fr/106 hr
hQ=300 fr/106hr
2 &, = 300 fr/106hr
SE
sw
h,,, = 30 fr/106hr
1 hWQ = 50 fr/106hr
? h,, = 200 fr/ 1o6cycles
Fig. 9.19 - System for Problem 9-1.

PROBLEMS
9-1. Given is the system in Fig. 9.19. Do the following:

Derive the expression for its mission reliability when it is
maintained preventively every Tphours according to Policy
I.
Calculate and plot the reliability found in Case 1versus mis-
sion time for the following preventive maintenance periods:
Tp= 100 hr, 500 hr, 1,000 hr and 00 hr.
Give all calculations and results in a neat table.
Derive the expression for the mean time between failures,
MTBFT,, of this preventively maintained system.
PROBLEMS 31 1
Plot the MTBFT, found in Case 3 versus Tp for the same

Tp values given in Case 2.
Find the M T B F of this system with no preventive mainte-
nance and plot it in the figure of Case 4 for the comparison
purposes. Give all calculations and the results in a neat
table.
Calculate and plot on the figure of Case 2 the reliability of
this system using the expression
R(t) = e(-*I
using the MT,vdue found in Case 4 for Tp = 500 hr. Give
all calculations and results in a neat table.
Comparatively discuss the results of Cases 2 and 6 for Tp =
500 hr.
9-2. Given is the system in Fig. 9.20. Do the following:
Derive the expression for its mission reliability when it is
maintained preventively every Tphours according to Policy
I.
Calculate and plot the reliability found in Case 1 versus mis-
sion time for the following preventive maintenance periods:
Tp = 10 hr, 100 hr, 500 hr, 1,000 hr and 00 hr.
Give all calculations and results in a neat table.
Derive the expression for the mean time between failures,
MTBFT,, of this preventively maintained system.
Plot the MTBFT, found in Case 3 versus Tp for the same
Tp values given in Case 2.
Find the M T B F of this system with no preventive mainte-
nance and plot it in the figure of Case 4 for the comparison
purposes. Give all calculations and the results in a neat
table.
0-3. Given is a system with three exponential parallel units, each
with a failure rate of 0.002 fr/hr, which is subjected to corrective
maintenance when the system fails and to preventive mainte-
nance every 200 hr according to Policy I. Do the following:
(1) Derive the non-maintained mission reliability expression for
this system.
&,= 1,000 fr/106hr

& = 1,200 fr/l O6 hr
&= 100 fr/106hr
2 bSE
= 200 fr/106hr
SE
sw
Lo=
10 fr/106hr
1 LwQ = SO fr/106hr
kWE= 1 0 0 fr/ 1 o6cycles
Fig. 9.20 - System for Problem 9-2 .

PROBLEMS 313
A,,E = 1,500 fr/l O6 hr

= 1,800 fr/106 hr
bQ= 200 fr/106hr
2 bE= 200 fr/106hr
- b
L
SE
*
sw
Lo= 10 fr/106hr
1 LswQ= 50 fr/106hr
A, = 100 fi/106 cycles
Fig. 9.21 - System for Problem 9-4.
Derive the M T B F expression for this system when it is not

maintained preventively.
Calculate and plot the reliability of the maintained system
versus the mission time curve for j = 0 and j = 1 only.
Calculate and plot the preventively maintained system's
M T B F versus preventive maintenance schedule for Tp =
200 hr, Tp = 400 hr and Tp = 2,000 hr.
Superimpose on this plot the M T B F of this system when
it is not maintained preventively.
9-4 . Given is the system of Fig. 9.21,which is subjected to preven-

tive maintenance every 1,000 hr according to Policy 11. Do the
following:
(1) What is the reliability of this system?

(2) What is the MTBFT,, of this system?
(3) What is its stabilized preventive maintenance rate?
(4) What is its stabilized corrective maintenance rate?
3 14 PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE
9-5. Solve the bearing problem of Example 9-2 when the parameters
of these bearings’ probability density function are the following:
7 = 0.0 hr,
,O = 3.0 hr.
and
q = 3,000 hr.
Plot the reliability function for Tp = 10 hr, Tp = 100 hr, Tp = 500
hr and Tp= 1,000 hr. Then, tabulate your results in the format
given in Example 9-2. Discuss the reliability function’s behavior
in detail.
9-6. Solve the bearing problem of Example 9-2 when the parameters
of these bearings’ probability density function are the following:
7 = 100.0 hr,
/? = 2.0 hr.
and
q = 2,000 hr.
Plot the reliability function for Tp = 10 hr, Tp = 100 hr and
Tp = 500 hr. Then, tabulate your results in the format given
in Example 9-2. Discuss the reliability function’s behavior in
detail.
9-7. Given is the system of Problem 7-1, wherein each unit is replaced
preventively. Do the following:
(1) If Unit 1 is replaced preventively every 50 hr, Unit 2 every
200 hr and Unit 3 every 100 hr what is the stabilized average
corrective failure rate of each unit for Policy I?
.
(2) Same as in Case 1 but for Policy 11.
(3) What is the stabilized average preventive replacement rate
of each unit Policy I?
( 5 ) What is the system stabilized M T T R (Mean Time to Re-
-pair) if the mean corrective repair times of the subsystem,
d;R, when the ith unit fails, are as follows:
-
-d l =~ 0.55 hr;
2 R = 0.75 hr;
-dd3R = 0.33 hr;
PROBLEMS 315
and if the mean preventive replacement times, 'iT;p, of the

units are as follows:
-
t ' l p = 0.25 hr;
-
t*2p = 0.35 hr;
-
t*Sp = 0.55 hr.
What is the stabilized M T B F of the system with corrective
and preventive maintenance?
What is the stabilized M T B F of the system without any
maintenance?
What is the stabilized reliability of the subsystem with cor-
rective and preventive maintenance for a mission of 300 hr?
What is the reliability of the subsystem without any main-
tenance for a mission of 300 hr?
(10) Compare and discuss the results found in Cases 6 and 7, and
8 and 9, and draw conclusions as to the merits of preventive
maintenance according t o Policy I and Policy I1 over no
preventive maintenance.
9-8. Given is the subsystem of Problem 7-3 wherein each unit is re-
placed preventively. Determine the following:
( I ) If Unit 1 is replaced preventively every 150 hr, Unit 2 ev-
ery 440 hr, and Unit 3 every 300 hr, what is the stabilized
average corrective failure rate of each unit for Policy I?
of each unit for Policy I?
(5) What is the subsystem stabilized M T T R for Policy I if the
mean corrective repair times of the subsystem, &, when
the ith unit fails, are as follows:
-
-dd l R2 ==~ 0.75
0.55 hr,
hr,
and
-
d3R = 0.33 hr,
and if the mean preventive replacement times, P i p , of the
-
t * l p = 0.25 hr,
-
t 8 2 p = 0.35 hr,
and
-
t"3p = 0.15 hr?
(6) Same as in Case 5 but for Policy I1 and for both bounds of
A,.
(7) What is the stabilized M T B F of the subsystem with cor-
rective and preventive maintenance for Policy I?
(8) Same as in Case 7 but for Policy I1 and for the lower bound
of A,.
(9) What is the stabilized reliability of the subsystem with cor-
rective and preventive maintenance for a 10-hour mission
for Policy I?
(10) Same as in Case 9 but for Policy I1 and for the lower bound
of A,.
(11) What is the reliability of the subsystem without any main-
tenance for a mission of 10 hr?
(12) What is the M T B F of the subsystem without any mainte-
nance?
9-9. Given is the subsystem of Problem 7-3 wherein each unit is re-
placed preventively. Determine the following:
(1) If Unit 1 is replaced preventively every 225 hr, Unit 2 ev-
ery 450 hr, and Unit 3 every 450 hr, what is the stabilized
(5) What is the subsystem stabilized M T T R for Policy I if the
mean corrective repair times of the subsystem, ZiR, when
the ith unit fails, are as follows:
-
-dd l R2 ==~ 0.55 hr,
0.75 hr,
and
-
d3R = 0.33 hr,
and if the mean preventive replacement times, F i p , of the
-
t * p = 0.25 hr,
-
t f 2 p = 0.35 hr,
PROBLEMS 317
and
-
t*3p = 0.15 hr?
(6) What is the stabilized MTBF of the subsystem with cor-

rective and preventive maintenance?
(7) What is the stabilized MTBF of the subsystem without
corrective and preventive maintenance?
rective and preventive maintenance for a mission of 1,500
hr?
tenance for a mission of 1,500 hr?
(10) Compare and discuss the results found in Cases 6 and 7,and
maintenance according to Policy I and Policy I1 over no
9-10. Given is the subsystem of Problem 7-3 wherein each unit is
replaced preventively. Determine the following:
(1) If Unit 1 is replaced preventively every 1,200 hr, Unit 2 every

2,500 hr, and Unit 3 every 1,500 hr, what is the stabilized
(5) What is the subsystem stabilized M T T R if the mean cor-
rective repair times of the subsystem, &, when the ith unit
fails, are as follows:
-
-d l R = 0.55 hr,
dZR = 0.75 hr,
and
-
daR = 0.33 hr,
and if the mean preventive replacement times, Fip, of the
-
t * l p = 0.25 hr,
-
t - 2 = ~ 0.35 hr,
TABLE 9.12 - Corrective a n d preventive maintenance

costs for Problem 9-12.
Unit Corrective Preventive

maintenance maintenance
cost, c, cost, c,
$ $
1 65.00 4.50
2 115.00 15.00
3 60.00 6.50
and
-
t*3p = 0.15 hr?
What is the stabilized M T B F of the subsystem with cor-

What is the stabilized MTBF of the subsystem without
What is the stabilized reliability of the subsystem with cor-
hr?
What is the reliability of the subsystem without any main-
9-11. Same as Problem 9-10 but when Unit 1is replaced preventively
every 300 hr, Unit 2 every 600 hr, and Unit 3 every 500 hr.
9-12. Given is the subsystem of Problem 7-1. Determine the following:
(1) The minimum cost, preventive maintenance period for each
one of the three units using Policy 11. The corrective and
preventive maintenance costs are given in Table 9.12. Plot
the total cost of corrective and preventive maintenance for
each unit versus their preventive replacement period, Tp.
(2) Show how it is possible to achieve further savings by making
Tp2and/or Tp3 an integer of Tpl.
PROBLEMS 319
TABLE 9.13 - Corrective and preventive maintenance


cost, c, cost, c,
$
1 75.00
2 145.00
3 80.00
(3) How would you check to see whether or not the operational
reliability, or the reliability goal, of the subsystem is be-
ing met with these minimum-cost preventive maintenance
periods?
The minimum cost, preventive maintenance period for each
one of the three units using Policy 11. The corrective and
Show how it is possible to achieve further savings by making
Tpz and/or Tp3 an integer of Tpl.
How would you check to see whether or not the operational
periods?
9-14. Work out Problem 9-13 again using the lower bound of the cor-
rective failure rate for Policy 11, and the data given in Tables
9.13 and 9.14 and do the following:
(1) If an average, stabilized reliability goal of R = 0.980 is spec-

ified for 8 hr of continuous operation, determine whether or
not this subsystem meets this requirement using the lower
bound of the corrective failure rate.
(2) Determine the expected number of corrective (unscheduled)
maintenance actions that will be required for each unit for
Policy I1 using the lower bound of the corrective failure rate

downtimes w h e n t h e o p t i m u m Tpi are used
for P r o b l e m 9-14.

downtime, downtime,
hr hr
1 0.55 0.25
2 0.75 0.35
3 0.33 0.15
and the optimum Tpi for 3,000 cumulative hours of opcra-

tion.
Determine the expected number of preventive (scheduled)
Policy I1 for 3,000 cumulative hours of operation.
Repeat Case 2 for the case when the Tpzand Tp3are made
integer multiples of Tpl. Make sure that the reliability goal
of R = 0.980 is met when adjustments in Tp;are made.
Determine the total corrective, preventive, and downtime
costs for Policy I1 using the lower bound of the corrective
failure rate, for 3,000 cumulative hours of operation, using
the datagiven in Tables 9.13 and 9.14,and overall downtime
cost of $10,000per hour of subsystem downtime, and using
the optimum Tpi found in Problem 9-13.
Repeat Case 5 using the adjusted Tp;found in Case 4, the
corrective and preventive maintenance costs and downtimes
given in Table 9.15 and overall downtime cost of $10,000
hr per hour of subsystem downtime, for 3,000 cumulative
hours of operation.
Discuss comparatively the results found in Cases 5 and 6.
9-15. Do the following:

(1) Summarize the results obtained by each unit for each case
of Problem 9-14.
(2) Comparatively discuss the summarized results for each case.
(3) Which top three preventive maintenance schedules would
you recommend and why? List the following:
PROBLEMS 321

the adjusted Tpi are used, and costs per
preventive maintenance action for Prob-
lem 9-14.

action
$
When Unit 1 alone
is preventively
When Units 1 and 2
are maintained
preventively
When Units 1 and 3
are maintained
preventively
When Units 2 and 3
are maintained
preventively
When Units 1, 2
and 3 are maintained I
preventively

cost, c, cost, c,
$ $
1 75.00 10.00
2 145.00 35.00
3 80.00 12.00
(3.1) Preventive maintenance schedule for each one of the

three units.
(3.2) Number of corrective maintenance actions.
(3.3) Number of preventive maintenance actions.
(3.4) Cost of the corrective maintenance actions,
(3.5) Cost of the preventive maintenance actions.
(3.6) Total cost with T;;.
(3.7) Total cost with the top three Tp;combinations which
are multiples of each other.
(3.8) Reasons for the top three recommendations.
(4) What other costs should be included in a more sophisticated
analysis and how? Illustrate with hypothetical values.

one of the three units using Policy I1 and the lower bound
of the corrective failure rate. The corrective and preventive
maintenance costs are given in Table 9.16. Plot the total
cost of corrective and preventive maintenance for each unit
versus its preventive replacement period, Tp.
TpZ and/or Tp3 an integer of Tpl.
(3) How would you check t o see whether or not the operational
periods?
PROBLEMS 323
9-17. Work out Problem 9-16 again using the upper bound of the
corrective failure rate for Policy 11, and the data given in Tables
If an average, stabilized reliability goal of R = 0.980 is spec-
not this subsystem meets this requirement using the upper
Determine the expected number of corrective (unscheduled)
Policy I1 using the upper bound of the corrective failure
rate and the optimum Tpi for 3,000 cumulative hours of
operation.
Repeat Case 2 for the case when the T p and~ Tp3 are made
integer multiples of Tpl. Make sure that the reliability g o d
of R = 0.980 is met when adjustments in Tpi are made.
costs for Policy I1 using the upper bound of the corrective
the datagiven in Tables 9.13 and 9.14, and overall downtime
cost of $10,000 per hour of subsystem downtime, and using
the optimum Tpi found in Problem 9.16.
Repeat Case 5 using the adjusted Tpi found in Case 4, the
given in Table 9.17 and overall downtime cost of $10,000 per
hour of subsystem downtime, for 3,000 cumulative hours of
operation.
of Problem 9-17.
three units.

the adjusted Tpi are used, and costs per
preventive maintenance action for Prob-
lem 9-17.

action
$
When Unit 1 alone
is preventively
When Units 1 and 2
are maintained
preventively
When Units 1 and 3
are maintained
preventively
When Units 2 and 3
are maintained
preventively
When Units 1, 2
and 3 are maintained
preventively
PROBLEMS 325


cost, c, cost, c,
$ $
1 6.50 4.00
2 23.00 15.00
3 12.00 6.50

(3.4) Cost of the corrective maintenance actions.
(3.6) Total cost with Tpi.
(3.7) Total cost with the top three Tp;combinations which
one of the three units using Policy I. The corrective and
Assume
-
N c i = 0.10,
Ni
and
-
N w-i
- 0.90.
Ni
( 2 ) Show how it is possible to ac-ieve further savings by making
TpZ and/or Tp3 an integer of Tpl.
periods?
corrective failure rate for Policy I, and the data given in Tables
not this subsystem meets this requirement.
Policy I using the optimum Tpj for 3,000 cumulative hours
of operation.
Policy I for 3,000 cumulative hours of operation.
Repeat Case 2 for the case when the Tp2 and Tp3 are made
costs for Policy I for 3,000 cumulative hours of operation,
using the data given in Tables 9.13 and 9.14, and overall
downtime cost of $10,000 per hour of subsystem downtime,
and using the optimum Tpi found in Problem 9.19.
Repeat Case 5 using the adjusted Tp;found in Case 4, the
hour of subsystem downtime, for 3,000 cumulative hours of
operation.
Redo Cases 2 through 7 for 20,000 cumulative hours of op-
eration of the subsystem.
of Problem 9-20.
three units.
PROBLEMS 327
(3.4) Cost of the corrective maintenance actions.

(3.6) Total cost with Tp:’.
(3.7) Total cost with the top three Tpi combinations which
9-22. Given is the subsystem of Problem 7-2 wherein each unit is
replaced preventively. Assume
-
Nci
= 0.10,
Ni
and
-
NWi
= 0.90.
Ni
(1) If Unit 1 is replaced preventively every 1,500hr, Unit 2 every

6,000 hr, and Unit 3 every 2,000 hr, what is the stabilized
(2) Same as in Case 1 but for Policy 11, using the lower bound
of the corrective failure rate.
(5) What is the subsystem stabilized M T T R if the mean cor-
rective repair times of the subsystem, &R, when the ith unit
fails, are as follows:
-
-d l R = 0.55 hr,
dZR = 0.75 hr,
and
-
d 3 = ~ 0.33 hr,
and if the mean preventive replacement times, Fip, of the
-t * l p = 0.25 hr,
-
t C 2 p = 0.35 hr,
and
-
t*Sp = 0.15 hr?
(6) What is the stabilized M T B F of the subsystem with cor-

(7) What is the stabilized M T B F of the subsystem without
hr?
8 and 9,and draw conclusions as to the merits of preventive
one of the three units using Policy 11, using the upper bound
versus their preventive replacement period, Tp. Assume
-
Nci = 0.10,
Ni
and
-NWi- - 0.90.
N;
Tp2 and/or Tp3 an integer of Tpl.
periods?
PROBLEMS 329

Corrective Preventive
cost, c, cost, c,
$ $
75.00 10.00
145.00 35.00
80.00 12.00

operation.
Repeat Case 2 for the case when the Tp2 and Tp3 are made
the datagiven in Tables 9.13 and 9.14, and overall downtime
cost of $10,000 per hour of subsystem downtime, and using
hour of subsystem downtime, for 20,000 cumulative hours
of operation.

T
cost, c, cost, cp
8 $
75.00 10.00
145.00 35.00
80.00 12.00

Tp2and/or Tp3an integer of Tpl.
periods?
9-26. Using the results of Problem 9.25 and the data given in Tables
9.13 and 9.14,do the following:
not this subsystem meets this requirement using the lower
Policy I using the optimum Tpi for 3,000 cumulative hours
of operation.
Policy I for 3,000 cumulative hours of operation.
Repeat Case 2 for the case when the Tp2and Tp3 are made
integer multiples of Tpl.Make sure that the reliability goal
of R = 0.980 is met when adjustments in Tpiare made.
PROBLEMS 331

Unit Corrective Preventive *
cost, c, c,
cost,
$ 16
1 75.00 10.00
2 145.00 35.00
3 80.00 12.00

costs for Policy I for 20,000 cumulative hours of operation,
using the data given in Tables 9.13 and 9.14, and overall
downtime cost of $10,000 per hour of subsystem downtime,
and using the optimum Tpi found in Problem 9.25.
Repeat Case 5 using the adjusted T,; found in Case 4, the
of operation.
1) The minimum cost, preventive maintenance period for each

one of the three units using Policy 11, using the lower bound
versus their preventive replacement period, Tp. Assume
-
Nci
= 0.20,
Na
and
-
N w-i
- 0.80.
Ni

Tp2 and/or Tp3 an integer of Tpl.
periods?
operation.
Repeat Case 2 for the case when the Tpz and Tp3 are made
the data given in Tables 9.13 and 9.14,and overall downtime
cost of $10,000per hour of subsystem downtime, and using
of operation.
PROBLEMS 333

I I Corrective
maintenance
Preventive
maintenance
cost, cp
I I O
, S: cc I $ I
23.00 15.00
12.00

Tp2 and/or Tp3 an integer of Tpl. Show how to calculate
the total cost for the whole subsystem with these integer
multiple Tpi’sand compare it with the total cost of the whole
subsystem without multiple T pi k
periods?
9-30. In Example 9-5 for each unit determine the following:
(1) MT,for Tp= 10 hr up to Tp = 00.
(2) A, for Tp = 10 hr up to Tp = 00.
(3) R(Tp)for Tp = 10 hr up to Tp = 00.
(4) Q(Tp)for Tp = 10 hr up to Tp= 00.
for Tp = 10 hr up to Tp = 00.
(5) C T ~
(6) Plot MT,versus Tp.
(7) Plot A, versus Tp.
(8) Plot R(Tp)versus Tp.
(9) Plot Q(Tp)versus Tp.
(10) Plot Q(Tp)versus Tp on the same plot as that of Case 8.
(11) Plot CT,versus Tp.
REFERENCES
1. Bazovsky, I., N. R. MacFarlane, R.L. Wunderman, Study of Main-
tenance Cost Optimization and Reliability of Shipboard Machin-
ery, United Control Corporation, Seattle, Washington, DDC No.
AD 283428, June 1962.
2. Cox, D. R., Renewal Theory, Methuen, London, 135 pp., 1962.
Chapter 10
PERIODIC REPLACEMENT
POLICIES
10.1 ORDINARY PERIODIC REPLACEMENT

POLICY-POLICY I11
In the Ordinary Periodic Replacement Policy (OPRP), or Policy I11
[l,pp. 96-97], a unit is replaced with a new one every Tp accumulated
hours of operation; i.e., periodically at times Ic Tp (k = 1,2,3,.. .). If
the unit fails before Tp hours of operation, it is minimally repaired so
that its instantaneous failure rate, X(T), corresponding to its times-
to-failure pdf, f ( T ) , remains the same as it was prior to failure. This
would be the case when only one or a few components, from among
several hundred that comprise the equipment, fail and get repaired or
replaced, as the case may be. This way any change in the repaired or
replaced components failure rate or mean life will not alter perceptibly
the overall failure rate or mean life of the equipment involved. The
minimal repair time is assumed to be negligible and each failure is
detected instantaneously.
The cost function per unit, per hour operating time, is given by
(10.1)
where
C p = cost of the planned preventive replacement,
Cm, = cost of minimal repair,
335
336 PERIODIC REPLACEMENT POLICY
and
E[N(T,)] = expected number of failures followed
by minimal repair actions in an interval Tp.
The expected number of failures in a Tpinterval, per unit, is determined
from
E[N(Tp)]= J” X(T) dT, (10.2)

0
where
X(T) = instantaneous failure rate function, given by
(10.3)
f ( T )= times-to-failure pdf of a unit,
and
R ( T ) = reliability function of a unit.
Then, the total cost per unit, per unit operating time, is given by
EXAMPLE 10-1
A unit with a Weibull times-to-failure pdf is preventively main-
tained under the Ordinary Periodic Replacement Policy. The parame-
ters of the Weibull pdf are y = 0, p = 2 and 77 = 30 hr. The cost of the
planned preventive replacement is $5 and the cost of minimal repair is
$30. Find (1) the optimum preventive replacement time, and (2) the
minimal total preventive maintenance cost per unit time of operation.
1. The Weibull times-to-failure pdf is
(10.5)
ORDINARY PERIODIC REPLACEMENT POLICY 337
With 7 = 0 and p = 2, the following pdf is obtained:
or
(10.6)
The instantaneous failure rate is then given by

2T
X(T) = 7 1 (10.7)
and the reliability function by

T Z
R ( T )= . (10.8)
The expected number of failures requiring repairs for the OPRP,

in an interval T p ,is given by
1” X(T) dT = /,”T-
: dT= (?) 2
. (10.9)
Substitution of Eq. (10.9) into Eq. (10.4), yields the total cost
per unit operating time, per unit, for the OPRP, or
(10.10)
The minimal total cost per unit time, C+7111,and the optimum
replacement time T; can be found by finding the first derivative
of the cost function, given by Eq. ( l O . l O ) , with respect to the
replacement interval, Tp,setting it equal to zero, and solving it
for Tp. Then,
(10.11)
Consequently, the optimal replacement time, TP, is given by
Tp*= 77 /%. (10.12)

With q = 30 hr, C, =$5 and C,, =$30, Eq. (10.12)yields
Tp’ = 30 = 12.24745 hr. ,
2. Substituting T; = 12.24745 hr into Eq. (10.10) yields the min-

imal total preventive maintenance cost per unit operating time,
per unit; then,
G-IZI =
5 +3 01224745
( ~2 )
12.24745 ’
or
= $0.8165 /hr.
10.2 MODIFIED PERIODIC REPLACEMENT

POLICY-POLICIES IV, V, VI
One drawback of the OPRP is that the spares needed at a specified re-
placement time T,,are assumed to be always on hand and are provided
instantaneously whenever needed. A Modified Periodic Replacement
Policy (MPRP), Policy lV [2]takes into account the situation that
the spares are not always on hand, and that they can be provided,
only after a spares procurement lead time, by an order. The Modified
Replacement Policy With Constant Lead Time, which deals with this
situation is discussed in this section.
Another drawback of the OPRP policy is its potential wasteful-
ness caused by repairing a failed unit just before one of the planned
replacement times. Hence, instead of repairing a failed unit, it can be
replaced by a less costly and “less reliable” unit. The “less reliable”
units could be reconditioned failed units, or second quality spares, but
would nevertheless perform the same function as the failed ones. Policy
V [3,pp. 43-45],presented later, deals with this reconditioned spares
substitution case.
There are situations, however, that if the downtime cost of an
equipment is less than an anticipated corrective action cost, and if a
failure occurs towards the end of the Tp period; i.e., where this down-
time is minimum, then it is preferable to leave the equipment idle
until the next planned replacement time T,. This situation is studied
as Policy VI [3,pp. 48-50]in this section.
MODIFIED PERIODIC REP L A C E M E N T POLICY 339
0 T O To + L
@> V p T y l .
0 T
virtual time
+
to failure
X Failure followed by a minimal repair.
Fig. 10.1 - Modified periodic replacement policy with con-

stant spare procurement lead time-Policy IV.
10.2.1 MODIFIED PERIODIC REPLACEMENT POLICY

WITH CONSTANT SPARES PROCUREMENT LEAD
TIME-POLICY IV
10.2.1.1 DESCRIPTION OF TEE POLICY
A single-unit system is put into operation a t time T = 0. If the unit
docs not fail up to a predetermined time To, a regular order for a spare
is placed at time To, as shown in Fig. lO.l(a), and the spare is delivered
alter a constant lead time L . Whenever the unit fails in the interval
( T o ,To+ L ) it is minimally repaired without changing its failure rate
characteristics, and put back into operation. Upon delivery of a spare,
the operating unit is replaced preventively.
If the unit fails before time To; i.e., in the time interval (0, To),
as shown in Fig. lO.l(b), an expedited or emergency order is made a t
failure time T , the failed uiiit is minimally repaired and the spare is
again delivered after the constant lead time, L . Upon delivery of the
340 PERJODIC REPLACEMENT POLICY
spare, the operating unit is replaced preventively by the new spare.

+
If no failures occur in the time intervals (0, To)and (To,To L ) ,
a regular order for a spare is made at time To,and upon delivery
of the spare, the operating unit is replaced immediately, as shown
in Fig. lO.l(c). The cycle, defined as the time interval between two
successive replacements, repeats again.
10.2.1.2 DEVELOPMENT OF T E E COST MODEL

The total expected cost per unit time of operation for an infinite time
span is defined by the renewal reward theorem [4, p. 581 as the ratio
of two expectations; namely, (1) the expected cost per cycle and (2)
the expected cycle length. Then,
Total expected cost per cycle
CT-IV = Expected cycle length
The total expected cost per cycle consists of (1)the expected cost of
preventive replacement, (2) the expected order cost, (3) the expected
cost of minimal repairs, and (4) the expected salvage cost for a unit
which is still able to work.
If the unit does not fail up to time To,a regular order is placed,
and if the unit fails before time To,
an expedited order is placed. Then,
the order cost per cycle is given by
Cr Jm f ( T )
TO
dT+Ce /" f(T)
0
dT = Cr R(To)+Ce Q(To),
(10.13)
where
To = ordering time,
C, = expedited order cost per cycle,
Cr = regular order cost per cycle,
Q(To)= probability that a unit will fail up to time To,
and
R(To)= probability that a unit will not fail up t o time To.
It is assumed that Ce > Cr.
Minimal repairs are made whenever a unit fails. The total expected
number of failures consists of the expected number of failures if the unit
MODIFIED PERIODIC REPLACEMENT POLICY 34 1
fails in interval (0, To)and the expected number of failures in interval

+
(To,To L ) if the unit does not fail in interval (O,To).
Then, the total expected cost of minimal repairs, per cycle, per
unit, is given by
CT-IV-mr
I = Cmr [lTITIL A ( x ) f ( T )d x dT
+ Jm f ( T )dT JT0+" dz] ,

To To
or
(10.14)
where
Cmr = cost of a minimal repair action.
It is assumed that C, < C m r . Note that in the first term of Eq.(10.14)
the integrand, A(x), of the inner integral after integration becomes a
function of the variable of integration of the outer integral, T . The
limits of integration of the inner integral are ( T ,T + L ) , where T varies
between 0 and To which are the limits of integration of the outer inte-
gral. This may be seen in Fig. lO.l(b).
The expected salvage value per cycle [4, p. 2541 is the expected
+
remaining life value of the unit which is replaced at time (To L ) , but
is still able to operate. It is determined for the period from the time
of replacement t o the virtual time of failure, as shown in Fig. lO.l(c).
Then, the expected salvage value per cycle is given by
roo
= -c,
Lo+,[T - (To+ L ) ] dR(T),
roo
(10.15)
where
C, = salvage value per unit time of operation,
and
f ( T )dT = -dR(T).
Using Eqs. (10.13), (10.14), (10.15), and adding the cost of pre-
ventive replacement, C p , the total cost per cycle, per unit, is given
by
(10.16)
Considering possible realizations of a cycle, as shown in Fig. 10.1,

the expected duration of a cycle can be determined as the sum of the
cycle duration if the unit fails in time interval (0, To) and the cycle
duration if the unit does not fail in that interval. Then, the expected
cycle duration is
T f ( T )dT + .ITof ( T )dT

0
roo roo
=L + I T o T f ( T )dT + To R(T,),
Note that this last equation is the integration by parts of the second
term of
Tcy = L + 1 To
R ( T ) dT. (10.17)
The total expected cost per unit time of operation, per unit, for an
infinite time span can now be determined as
CT-ZV = -,
q/ (10.18)
TEy
MODIFIED PERIODIC REPLACEMENT POLICY 343
where C& is given by Eq. (10.16) and T, by Eq. (10.17).

EXAMPLE 10-2
Units that have a Weibuii times-to-failure pdf are preventively
maintained under MPRP with constant lead time. The parameters
of the Weibull pdf are 7 = 0, B = 2 and 9 = 30 hr. C, = $5, Ce = $40,
Cmr = $30, Cr = $20, L = 10 hr and C, = $0.001 /hr. Find the mini-
mum total cost per unit time of operation and the ordering schedule.
With 7 = 0 and = 2, the pdf is
(10.19)
the failure rate function is
2T
X(T) = -
r12 ’
(10.20)

T Z
R ( T ) = e-(T) . (10.21)
The expected number of required minimal repairs for the MPRP is
LT’LX(x) dx =
2 Td T
T+L 7
r7
( T ) ~ - (5) .
= T+L
2
(10.22)
Substituting Eq. (10.22) into Eq. (10.16), the total expected cost
per cycle becomes
roo
R(T)dT.
- csL + L
The integral
/6” T
[(T)2 +L - (3’1 f(T)
344 PERIODIC R E P L A C E M E N T POLICY
= J,’” 7 T f ( T )dT + (5) [l- R(TO)].

2
or
(10.23)
Substituting Eqs. (10.19) and (10.21) into Eq. (10.23), yields the total
expected cost per cycle, or
(10.24)
The expected duration of a cycle is determined by substituting

Eq. (10.21) into Eq. (10.17), and is given by
(10.25)
The total cost per unit time of operation is now given by

C&
CT-IV = -. (10.26)
T,
where C,!+is given by Eq. (10.24) and T, is given by Eq. (10.25).
To mnimize the total cost per unit time of operation, the optimal
ordering schedule, TZ,should be determined. Due to the complexity of
the total cost per unit time of operation equation, numerical computer
optimization is applied. The results are
T,* = 23.5 hr, C+-Iv = $1.7133 /hr and Tcy= 29.4630 hr.
10.2.2 AGE REPLACEMENT POLICY WITH

MINIMAL REPAIR-POLICY V
10.2.2.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE POLICY
In this policy operating units are replaced by new ones every Tp time;
.
i.e., at kTp ( k = 1 , 2 , 3 , . .). If an item fails, while in operation, before
+
a time To < Tp;i.e., in interval [(k- l)T’, (k - l)Tp To],it undergoes
minimal repair t o be brought back into operation while retaining the
same instantaneous failure rate it had just prior t o failure. If a failure
occurs in interval [(k- l)Tp+To,kTp],the failed unit is replaced with a
less reliable spare having a different times-to-failure distribution. If the
unit fails it is replaced as often as necessary with identical spares until
the next scheduled replacement time Tp, as illustrated in Fig. 10.2.
10.2.2.2 DEVELOPMENT OF TEE COST MODEL

The total maintenance cost per Tp interval, C$-v,consists of the
scheduled maintenance cost and the corrective maintenance cost. The
latter is composed of repair and spare replacement costs for which an
estimate can be found as the unit fails stochastically. C$-v can be
formulated by
C$-V = c1 + c2 + c3 ? (10.27)
where
C1 = scheduled replacement cost,
@ A minimal repair at failure.

A scheduled renewal.
V Replacement with a spare at failure.
Fig. 10.2 - Age replacement policy with minimal repairs and

the "less reliable spares" replacement-Policy V.
C2 = minimal repair cost at failure,

C, = cost of the spare plus its labor cost,
and
1 ,28)
E[N~[T,T,I], the expected number of spares failing in interval (To,

T p )depends on when the original unit that entered the (To,T p )interval,
will fail. This can be found by making use of the expected residual life
equation for a stochastically failing item of age To > 0.
Let p', be the expected residual, or left-over life of a unit having
age To up to time Tp,given a residual life, T I , as shown in Fig. 10.3.
By definition (6,p. 111
(10.29)
Assuming the spares have a constant failure rate A', then

I' r7'1
To' ICA m I U
w w I V
L,
I Tp
Fig. 10.3 - Modified age replacement policy with minimal

repair-Policy V.
or
E"2[T,Tp]l = A' ITP - To - E(7')I. (10.30)

Substituting E[7'] = p' from Eq. (10.29) yields
(10.31)
Then, the total cost model for maintenance Policy V, per unit time
of operation , or the total cost rate, assuming an infinite time span, a
constant €ailure rate for spares, and that at least one failure occurs in
(To,T p ) ,is given by
s2R ( T )
R(TcJ)
"1 j- l}}. (10.32)
It should be noticed that one in the last term of Eq. (10.32) comes
from the assumption t1ia.t a t least one failure occurs in the interval
(To,T p ) .If the expected number of units failing in that interval is very
small adding one failure assures that at least one failure is accounted
for, conservatively.
EXAMPLE 10-3
Units with a gamma times-to-failure pdf are preventively main-
tained under the MPRP, using Policy V. The parameters of the gamma
pdf are ,8 = 2 and 7 = 200 hr. The scheduled replacement cost is
$15. The minimal repair cost at failure is $70. The spare replace-
ment cost at failure is $10 and the constant failure rate of the spares is
A' = 0.05 fr/hr. Find the minimum total preventive and corrective cost
per unit time of operation, C$-v,the optimum planned replacement
time, Tp*-v, and the optimum switchover time T,'.
Theoretically the optimum cost occurs when $$ and are
equated to zero, and T,' and T i are found by solving these two equa-
tions simultaneously when the other parameters are known. To solve
for the optimum switchover time T,', TJ is obtained first using the
OPRP of Policy 111, which is a one-parameter policy. Then, substitut-
ing T; in Eq. (10.32)with the same /3, C1 and C2, T,*will be found as
the value which minimizes further the total cost rate, CT-V.
To find the T; from the OPRP of Policy 111, the gamma times-to-
failure pdf
(10.33)
will be used. With /3 = 2 Eq. (10.33)becomes

1 2
f ( T )= - T e-q. (10.34)
v2
The failure rate is given by
(10.35)
The expected number of repairs in a T;, period, per unit in operation,

is given by
or
(10.36)
Substituting Eq. (10.36) into Eq (lO.l), the total cost per unit time of
operation, per unit,.for the OPRP, or Policy 111, is given by
The minimum cost, C+-zzz)and the optimum planned replacement

time, T&v, can be found by differentiating CT-IIZwith respect to Tp
and setting it equal to zero, or
dCT-ZZZ -- -3 + c2 (i- A) - [$-loge(l+
TP I)$ } = o ,
dTP Tp2 Tp2
or
(10.38)
A computer iteration with the given values of C1, Cz and 7 for Policy
111, yields
C+-zzz= $0.1821 Jhr and T;-,Iz = 217 hr.

To find the minimum C+-,, and the optimum switchover time, T;,
for Policy V, follow the same procedure as in the first part of the
solution; then, from Eq. (10.36), the expected number of repairs in a
To period is given by
(10.39)
The expected residual life, p') is evaluated from Eq. (10.29) after Tois
determined, or from
p' = s2 R ( T )dT 9
R(T0)
where
350 pmuomc REPLACEMENT POLICY
which is obtained by dividing Eq. (10.34) by Eq. (10.35). Therefore,
(10.40)
Integration of Eq. (10.40), and simplification yields
T9-TO
+
-
p' = 9 9 To [ T . + 2 9 - e (Tp+2q)]. (10.41)
Substituting Eq. (10.41) into Eq. (10.31) yields the expected number
of spares, or
(10.42)
Finally, substituting the Eqs. (10.39) and (10.42) into Eq. (10.32) and
dividing by Tp.yields the total preventive and corrective maintenance
cost per unit tune of operation, or
-To-- 9
9+To
+ c3). (10.43)
Using the numerical computer optimization with Tp = Tp* = 160 hr,

yields the minimum preventive and corrective cost per unit time of
operation, and the optimum switchover time, of
C$-v = $0.1488 /hr a d T,' = 77 hr.
Comparing the minimum cost obtained for OPRP of Policy I11 with
Policy V, it may be seen that C+-v = 0.1488 < C+-rII = 0.1553.
Therefore, a saving is achieved using Policy V.
MODIFIED PERJODIC REPLACEMENT POLICY 35 1
@ A minimal repair at failure. x Failure.

0 Scheduled replacement with new items. -- Idle time.
Fig. 10.4 - Age replacement policy with minimal repairs and

system idle time-Policy VI.
10.2.3 AGE REPLACEMENT WITH MINIMAL

REPAIRS AND SYSTEM IDLE TIME-POLICY VI
10.2.3.1 DESCRIPTION OF TEE POLICY
In this policy operating units are replaced by new ones every Tp time;
i.e., at kTp(k = 1,2,3, .-.). If an item fails while in operation before a
time To; +
i.e., in the interval [(k - l)Tp, ( k - l)Tp To]it is repaired
minimally and put back into operation, without any change in its fail-
+
ure rate. If a failure occurs after time [(k - l)Tp To]and before the
next kTp,leave the system idle (not operating) until the next scheduled
replacement time, Tp, is reached since the repair cost is higher than
the cost of the anticipated short idle time, r , as illustrated in Fig. 10.4.

Policy VI has a'cost model similar to Policy V, developed in Section
10.2.2 and stated in Eq. (10.27). The only difference is the last part of
the equation, where instead of the E [ N 2 [ ~ , , ~term
, ] ] the expected idle
time, E [ r ] term
, and its associated unit time cost is used; i.e.,
c;-vr = c1+ c2 E { jVl[O&]} + c; E ( 4 , (10.44)
where C1 and C2 are as given in Eq. (10.27), and C{ is the cost rate
of idle time.
, average residual life at To,p',
To find an expression for E [ r ] the
is used again. Then,
E ( r )= E[Tp - (To + +)I, (10.45)
where 7' is the time from To to the next failure as illustrated in

Fig. 10.4. Then,
E ( T )= Tp - To - E(T'). (10.46)
Substituting E(T'), as given by Eq. (10.29), into Eq.(10.46) yields
(10.47)
Finally,substituting Eqs. (10.47) and (10.28) into Eq.(10.44) yields

the following total preventive and corrective maintenance cost, per unit
time of operation, assuming an infinite time span, for Policy VI:
@-VI = -!i
TP
{
C1+ C2 iTo [
X(T)dT + CL Tp- To -
@ R(T)
WO ) "1 1
EXAMPLE 10-4
Rework Example 10-3 with a minimum repair cost at failure of
$30. The units are preventively maintained under the MPRP using
Policy VI. The idle time cost is $5 per hour of idle time. Determine
the following:
1. The minimum preventive and corrective maintenance cost per
unit time of operation, Ct-vI,
the optimum planned replacement
time, Tp+-vI,and the optmum switchover time, T,.
2. The same as in Case 1 for Ci equal to $5, $10, $20 and $30 per
hour of idle time and plot the total preventive and corrective
maintenance cost, @-vI, as a function of the switchover time,
To,for the values of Ci of $5 and $30 per hour of idle time.
1. To obtain T,*_,,follow the same procedure as in Example 10-3,

and substitute the parameters ,8 = 2, 9 = 200 hr, C1 = $10
and C2 = $30 instead. The minimum total cost per unit time of
operation and the optimum planned replacement time are then
found to be
C+-III = $0.09166 /hr and Tp*-III= 315 hr.
To find the minimum total cost, C$-vI, and the optimum switch-
over time, T,, follow the same procedure as in Example 10-3.
The total preventive and corrective maintenance cost per unit
MODIFIED PEWODIC REPLACEMENT POLICY 353
TABLE 10.1 - The minimum preventive and corrective

maintenance cost, C+-vz,the optimum
planned replacement time, Tp*-vz, and the
optimum switchover time, T,*, for given
values of the cost of idle time, Ci, for Ex-
ample 10-4, Case 2.
time of operation for an equipment with infinite life time, is given

by
-?(Tp+ 2 .)I}}. (10.48)
Using numerical computer optimization, the minimum total cost

of the preventive and corrective maintenance per unit time of op-
eration, C;-vI, the optimum planned replacement time, Tp*-vz,
and the optimum switchover time, T,*,are found t o be
CF-vz = $0.09078 /hr, Tp*--I/I= 310 hr, and T,* = 304 hr.
Comparing the minimum cost which was obtained from the OPRP
with that obtained from Policy VI, it may be seen C+-vI -
0.09078 < CF-zII = 0.09166. Therefore, a saving is achieved
using Policy VI.
2. Following the same procedure as in Case 1, the minimum pre-
ventive and corrective maintenance cost per unit time of opera-
tion, C$-vz, the optimum planned replacement time, T&I and
the optimum switchover time, To, are found as given in Table
10.1. It can be observed from Table 10.1 that as the cost of

idle time, C;,increases the optimum switchover time, T,*, and
the minimum total preventive and corrective maintenance cost,
C;-vz, also increase but at a very slow rate. When the cost
of idle time increases to $30 per hour of idle time and higher,
then T,' approaches T;*,Vz. As a consequence, idle time, r;, or
the time period when the failed unit is kept out of operation
approaches zero. At the same time C;-vz approaches C;"-zzz.
In this case there is no saving in applying Policy VI, and the
ordinary periodic replacement policy, Policy 111, should be used.
Figure 10.5 illustrates the behavior of the total preventive and
corrective maintenance cost function per hour of operation with
respect to the switchover time, as discussed previously.
PROBLEMS
10-1. A unit with a Weibull times-to-failure pdf is preventively main-

tained under the Ordinary Periodic Replacement Policy-Policy
111. The parameters of the Weibull pdf are y = 0, p = 2 and
q = 400 hr. The cost of the planned preventive replacement is
$5 and the cost of a minimal repair is $30. Find (1) the op-
timum preventive replacement time, and (2) the minimal total
preventive maintenance cost per unit time of operation.
10-2. A unit with a Weibull times-to-failure pdf is preventively main-
tained under the Ordinary Periodic Replacement Policy-Policy
111. The parameters of the Weibull pdf are 7 = 0, /3 = 2 and
q = 300 hr. The cost of the planned preventive replacement is
$5 and the cost of a minimal repair is $40. Find (1) the op-
timum preventive replacement time, and (2) the minimal total
preventive maintenance cost per unit time of operation.
10-3. Units that have a Weibull times-to-failure pdf are preventively
maintained under the Modified Periodic Replacement Policy-
Policy N with a constant lead time. The parameters of the
Weibull pdf are y = 0, P = 2 and r) = 400 hr. C, = $5,Ce = $40,
, = $30, C, = $20,L = 10 hr and C, = $0.001 /hr. Find the
C
minimum total cost per unit time of operation and the ordering
schedule.
Weibull pdf are 7 = 0, P = 2 and q = 300 hr. C, = $5, Ce = $30,
C,,,,= $30,C, = $20, L = 15 hr and C, = $0.001 /hr. Find the
PROBLEMS 355
1.6
1.4 !\
Switchover time, To,hr

I
To =304 hr
for c,=ss
Fig. 10.5 - The total preventive and corrective maintenance

cost, CT-VI,as a function of switchover time, To,
for the values of idle time cost of Ci = $5 and
Ci = $30 per hour of idle time.
minimum total cost per unit time of operation and the ordering
schedule.
Weibull pdf are y = 0 and P = 2. q varies from 300 to 500
hr. Cp = $5, Ce = $40, C m r = $30, Cr = $20, L = 10 hr and
c8 = $O.OOl/hr. Find the minimum total cost per unit time of
operation, the ordering schedule and the expected cycle duration.
Policy N with constant lead time. The parameters of the Weibull
pdf are 7 = 0, /3 = 2 and q = 400 hr. Cp = $ 5 , Ce = $40,
C, = $20, L = 10 hr and c8 = $0.001/hr. Do a sensitivity anal-
ysis of the total cost per unit time of operation if the cost of a
minimal repair, C,,,,, varies from $30 to $50.
1.O-7.Units with a gamma times-to-failure pdf are preventively main-
tained under the Modified Periodic Replacement Policy-Policy
V. The parameters of the gamma pdf are P = 2 and 7 = 200 hr.
The scheduled replacement cost is $10. The minimal repair cost
at failure is $50. The spare replacement cost at failure is $40 and
the constant failure rate of the spares is A' = 0.05 fr/hr. The
planned replacement time is Tp = 140 hr. Find the minimum
total preventive and corrective maintenance cost per unit time
of operation, C$,v,and the optimum switchover time T,'.
10-8. Units with a gamma times-to-failure pdf are preventively main-
V. The parameters of the gamma pdf are p = 2 and q = 200 hr.
The scheduled replacement cost is $10. The minimal repair cost
at failure is $50. The spare replacement cost at failure is $40 and
the constant failure rate of the spares is A' = 0.05 fr/hr. The
planned replacement time is Tp = 350 hr. Find the minimum
total preventive and corrective maintenance cost per unit time
of operation, C$-v,and the optimum switchover time T,'.
VI. The parameters of the gamma pdf are P = 2 and 7 = 100
hr. The scheduled replacement cost is $10. The minimal repair
cost at failure is $30. The idle time cost is $2 per hour of idle
time. Find the minimum preventive and corrective maintenance
REFERENCES 357
cost per unit time of operation, C+-.vI, the optimum planned

replacement time, TP-VI, and the optimum switchover time T,’.
VI. The parameters of the gamma pd’ are p = 2 and 7 = 40
hr. The scheduled replacement cost is $10. The minimal repair
cost a t failure is $30. The idle time cost is $2 per hour of idle
time. Find the minimum preventive and corrective maintenance
cost per unit time of operation, C+-vI, the optimum planned
replacement time, TP-VI, and the optimum switchover time T,’.
REFERENCES
1. Barlow, R. E. and Proschan, F., Mathematical Theory of Reliability,
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 256 pp., 1965.
2. Kaio, N. and Osaki, S., “Optimal Planned Policies with Minimal Re-
pair,” Microelectronics & Reliability, Vol. 28, No. 2, pp. 287-293,
1988.
3. Eraclides, S. T.,
“A Survey and Applications of Alternative Cost Saving
Preventive Maintenance Policies,” Master’s Research Report submitted
to Dr. Dimitri B. Kececioglu at The University of Arizona, 113 pp.,
1984.
4. Ross, S.M., Applied Probability Models with Optimization Applications,
Holden-Day, San Francisco, 234 pp., 1970.
5. Crk, V., “Optimal Preventive Maintenance Schedule and Spare Provi-
sioning Policies,” Master’s Research Report submitted to Dr. Dimitri
B. Kececioglu at The University of Arizona, 147 pp., 1991.
Chapter 11
MODIFIED BLOCK
REPLACEMENT POLICIES
11.1 ORDINARY BLOCK REPLACEMENT

POLICY-POLICY VII
In the ordinary block replacement policy (OBRP), a unit is replaced
at predetermined time intervals k Tp (k = 1 , 2 , 3 , ...), and at failure
by a new one with an identical times-to-failure distribution. The total
preventive maintenance cost for a period Tp , or for one replacement
period only, for the OBRP, is given by
Ch-VII = cp + cc &J(Tp), (11.1)
where
C p = planned replacement cost,
C, = corrective, or failure, replacement cost,
and
H,(Tp) = expected, or mean, number of failures in a period (O,Tp),
defined as the ordinary renewal function (ORF) [l, pp. 45-46]. By
definition of an ORF
H,(T) = C-’H,(s), (11.2)
where
(11.3)
359
360 MODIFIED BLOCK REPLACEMENT POLICIES
and
f(s) = L [ f ( T ) ]= Laplace transform of f ( T ) . (11.4)
f ( T ) is the times-to-failure pdf of the unit. Assuming an infinite time
span, or life, of the equipment, the average cost per unit time of oper-
ation is given by
(11.5)
EXAMPLE 11-1
A unit has a gamma times-to-failure pdf with /3 = 2 and q = 200
hr. The unit is preventively maintained under the ordinary block re-
placement policy. The planned replacement cost is $10. The corrective
replacement cost is $50. Find the minimum total preventive cost per
unit time of operation for the OBRP and the optimum replacement
time.
With p = 2, the gamma pdf becomes
(11.6)
and its Laplace transform is

1
f(4= ( q + 1)2 *
(11.7)
The Laplace transform of H,(T) is
or
1
(11.8)
=q s* (7 s + 2)'
and its inverse is
(11.9)
MODIFIED BLOCK REPLACEMENT POLICY 361
The expected number of replacements in a Tp interval is given by
(11.10)
The total preventive plus corrective maintenance cost per unit time of
operation, CT , assuming an infinite time span for OBRP, and using
Eqs. (11.1) and (ll.lO), is given by
1
CT-VZZ = -{Cp
TP
+ cc Ro(Tp)) (11.11)
or
cT-VII
1
=-
TP
{cP+ C, (8+ 4 -* % -A)}.
e
4
(11.12)
The optimum T; time and the minimal total cost C$-vzz can be ob-
tained by taking the partial derivative of CT-VII with respect to T p ,
%, setting it equal to zero and solving for T;. Due to the complexity
of the CT-VII expression, the use of computer optimization will yield
the sought values for T; and C;-vIz. The results are
C+-vIz = $0.11874 /hr and Tp*= 300 hr.
11.2 MODIFIED BLOCK REPLACEMENT

POLICY-POLICY VIII
One drawback of the OBRP is the assumption that the spares are
always on hand and available at the preventive replacement time and
upon failure. The modified block replacement policy, MBRP, [3] is
proposed as an improvement of the OBRP, in which the spares can be
provided only by an order. Two models are considered. In the first
model the ordering schedule is identical to the replacement interval,
Tp,and in the second model the ordering for spares is made once for
several replacement intervals.
Another drawback of the OBRP is the wastefulness caused by some-
times replacing and discarding at the planned replacement times, al-
most fresh units. This wastefulness may be eliminated by using less
reliable items towards the end of the Tp period, if a failure occurs.
The “less reliable units” could be reconditioned failed items, or second
quality spares, but would nevertheless perform the same function as
the failed unit. Policy IX [2, pp. 3-11] will discuss this reconditioned
items substitution.
362 BLOCK REPLACEMENT POLICY
There are situations, however, that if the downtime cost of an

equipment is less than an anticipated corrective action cost, and if
a failure occurs towards the end of the Tp period; i.e., when this down-
time is minimum, then it is preferable t o leave the equipment idle
until the next planned replacement time, Tp. This situation is studied
a~ Policy X [2, pp. 12-16).
11.2.1 MODIFIED BLOCK REPLACEMENT POLICY

WITH INVENTORY OF SPARES
11.2.1.1 DESCRIPTION OF A SINGLEPERIOD MODEL-POLICY VIII-1
Suppose, N identical units, or a system of N independent and identi-
cally distributed units, are put into operation at time T = 0. They are
replaced according to the OBR on failure and at predetermined time
intervals Tp. At the beginning of each replacement interval an order
for spares is made so that the stock is raised to the level of the de-
sired assurance level. Replacement times and procurement lead times
are considered t o be negligible in comparison with the replacement
interval Tp.
11.2.1.2 DEVELOPMENT OF THE COST MODEL

The expected cost per unit time consists of (1) the expected replace-
ment cost per unit time, (2) the expected inventory cost per unit time,
and of (3) the expected ordering cost per unit time.
The expected replacement cost per unit time consists of the pre-
ventive replacement cost and of the corrective replacement cost due to
failure. Using Eq. (11.5), the expected replacement cost per unit time
for N units is
(11.13)
where Ho(Tp)is the expected number of failures in period (0, Tp).Each

replacement time T p ,is an ordering time as well. The stock of spares
is raised to a level S, so that the effect of a random demand, which can
cause the shortage of spares, is minimized. If the demand of spares in
the replacement interval Tpis normally distributed with mean, p , then
(11.14)
and variance
o2 = N Var[Ho(Tp)]. (11.15)
The stock level S is now determined by

S
where
L g(z) dz = 1 - a, (11.16)
g(z) = distribution of spares demand,

and
1 - a = assurance level of spares provisioning,
or
r n [ q = L a . (11.17)
Then, the stock level S is given by

s =p+ Zl-cr Q, ( 11.18)
where zl-a is obtained from the standard normal distribution’s area
tables and the desired assurance level (1 - a).
The inventory cost consists of (1) the holding cost per unit time
of the average level of spares in the stock, (2) the holding cost of the
excess stock due to overstocking of spares, and (3) the backorder, or
shortage, cost per unit time due to understocking of spares.
Suppose that at the beginning of each interval, H,(T,) units are
available, as quantified by Eq. ( l l . l O ) , then the function of the ex-
pected number of replacements at any point in time is given by
(11.19)
Then, the average level of the stock, in time interval T,,, is given by
(11.20)
and the holding cost of the average level of spares per unit time of
operation for N units is given by
(11.21)
where
c h = holding cost per unit time of operation per one unit.
Excess stock due to overstocking appears when the actual demand

for spares in a cycle is less than the stock level S. Then, the expected
holding cost of the surplus, or excess, stock of spares is given by
(11.22)
Similarly, a shortage of spares occurs when the actual demand of spares

in a cycle is higher than the stock level S. Then the expected shortage,
or backorder, cost per unit time of operation is given by
Cb fsoo (x- S) g(x) dx, (11.23)
where
Cb = shortage, or backorder, cost per unit time of operation
per one unit.
If the expected order cost per cycle, Co, is independent of the num-
ber of spares ordered; then, the expected ordering cost per unit time
is given by
Co
(11.24)
if•
p
The total cost per unit time is the sum of the costs given by
Eqs. (11.13), (11.21), (11.22), (11.23) and (11.24), or
CTM-VIII-1 = N [ C, + CcT. Ho(T,)l

p
+NT~h 1Tp[H (T,)- H(T)] dT

0
+ ch foscs- x) g(x) dx
foo Co
+ cb Js (X - S) g( X) dx + T, '
= N [ Cp + C~PHo(T,) l
+ NT~h foTp[H 0 (T,)- H(T)] dT
+ Ch S loS g(x) dx- Ch loS X g(x) dx

roo
or
(11.25)
11.2.1.3 DESCRIPTION OF TEE MULTI-PERIOD MODEL-POLICY

VIII-2
The multi-period model is an extension of the single-period model. All
of the assumptions of the single-period model remain the same, except
the order for spares is made once in k Tpreplacement intervals, and the
number of spares S in the stock at the beginning of the k Tp interval
period is determined so that the demand for spares in that period is
met at the desired assurance level, (1 - a).

The replacement related costs per unit time of operation remain the
same as in the single-period model and is given by Eq. (11.13). The
spares are ordered once in k Tpreplacement intervals and the distribu-
tion of spares demand, g(z), is assumed t o be normal with mean
pk = k N H(Tp), (11.26)
and variance
a: = k N Var[H(Tp)], (11.27)
where
k = number of replacement intervals for which the
spares are ordered,
and [l,pp. 45-60]
m
Var[H(Tp)] J” H(Tp-u) h ( u )dw(11.28)

= H(TP)-[H(Tp)l2+2
0
To meet the demand for spares in k Tp replacement intervals at the

desired assurance level, the number of spares, Sk,in stock at the begin-
ning of each ordering interval is now determined by using Eq. (11.18),
and is given by
+
= pk zl-a ok.
sk (11.29)
The average number of spares in interval k Tpis the sum of the average
number of spares in each of k intervals, or
(11.30)
MODIFIED BLOCK REPLACEMENT POLICY 36 7
where j = 1,2, -,k . Then, the holding cost of the average number of
units in kTp period is
(11.31)
The holding cost of the excess stock and the backorder cost per unit
time are determined by substituting Eq. (11.29) into Eq. (11.22) and
(11.23), or
(11.32)
and
(1 1.33)
Since the order for spares is made once in kT, intervals, the ordering
cost per unit time is given by
co
- (11.34)
k Tp’
The total cost per unit time is the sum of the costs given by Eqs.
(11.13), (11.31), (11.32), (11.33) and (11.34), or
+-liCOTp‘ ( 11.35)
As in the single-period model, simplification yields

+ (cb+ ch)/-
Sk
2 g(2) dz + -.kCOTP (11.36)
EXAMPLE 11-2
100 units with gamma times-to-failure pdf's are put into operation
a t time T = 0. They are replaced according to the OBRP on failure and
at a predetermined time interval Tp. The parameters for the gamma
pdf are ,f3 = 2 and q = 100 hr. The preventive replacement cost is
C, = $5. The corrective replacement cost is C, = $80. The shortage
cost per unit time of operation per one unit, is cb = 20 $/hr per unit.
The holding cost per unit time of operation per one unit is Ch = $1
/hr. The ordering cost is C, = $100 /order. It is assumed that the
desired assurance level is 95%. (1) If the order for spares is made every
Tp hr, find the minimal total cost per unit time of operation and the
optimum preventive replacement schedule. (2) Repeat Case 1 when
the order for spares is made every 3T, hr.
From Example 11-1 the expected number of replacements in a T,
interval is given by Eq. (ll.lO), or
( 11.37)
The mean of the spares demand distribution, g(z), for the multi-period
model, for N units is
(11.38)
To find the variance of g(z), we have t o find the renewal density, h ( t ) ,

which is the first derivative of H ( t ) . Then,
(11.39)
Substituting H(T, - u) and h(u) into the integral of Eq. (,11.28) yields
or
Ti
I=---
Tp 3
+---e
3 - 2 9
- -Tp e-2 % (11.40)
8 q2 4 q 16 16 877
Substituting Eq. (11.40) into Eq. (11.28), yields the variance of the
spares demand distribution, g(z), or
(11.41)
The holding cost per unit time of operat,an for the mu +period
model can be determined using Eqs. (11.31) and (11.37), or
(11.42)
Finally, substituting Eqs. (11.37) and (11.42)into Eq. (11.36), the total
cost model per unit time of operation for N units, and the multi-period
model, is
370 BLOCK REPLA CEMENT POLICY
To get the equation for the single-period model substitute k = 1

into Eq. (11.43). The minimum cost occurs a t $$f equal to zero. Due
t o the complexity of the CTM-1/111-2'6 expression numerical computer
optimization is used to solve for CFM-VIII-2 and TP. The results for
the single-period model and the multi-period model are the following:
1. For the single-period model
C;M-VIII-l = $36.0846 /hr and T; = 34 hr.

2. For the multi-period model, with k = 3,
C$M-VIII-~ = $40.0954 /hr and T; = 25 hr.

WITH RECONDITIONED SPARES USE-POLICY IX
11.2.2.1 DESCRIPTION OF POLICY IX
Replace operating items every Tp time; i.e., at k Tp(k= 1,2,3,- - .); if
i.e., in the interval [(k - 1) Tp?( k-
operating items fail before a time To;
+
1) Tp To)] they are replaced with new identical items; if the falures
are after To; i.e., in the interval [(k- 1) Tp+To,Ic Tp]then replace with
less reliable reconditioned spares, as illustrated in Fig. 11.1. The total
cost per Tp interval, C T - I X ,is given by
Ck-IX = c1 -k c2 E"IIO,ToJl + c3 E"2[To,T']l, ( 11.44)

where
E[N1] = expected number of failures of new components,
E[N2] = expected number of failures of reconditioned
components.
C1 = planned preventive replacement cost,
Cz = failure replacement cost with a new component,
and
C3 = failure replacement cost with a used component.
11.2.2.2 DEVELOPMENT OF T E E COST MODEL

The expected number of failures in a (O,Tp)period is the sum of the
mean number of failures in (0, To),E I N I p ~ , ] and
] , the number of fail-
ures in (% Tp), E"2(T,Tp]l.
E[N~[O,T,I] can be found by using the ordinary renewal function
(ORF), H,, since from r = 0 to r = Towe have an ordinary renewal
process; i.e., upon failure items are replaced with fresh ones having
identical failure time characteristics. Then,
E"l[O,T,]I = Ho(To), (11.45)
where B,(T,) has been defined by Eq. (11.2). E [ N ~ [ T ~ Tcan
, I ]be found
by introducing the forward recurrence time (FRT), VT.
The FRT, VT, is defined as the time measured forward from To
to the next renewal. In other words, VT is the residual life of the
component in use at time To,as illustrated in Fig. 11.2 (a).
To find the pdf of VT we have to consider the following: For VT
+
that lies in the interval (r',r' AT') either (1) the first component
+
has failure time in the interval (To #,To r' + + AT'), or (2) for
some u , a renewal occurs in the interval (To- u,T, - + Au), and
the component that is introduced has a failure time that lies in the
+
interval ( u r', + +
r' AT'), as shown in Fig. 11.2(b).
Therefore, the pdf of VT is given by [l,p. 631
+ + J," h,(T,
g ( V T ) = f ( T o r') - u ) f(u+ r') du, (11.46)
where
f ( T ot 7') = failure time distribution of the new
components,
@ Failure replacement with new component. cost CI
@ Planned xepiacemenr wih new component, cost C2
v R e p k e w n t with rrcondidoned component cost
Fig. 11.1- Modified block replacement with reconditioned

spares use, for Policy IX.
ho(To- u) = renewal density of an ordinary renewal

process defined by [l,p. 541
(11.47)
and
L-'{ho(s)} = ho(r)in the r time domain.
Another way of defining the ordinary renewal density (ORD), h o ( s ) ,
is noting that Eq. (11.47)can be written as
ho(4 = f ( 4+ h o w f ( 4 9 ( 11.48)
and using the fact the Laplace transform of a convolution is the product
of the separate Laplace transforms; then, Eq.(11.48)can be converted
to obtain
rT
(1 1.49)
where f(r) and ho(7) are as defined above.

The usefulness of the FRT in the model is that a mean value for
the operation of reconditioned components can be obtained, because
x Denote mnewrls.
Fig. 11.2- (a) Forward recurrence time, VT, for Policy IX;
(b) Parameters and variables used in the deriva-
tion of the pdf of VT for Policy IX.
the pdf of VT has been established. Here an assumption is also made

that the reconditioned components have a higher but a constant failure
rate, A. This being the case, the number of reconditioned failures can
be estimated using the expectation properties, or
(11.50)
where
+ /," ho(To- u ) f(u + 7') du] dT'. (11.51)
Substitution of Eq. (11.51) into Eq. (11.50) yields

assuming an additional reconditioned component is needed for the first

failure of a new component in the period (To,T?).
Now, substituting Eqs. (11.52)and (11.45)into Eq. (11.44)yields
the total expected maintenance cost per unit time of operation, assum-
ing an infinite time span, or
+ lTo -
ho(To v) f(u + 7') d v ] dr'}
11. (11.53)
EXAMPLE 11-3
New units have a gamma times-to-failure pdf with p = 2 and
77 = 200 hr. The units are preventively maintained under MBRP with
Policy IX.The planned replacement cost is C1 = $10. The failure
replacement cost with a new component is Cz = $50. The failure re-
placement cost with a used component is C3 = $10. The constant
failure rate of the reconditioned units is A' = 0.002 fr/hr. Find the
minimum total preventive and corrective cost per unit time of oper-
ation, the optimum planned replacement time, TP, and the optimum
switchover time T,*.
If the new units have a gamma times-to-failure pdf with p = 2,
then
(11.54)
From Example 11-1

1
f(4= (rl s + 1)2 (11.55)
Therefore,
or
1
hO(4 = (11.56)
rls(rls+2)’
Then,
1
s )- (1 - e-2:),
h,(r) = ~ ~ - ‘ h , ( = (11.57)
277
and
1
ho(To- u ) = - 11 - e - 2 -1. (11.58)
277
Also, if we substitute T = u + T, we get
1
f(.+?> 772 ( u + r ) e-?.
=- ( 11.59)
Substituting h,(To - u ) and f ( u + T) into the integral of Eq. (11.46)

yields
(11.60)
or
(11.61)
Substituting Q into Eq. (11.46) yields
(11.62)
Subsequently, substituting g(vT) into Eq. (11.51) yields
E[VTl = 1Tp-To
+
r’[f(r’ To) + Q] dT’, (11.63)
Equation (11.63) can be split up into two integrals, or
Finally,
(11.65)
Substituting Eq. (11.65) into Eq. (11.50), the mean number of recon-
ditioned unit failures in (To,Tp)can be found from
- [ (*p + 2 (Tp- To)+ 2 q]

(11.66)
Finally, substituting Eqs. (11.66) and (11.45) into Eq. (11.44), the
total expected maintenance cost per operating period Tpcan obtained,
.$fODIFZED BLOCK REPLACEMENT POLICY 377
or
- ( T p s- T o )
-e 2 [9 [(Tp -9 To) 4.1)
(1 1.67)
Theoretically, the minimum cost is found when $$ and %

are set
equal to zero, and the two equations are solved simultaneously for the
optimum switchover time T,'.T; will be obtained fust using the OBRP,
which is a one parameter policy; then, substituting T; in Eq. (11.67)
with the same p, C1 and C2,T,*wiU be found as the value which
minimizes further the total cost rate, C T - I X .The explicit procedure
and the results are the following:
1. Find the T; using the OBRP, as in Example 11-1, and obtain
C+,vlI = 80.1187 /hr and Tp'= 300 hr.
2. Find the optimum switchover time, and the minimum total pre-
ventive and corrective maintenance cost per unit time of opera-
tion, and obtain
C+-,, = $0.0998993 /hr a d Ti = 20.92567 hr.

3. Comparing the minimum cost obtained from the OBRP with
that obtained from Policy IX,we find that C+-V!, = 0.1187 >
C;.,,, = 0.1094. So a saving is achieved when using Policy IX.
3 78 BLOCK REPLACEMENT POLICY
0 Failure replacement x Failure
@ Planned replacement --- Idle rime
Fig. 11.3- Multiple block replacement with less reliable

units and idle time for Policy X.
11.2.3 MULTIPLE BLOCK REPLACEMENT POLICY

WITH IDLE TIME COST-POLICY X
11.2.3.1 DESCRIPTION OF POLICY
This policy is similar t o Policy IX in that it also has two time parame-
ters: To,the switchover time and Tp,the regular planned maintenance
time. However, instead of switching over to a less reliable substitute
towards the end of the (O,Tp)interval as in Policy IX,the equipment
is left idle until Tp,the planned replacement time. It is assumed that
the idle time cost is less than the corrective action cost. Policy X can
be stated as follows:
Replace operating item by new ones every Tptime; i.e., at k TP(k=
1,2,3,...); if operating items fail before time To;where ( k - 1) Tp <
To < k Tp, then replace with new identical ones; if components fail
-
after To;i.e., in the interval [(k 1) Tpi- To;k Tp],the equipment is
left idle; i.e., no corrective maintenance action is undertaken until the
scheduled Tp replacement time, as illustrated in Fig. 11.3.

The total maintenance cost per period Tp, CT,consists of the planned
replacement cost C1,the corrective replacement cost per failure, CZ,
and the system idle, or downtime, cost per unit idle time, C3,or
CT-X = c1 t c2 E[N[O,T]]t c3 E [ l i ] , (11.68)
where
ri = idle time, and (Tp- To)1 T i .
Fig. 11.4- Idle and forward recurrence times for Policy X.
+
Note that from time k Tp to ( k Tp To)ordinary renewal process
takes place, similar t o the one discussed in Section 11.2.2, since at
failure a new unit of zero age is substituted which is identical t o the
failed one. The expected number of failures E I N p T o ] ] can be found
using Eq. (11.45),or
E "[0,To] 1 = H~( 1, (11.69)
where Ho(To)is the renewal function already defined in Eq. (11.2).
To obtain the expected idle time, E [ t i ] ,note that it corresponds to
the mean left over time from the first failure in (To,Tp)to Tp,or
E[T;]= E[Tp- 7'1, (11.70)
as illustrated in Fig. 11.4.
r' was named the forward recurrence time, or residual life of the
component at To,or VT in Policy IX;then,
E[T;]= E[Tp - T' - To],
= Tp- To - E[T'I,
or
E[T;]= Tp- To - E [ V T ] . (11.71)
E [ V T ] was derived in Section 11.2.2 and given by Eq. (11.51) as
+
*f(u r') du ] d7'. (1 1.72)
Thus, the expected idle time per period Tp is given by
E[r;]= Tp- To1 -

Tp-To
7' [ f ( r ' t To)
+ iTo -ho(To u ) f(u + 7') du 1 dr'. (11.73)

and the total-cost model per unit time of operation, CT, assuming an
infinite time span, is given by
+ 1" ho(To- u) f(u t 7') du ] dr' .

11 (11.74)
EXAMPLE 11-4
Work out the same problem as in Example 11-3, but when the
units are preventively maintained under MBRP with Policy X, and (1)
the idle time cost is $5 per hour, and also when (2) the idle time cost
is $50 per hour.
SOLUTION TO EXAMPLE 1 1 4
Following the same procedure as in Example 11-3, the total pre-
ventive and corrective maintenance cost per unit time of operation, for
an equipment with infinite life time of operation, is
(11.75)
The T; and the C$,,II using the OBRP, as was done in the Ex-
ample 11-1, are
C+-vzz = $0.11874 /hr and Tp*= 300 hr.

PROBLEMS 381
The optimum switchover time, T,*, and the minimum total preven-
tive and corrective maintenance cost per unit time of operation are the
following:
(1) Cs = $5 per hour, C+-x = $0.10926 /hr and T,' = 293.75 hr.
(2) C, = $50 per hour, C;-x = $0.11874 /hr and T,*= 300 hr.
Comparing the minimum cost obtained from the OBRP with that
from Policy X (with the idle time cost $5 per hour), we find that
C;-vrr = 0.11874 > C+-x = 0.10926. So a saving is achieved when
using Policy X. It must be pointed out that there may be no such
savings if the cost of idle time, per hour of idle time, is substantially
large and To<< Tp. It can be seen that when the idle time cost is $50
per hour the switchover time is equal to the planned replacement time.
That means Policy X can't apply. Therefore the units are actually
maintained under the OBRP.
PROBLEMS
11-1. A unit has a gamma times-to-failure pdf with p = 2 and q =

100 hr. The unit is preventively maintained under the Ordinary
Block Replacement Policy. The planned replacement cost is $10.
The corrective replacement cost is $50. Find the minimum total
preventive maintenance cost per unit time of operation for this
policy and the optimum replacement time.
11-2. A unit has a gamma times-to-failure pdf with p = 2 and 17 =
50 hr. The unit is preventively maintained under the Ordinary
Block Replacement Policy. The planned replacement cost is $10.
The corrective replacement cost is $50. Find the minimum total
preventive maintenance cost per unit time of operation for this
policy and the optimum replacement time.
11-3. 100 units with gamma times-to-failure pdf's are put into opera-
tion at time T = 0. They are replaced according to the Ordinary
Block Replacement Policy on failure and at a predetermined time
interval T p . The parameters for the gamma pdf are p = 2 and
q = 100 hr. The preventive replacement cost is C, = $5. The
corrective replacement cost is C, = $80. The shortage cost per
unit time of operation per one unit, is cb = $20 /hr per unit. The
holding cost per unit time of operation per one unit is Ch = $1
/hr. The ordering cost is C, = $500 /order. It is assumed that
the desired assurance level is 95%. (1) If the order for spares is
382 MODIFIED BLOCK REPLACEMENT POLICIES
made every Tp hours, find the minimal total cost per unit time
of operation and the optimum preventive replacement schedule.
(2) Repeat Case 1 when the order for spares is made every 4 Tp
hours.
11-4. Work out Problem 11-3 again but for q = 200, q = 100 hr and
7 = 50 hr. (1) Find the optimal number of replacement intervals
which minimizes the total cost per unit time of operation. (2) For
each solution of Case 1 determine the number of required spares,
Sk, in stock at the beginning of each interval.
11-5. 100 units with gamma times-to-failure pdf’s are put into opera-
tion at time T = 0. They are replaced according to the Ordinary
Block Replacement Policy on failure and at a predetermined time
interval Tp. The parameters for the gamma pdf are p = 2 and
7) = 100 hr. The preventive replacement cost is C p = $5. The
corrective replacement cost is C, = $80. The shortage cost per
unit time of operation per one unit, is cb = $20 /hr per unit. The
holding cost per unit time of operation per one unit is Ch = $1
/hr. The ordering cost is Co = $100 /order. It is assumed that
the desired assurance level is 95%. (1) If the order for spares is
made every Tp hours, find the minimal total cost per unit time
of operation and the optimum preventive replacement schedule.
(2) Repeat Case 1 when the order for spares is made every 5 Tp
hours.
11-6. Work out Problem 11-5 again for the desired assurance levels of
90% and 99%. (1) Find the optimal number of replacement in-
tervals which minimizes the total cost per unit time of operation.
(2) For each solution of Case 1 determine the number of required
spares, Sk, in stock at the beginning of each interval.
11-7. New units have a gamma times-to-failure pa’j with /3 = 2 and q =
200 hr. The units are preventively maintained under Modified
Block Replacement Policy-Policy IX. The planned replacement
cost is C1= $10. The failed unit’s replacement cost with a new
component is Cz = $50. The failed unit’s replacement cost with
an used component is Cs = $20. The constant failure rate of
the reconditioned units is A‘ = 0.05 fr/hr. Find the minimum
total preventive and corrective maintenance cost per unit time of
operation, the optimum planned replacement time, Tp’, and the
optimum switchover time T,*.
11-8. New units have a gamma times-to-failure pdf with /3 = 2 and q =
100 hr. The units are preventively maintained under the Modified
Block Replacement Policy-Policy IX. The planned replacement
REFERENCES 383
cost is C1 = $10. The failed unit’s replacement cost with a new

component is Cz = $50. The failed unit’s replacement cost with
a used component is C3 = $20. The constant failure rate of
the reconditioned units is A’ = 0.005 fr/hr. Find the minimum
total preventive and corrective cost per unit time of operation,
the optimum planned replacement time, TP, and the optimum
switchover time T,’.
11-9. Work out Problem 11-7again, but now the units are preventively
maintained under the Modified Block Replacement Policy-Policy
X,and the idle time cost is $50 per hour.
11-10. Work out Problem 11-8 again, but the units are preventively
maintained under the Modified Block Replacement Policy-Policy
X,and the idle time cost is $50 per hour.
REFERENCES
2. Eraclides, S. T., “A Survey and Applications of Alternative Cost Saving
Preventive Maintenance Policies,” Master’s Research Report submitted
to Dr. Dimitri B. Kececioglu a t The University of Arizona, 113 pp.,
1984.
3. Acharya, D., Nagabhushanam, G. and Alam, S. S., “Jointly Optimal
Block-replacement and Spares Provisioning Policy,” IEEE Z’kansaclions
on Reliability, Vol. R-35, No. 4, pp. 447-451, 1986.
4. Crk,V., “Optimal Preventive Maintenance Schedule And Spare Provi-
sioning Policies,” Master’s Research Report submitted to Dr. Dimitri
B. Kececioglu at The University of Arizona, 147 pp., 1991.
Chapter 12
ADDITIONAL MAINTENANCE
POLICIES
12.1 OPTIONAL REPLACEMENT POLICY

- POLICY XI
12.1.1 INTRODUCTION
In Chapter 9 block and age preventive replacement policies were dis-
cussed. There may be some situations, however, in which neither of
these policies may be applied. For example, the age-based preventive
replacement policy can not take advantage of periods when replace-
ment is particularly cheap, and it may be difficult to schedule several
replacements at the same time. Also, after an in-service failure, the
block policy may result in the replacement of a nearly new component.
To overcome these disadvantages, Woodman [l]proposed a method
by which the drawbacks of both policies can be avoided. In fact the
policy that is developed includes the age and the block replacement
policies as its special cases. The improvement is brought about by
the simple expedient of replacing a component after a failure, but not
always replacing it when other replacement opportunities occur. Such
policies, where replacement is not obligatory at every opportunity, are
called Optional Replacement Policies. There are many industrial sit-
uations in which optional policies are relevant. For example, a plant
is frequently operated on a semi-continuous basis with regular shifts
provided for maintenance; these present opportunities for preventively
maintaining due components. An Optional Replacement Policy is re-
quired under these conditions since it would rarely be economical to
replace all components at every maintenance shift, because not all of
385
386 ADDITIONAL MAINTENANCE POLICES
them will have reached and/or exceeded their prespecified replacement

age.
General results about the best optional policies have been obtained
for components that deteriorate as they age [l]. It is found that the
best policy is to replace the component if its age reaches or exceeds a
preventive replacement age, otherwise to defer replacement. This result
applies, whether an age-based policy is being considered where planned
replacements occur at random or are entirely regular.
By examining two models in detail, optimal replacement rules have
been obtained for situations where the interval between replacement
opportunities, T,.,, has a negative exponential distribution, or is en-
tirely regular; i.e., constant.
12.1.2 POLICY PRINCIPLE

In this policy, preventive replacement is not obligatory at every op-
portunity. The unit is replaced preventively only if a replacement
opportunity occurs and the component’s age reaches or exceeds a pre-
specified preventive replacement age, Tp-xz, otherwise the component
is left to continue to operate during the opportunity. It is replaced
correctively whenever it fails. The objective is to find out a best pre-
ventive replacement age, TpfWxI,to minimize the total expected cost
per unit time of operation. Figure 12.1 illustrates the realization of
this policy.
In Fig. 12.1, Points A and B correspond to two in-service failures
before the threshold age, Tp-xz,is reached. Point C corresponds to a
preventive replacement where the component has crossed the threshold
age Tp-xz and coincides with an opportunity. At Point D ,an oppor-
tunity occurs, but the component fails before Tp,xz is reached (Point
E ) . This ends up with a failure replacement. Point F corresponds
to an in-service failure after the component crossed the threshold age
Tp,x- and failed before any opportunity occured. At Point G, an op-
portunity occurs, but the component is functioning at an age less than
the threshold level, TP-xz. Then no replacement is desired.
It may be seen from Fig. 12.1 that the time period during which the
age of the component is below TP-,yz and the time period during which
the age of the component remains above Tp,xz form one renewal cycle.
In other words, a typical renewal cycle under the Optional Replacement
Policy is composed of the following two periods:
1. The time period starting from the end of last renewal with the
age above T,-xz t o the moment when the next Tp,xz is reached.
2. The period from the moment when the T q - x ~is reached to the
moment when the component is replaced either preventively due
OPTIONAL REPLACEMENT POLICY 387
to the arrival of the opportunity or correctively due to its failure.
12.1.3 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OPTIONAL

REPLACEMENT POLICY AND BLOCK, AGE AND
PURE CORRECTIVE REPLACEMENT POLICIES
1. The Block Replacement Policy, regular or random, corresponds
to an Optional Replacement Policy with a preventive replacement
age of zero, or Tp-?z = 0 . This is the case when the component
fails before the arrival of, but very close to, the next replacement
opportunity, keeping in mind that in block replacement Tpis the
equipment’s operating time whereas here it is the equipment’s
age.
2 . The Pure Corrective Replacement corresponds to an Optional
Replacement Policy with a preventive replacement age of infinity,
or T,-xz = m.
3. The Age Replacement Policy corresponds to a limiting case of the
Optional Replacement Policy when times between opportunities
approach zero (very frequent replacement opportunities), because
the Age Replacement Policy requires that the replacement oppor-
tunity is always available at its preventive replacement age.
Fig. 12.1- Realization of an Optional Replacement Policy

with an age threshold, T P - x ~for
, preventive re-
placement.
12.1.4 ASSUMPTIONS FOR THE COST MODEL

The following assumptions need to be made to develop the cost model
for the Optional Replacement Policy [l]:
1. Although the system t o be maintained can consist of many com-
ponents, it is assumed that a failure and the costs associated with
failure and replacement are independent of other component fail-
ures. This condition is sufficient to ensure that each component
can be considered in isolation.
2. The failure of any component causes a system failure. Sys-
tem with standby components or with built-in redundancy are
thereby excluded. In addition, a system which has to be in-
spected to check whether or not it is still operational is also
excluded.
3. Both corrective and planned preventive replacements are made
with statistically identical components or by repair to the “as
good as new” condition, and their durations are negligible as
compared to the system operating time.
4. The population of replacement components and those in service
are homogeneous with an increasing failure rate.
5 . The state of a component is specified only by its age which is
always known.
12.1.5 COST MODEL WHEN THE INTERVAL BETWEEN

OPPORTUNITIES IS EXPONENTIALLY
DISTRIBUTED
In practice, opportunities for replacement may arise from many inde-
pendent sources. For example, some might arise from breakdowns of
other parts of the plant, or be the natural production breaks between
batches. The superimposition of several such independent sources gives
rise to intervals between opportunities which can be represented by a
negative exponential distribution, or the opportunity process follows a
Poisson p w e s s .
When the interval between replacement opportunities, T,,, is expo-
nentially distributed with a constant appearing rate, u , the expected
replacement cost per unit time, C(Tp,xr),is
mean total cost in one renewal cycle
c(Tp-xz) = mean length of one renewal cycle ’
where
= mean total corrective replacement cost before T,-xz is reached
+mean total preventive and corrective replacement cost
after Tp-xz is reached,
or
+
= N - c, [(1 - 21 I) c, t 11 ’ I ’ C,],
and
mean length of one renewal cycle
= mean time to the preventive replacement age
+mean time the component remains above the
preventive replacement age,
or
mean length of one renewal cycle
= L+l,
and
C, = preventive replacement cost,
C, = corrective replacement cost,
T,-xl = prescribed threshold age, or preventive replacement
age,
N = mean number of failures before the preventive
replacement age, T P - x ~is, reached,
or
(12.1)
L = mean time to the preventive replacement age,

or
R(t)dt
L= (12.2)
NTp-XI) ’
1 = mean time the system remains above the preventive
replacement age,
390 ADDITIONAL MAINTENANCE POL E E S
or
(12.3)
and
u e l = (mean number of preventive replacements above TP-xz) ,
5 l(at most 1).
Then, the mean total replacement cost per unit time of operation,
C(T,,xz), is given by
+
C(T,-XZ) = "* c, (1- u * 1)Cc+ u * 1 * CP]/(L
4-1 ) . (12.4)
Equation (12.1) can be derived as follows:
The number of trials t o reach the specified preventive replace-
ment age Tp-xz is a geometric process with the success probability
of R(Tp-xz) and the failure probability of 1- R ( T p - x ~for
) each trial.
Note that the last trial is always a success trial preceeded by several
failure trials. Each one of these preceeding failure trials consists of a
failure event occurring prior to age Tp followed by replacing the failed
unit by a fresh one. The success trial always ends up with a unit still
surviving at age Tp. The mean number of failures before a specified
age Tp-xz is reached, N, is given by
00
N = k { [l - R(Tp-xr)lkR(Tp-xr)) 7
k=O
00
or
N = 1 - R(Tp-xz)
W p - X I ) *
Equation (12.1) can also be derived directly as follows:

The mean number of trials t o reach the preventive replacement
age T,-xz is the mean of the geometric distribution with the success
probability of R(Tp-xz) for each trial, or
1
R (Tp- x z 1*
Since the last trial in a geometric process is always a success trial,

then the mean number of failures before the preventive replacement
~ reached, N , is given by
age T p - x is
1
N = - 1,
R(T~-xz)
or

The time for the component t o reach the preventive replacement
age Tp-x1, starting at age of zero, is the so-called first passage time.
The mean time t o reach the preventive replacement age Tp-xz, L, is
the sum of the mean time of the first N failure trials and the length of
the success trial (the last trial) which is always Tp-xz;i.e.,
L = (mean number of failures before the preventive
replacement age Tp-xz is reached) x (mean
+
conditional life for each failure trial) TP-xz,
or
L= [JP-”’ T f ( T ) ,571
R(Tp-xz)
+ Tp-XI.
The term for the mean conditional life is actually the mean life of the
truncated time-to-failure distribution or f ( T )truncated at TP-x1. But
Integrating by parts yields

T,-xI Tp-xx
T d [ - R ( T ) ]= -T R(T)Io LTp-xlR(T)dT,
or
J,
TP--x~
T f ( T )dT = -Tp-xz - R(Tp-xz) +1 T‘-xI
R ( T ) dT.

After the preventive replacement age Tp-xz is reached, the com-
ponent will be replaced either correctively whenever it fails, or pre-
ventively once the opportunity occurs, whichever comes first. This
replacement process can be considered as a “reliabilitywise-in-series”
process with the “component failure” and the “opportunity arrival”
as its “components.” Then, the process reliability in a mission time t ,
after the preventive replacement age Tp-xz is reached, is given by
where e-“ is used for the residual (conditional) life reliability of the
opportunity, since the exponential distribution is assumed for the time-
to-opportunity arrival.
Therefore, the mean time the component remains above the pre-
ventive replacement age, 1, is given by
or
EXAMPLE 12-1 [l]

The time to failure of a component follows a gamma distribution
with a shape parameter p = 10. Then,
or
The time between preventive replacement opportunities, T,,, is expo-

nentially distributed with an appearing rate of u. Do the following:
1. Analyze the behavior of the Optional Replacement Policy by
varying the ratio of preventive replacement age to the mean time
to failure, Tp-xz/m, and letting the mean interval between pre-
ventive replacement opportunities, t, be equal to the mean time
to failure, or
-U1 = p 77 = 10 7.
2. Determine the effect of different replacement opportunities 011
the best preventive replacement age.
3. Discuss the results.
I I
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1.0 1.25
Ratio of preventive replacement age to mean time to failure
Fig. 12.2- Performance of an optional policy with exponen-

tially distributed opportunities of Example 12-1,
where CR = 1.
1. Figure 12.2 shows the average cost rate for an Optional Replace-
ment Policy expressed as a ratio of the cost of implementing an
Optional Replacement Policy to that with no planned replace-
ments at all (pure corrective replacements). Separate lines have
been drawn for various ratios of Cp/Cc. Examination of Fig. 12.2
shows that for some combinations of costs and the preventive re-
placement age, the performance of the best optional replacement
policy is considerably cheaper than either the Block policy (which
corresponds to a preventive replacement age of zero), or a policy
with no preventive replacement at all (which corresponds to a
preventive replacement age of infinity).
2. The effect of different frequencies of replacement opportunities
on the best preventive replacement age is shown in Table 12.1.
The top row of the table applies when the replacement opportu-
nities are rare compared with the frequency of failures, and the
bottom row when the replacement opportunities are relatively
TABLE 12.1- The effect of replacement opportunity frequency

on the ratio of preventive replacement age to the
inherent mean life of the component, T,-xz/m,
when the time between opportunities is exponen-
tially distributed, for Example 12-1.
bplbc
Ratio C R ~ 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.05 0.01
0.25 - 1.00 0.76 0.68 0.60
0.52 0.32 0.20 0.12 0.04 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1 .oo 1.28 0.69 0.54 0.41 0.34 0.28
0.57 0.35 0.25 0.14 0.07 0.02
0.24 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4.00 0.95 0.62 0.50 0.37 0.27 0.14
0.65 0.46 0.37 0.26 0.17 0.06
I 0.45 I 0.31 I 0.24 I 0.15 I 0.07 I 0.00
Age Policy I 0.79 I 0.62 I 0.55 I 0.47 I 0.41 I 0.31
t C R = ratio of mean time to failure to mean interval

between replacement opportunities = m/$.
frequent. In each row block there are three figures for each cost
ratio. The center figure gives the best value of the preventive
replacement age, and the upper and lower values give the preven-
tive replacement ages resulting in costs in excess of the optimum
by 5%. At the bottom of the table for comparison purposes is
the best preventive replacement age for an age replacement pol-
icy which is the limiting case of the optional policy with “very
frequent replacement opportunities.”
3. The following can be concluded from the results in Table 12.1:
(a) The most important factor in determining the best preven-
tive replacement age is the cost mtio, Cp/Cc.
(b) The best preventive replacement age increases as replace-
ment opportunities become more frequent, because the in-
crease in Tp,xz results in more frequent corrective replace-
ments at the age lower than T,-xz and less frequent preven-
tive replacements plus corrective replacements above TP-xx,
due to more frequent opportunities.
12.1.6 COST MODEL WHEN THE INTERVAL BETWEEN

OPPORTUNITIES IS ENTIRELY REGULAR
Regular replacement opportunities could arise in practice when main-
tenance has to be carried out at weekends or other regular intervals,
for the convenience of operation or production. When the interval
between replacement opportunities, T r o , is regular, then
Tr, = constant.
To quantify the replacement cost between two adjacent replacement
opportunities, assume that the initial age of the component at the
beginning of an opportunity interval is TO.Then,
C(Tp,xz,TO)= expected replacement cost per unit time,
-
- expected replacement cost in one opportunity interval
7
expected length of one opportunity interval
or
(12.5)
where
H(TroITo)= expected number of failures in interval Tro, with
immediate replacement, starting with a
component of age TO.H(T,,ITo) can be
generated by the following recurrence
relationship:
H(OIT0) E 0, for all TO1 0 ,
(12.6)
and
PT,,(Y(To)= probability of a component having an age of Y
at the end of an interval of length T,, given
that it had an age TOinitially. PT,,(YITo) can
be generated from the following recurrence
relationship :
1, if Y = TO,
0 , otherwise.
(12.7)
EXAMPLE 12-2 [l]

Repeat Example 12-1, but with a constant time between opportu-
nities, Tr0.
1. Figure 12.3 shows, as Fig. 12.2, the average cost rate for an Op-
tional Replacement Policy expressed as the ratio of the cost of
implementing the optional replacement policy to that with no
planned replacements at all (pure corrective replacements). A
major feature of Fig. 12.3 is the step at a preventive replacement
age ratio of 1.00. This occurs because consecutive replacements
are prevented when the preventive replacement age exceeds the
int erval bet ween planned replacements.
Comparing Fig. 12.3 with Fig. 12.2 yields the following conclu-
sions:
(a) The costs are lower when the replacement opportunities are
regular and the same preventive replacement age is in force.
( b ) The best preventive replacement age for a n y cost ratio when
the replacement opportunities are regular is lower than that
for the case when replacement opportunities are exponen-
tially distributed.
2. The effect of different frequencies of replacement opportunities on
the best preventive replacement age is shown in Table 12.2. The
format is exactly the same as that for Table 12.1 in Example
12-1. The table was not extended to cover the more frequent
replacement opportunities since the same pattern is obtained as
in Table 12.1 of Example 12-1. The general conclusions about
the factors which aflect the best pmuentive replacement age are
unchanged. Perhaps the most striking aspect of the comparison
is that the results are so similar.
Ratio of cost of implementing
the Optional Replacement Policy
to that of no planned replacements
w
09
c)
8
P -. - 0
N
UI h
s 'tl
0
h
TABLE 12.2- The effect of replacement opportunity frequency

on the ratio of preventive replacement age to the
inherent mean life of the component, T p - x z / m ,
when the replacement opportunity is regular, for
Example 12-2.
CPICC
Ratio CR+ 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.05 0.01
0.25 - 0.90 0.70 0.60 0.50
0.40 0.20 0.10 0.05 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.00 0.96 0.58 0.42 0.25 0.21 0.17
0.46 0.25 0.17 0.06 0.02 0.00
0.05 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
t CR = ratio of mean time to failure to the constant interval

between replacement opportunities.
3. The following can be concluded from Table 12.2:

(a) The most important factor in determining the best preven-
tive replacement age is the cost ratio, C,,/C,.
(b) The best preventive replacement age increases as replace-
ment opportunities become more fmquent.
12.1.7 CONDITIONS FOR POLICY’S EXISTENCE

The following conditions are required for the optimum policy’s exis-
tence [I]:
1. c,/cp> 1.
2. The failure rate function of the component increases with age.
12.1.8 SPARES REQUIREMENT MODEL

For any given operating time period, ( O , t ) , the total average number
of spares of the component initially aged TO, Fsp, required for both
corrective and preventive replacements in operating period t of one
component ca.n be determined as follows [2]:
1. If T,, is exponentially distributed, then

- operating time
NSP = average length of one renewal cycle
x (average number of corrective plus
preventive replacements in one
renewal cycle),
or
(12.8)
2. If T,,is a constant, then

-
N s p = (number of opportunity intervals in operating
time t ) x (average number of corrective plus
preventive replacements in one opportunity
interval),
or
- t
NSP = --[H(T,oITo)
TTO
+ ~Trc(Tp-XIIT0)I. (12.9)
The actual number of spares, at a desired confidence level, CL =

1 - a,can be obtained by solving Eq. (12.10) for N,, for both cases;
i.e.,
(12.10)
12.1.9 RELIABILITY MODEL UNDER THE POLICY

The improved reliability of a component under the Optional Replace-
ment Policy, R(t),can be determined a follows:
1. When T,, is exponentially distributed:
(a) If T,-xI < l/u, then

R(t)E [R(l/U)]jR(.), (12.11)
where
j = INT(t * u ) ,
7 =t - (l/U)j,
and
-
I N T ( t u) = integer part of ( t . u) rounded
to the next lower integer value.
-
(b) If TP-x- > l / u , let k = INT(Tp-xz u) and
{
K = kk ,+ 1, ifif Tp-xz - ( l / u ) INT(Tp-xz - u) = 0,
TP-xz - ( l / u ) INT(Tp-xz - u) > 0.
a
Then,
R(t) 2 [R(K/u)]’R(r), (12.12)
where
j = INT{t/(K/u)),
and
T =t - (K/u)j.
2. When Trois constant:
(12.13)
12.1.10 CONCLUSIONS AND COMMENTS ON THE

POLICY
1. The most important factor in determining the best preventive
replacement age is the cost ratio, Cp/C,.
2. The best preventive replacement age increases as replacement
opportunities become more frequent.
3. The costs are lower when the replacement opportunities are reg-
ular and the same preventive replacement age is in force.
4. The best preventive replacement age for any cost ratio is lower
when the replacement opportunities are regular.
5 . When T,,xI 4 0, the Optional Replacement Policy reduces to
a Block Replacement Policy, regular or random.

6. When T,,xI + 00, the Optional Replacement Policy reduces
to a Pure Corrective Replacement.
7. When the times between opportunities T,, --t 0 (very frequent
replacement opportunities), the Optional Replacement Policy re-
duces to an Age Replacement Policy.
8. This policy is based on the assumption that the considered com-
ponent is economically independent of the rest of the components
in the parent system. Therefore, the policy is optimized solely for
the considered component excluding the cost factor due to joint
replacement with its “neighbors.” To avoid this drawback, the
Opportunistic Replacement Policy for economically-dependent-
component systems was proposed and is presented later in this
chapter,
12.2 MULTISTAGE REPLACEMENT POLICY

- POLICY XI1
12.2.1 INTRODUCTION - TWO-STAGE CASE [3]
One of the representative applications of the Two-stage Replacement
Policy is replacement of vehicle tires. For example, if a failure occurs
in a rear tire (Stage 2), and it is to be replaced, then it is replaced by
a tire from one of the front wheels (Stage 1) and the new tire is placed
on the front wheel.
Another application is the so-called “two-stage burn-in” for elec-
tronic components. All items are run for a period in a test-bed (Stage
MULTISTAGE REPLACEMENT POLICY 403
1). New items (not burned-in yet) are used to replace those that fail
in the test-bed (Stage l), while the in-service failures (Stage 2) are
replaced by items already operating in the test-bed (Stage 1). The
Two-stage Replacement Policy can be applied to such a system. This
process has been generalized to “multi-stage burn-in” where more test-
beds each with a certain number of items are used. The stage order
number for each test-bed is assigned according to its burn-in length; i.e,
the test-bed with the shortest burn-in length is Stage 1, the test-bed
--
with second shortest burn-in length is Stage 2, -,the test-bed with
the longest burn-in length is the last stage, say Stage n. New items
always go to the vacancies caused by the failures in Stage 1. Service
failures are always replaced by surviving items from Stage n. Failures
at Stage i (1 < i 5 n) are always replaced by surviving items from
Stage (i- 1).
Consider the case where a system contains N items, such as recti-

fiers or electric light bulbs, which have a distributed life. If items in
some locations are more expensive to replace than i n others, a simple
corrective replacement is not necessarily the most economical policy.
This situation may arise in practice because some parts of the sys-
tem are inaccessible or because failures i n key positions have expensive
repercussions in other parts of the system. Let us consider one of the
simplest models of this kind. Suppose that the N items can be divided
into two groups of sizes N1 and N2 where (N1 t N 2 ) = N . Let the
cost of replacing a member of the first group be Cjl and the cost of
replacing a member of the second group be Cj2.
If the failure rate of the items increases with age, that is, the older
the item becomes, the more likely it is to fail, and Cj, > C f 2 because
failures among the first group items incur extra costs by causing dam-
age to other parts of the system, then it seems reasonable to suppose
that the following strategy would reduce the o v e r d replacement costs.
Replace all failures in the second group (hereafter called Stage 2) by
items already operating in the first group (Stage 1). Fill all the vacan-
cies in Stage 1 by new items, whether the vacancy is caused by failure
or by transfer t o Stage 1. It is clear that such a strategy cannot agect
the ovemll failure rate, or the failure rate of the whole system. It will,
however, decrease the failure rate in Stage 1, where replacement of fail-
ures is relatively expensive, at the price of increasing the failure rate
in Stage 2 where replacement is cheaper. If we assume that the cost of
transferring an item from Stage 1 to Stage 2 is small compared with
Cjl, such a policy will result in a net saving over simple replacement.
A strategy of this kind will be described as “two-stage replacement.”
It may be represented diagrammatically by Fig. 12.4.
STAGE 1
Failures
New
components
* Nl
in Stage 1
b
cfl
components
I I STAGE2 I I Failures
N2
cfl
Fig. 1 2 . 4 Two-stage replacement policy.
-t in Stage 2
12.2.2 PRINCIPLE OF THE POLICY

In this policy [3; 4; 51 a system containing N identical components
is considered. These N components are divided into “n” groups or
stages of sizes, N1,Nz, .,N n , depending upon the cost of replacing
- 0
a component upon failure. Assume that the replacement costs per

component, in each group, are C j l , Cjz, -
C j n , respectively, and let
a ,
Cj1 > Cj2 > -.. > Cj,. Then the replacements are performed as
follows:
All failures in Stage ( i + 1) are replaced by components already
operating in Stage i where 1 5 i 5 n - 1. All vacancies in Stage i,
caused by failures and transfers of components into Stage ( i 1) are +
replaced by components operating in Stage ( i - 1). This process is
continued until Stage 1 is reached, where all vacancies resulting from
transfers and failures are replaced by new components. In Stage n all
failures are replaced by transferring components from Stage (n - 1);
there is no transfer of components from this stage. In this strategy,
new components enter only into Stage 1. The policy cannot change
the overall failure rate, but it certainly can decrease the failure rate in
Stage i at the expense of increasing the failure rate in Stage (i 1). +
The transfers can be made according to one of the following two rules:
1. Transfer by age - the oldest working component in Stage i is
transferred to Stage ( i + 1). Therefore, every component in Stage

+
(i 1) is older than any component of Stage i.
2. Transfer at random - pick arbitrarily a working component from
+
Stage i and transfer it to Stage ( i 1).
The objective of this policy is to find out the optimum grouping
(replacement cost order: increasing or decreasing; group composition:
number of components in each stage) to assure that the MuZtistage
Replacement Policy is preferable t o corrective replacement.
12.2.3 THE COST MODEL

The total expected cost of replacement per unit time of operation, in
the case of the n-stage replacement policy, Cn, is given by (41
C, = total corrective replacement cost
+total transfer cost
+
total capital cost,
or
where
Pi,i+l= transfer rate, or transfers/(component). (hr),
or expected number of transfers from Stage i to
+
Stage (i l),per component, per unit time of
operation,
Ci, j + 1 = cost of transferring one component from Stage i
+
t o Stage (i l),
m = mean life of a component,
or
m= lo R(T)dT,
rm
(12.16)
406 ADDITIONAL MAINTENANCE PO LICES
and
C, = capital cost of a component.
The tmnsfer mte, P;, i + l , depends on the transfer rule and the
life distribution of the components considered, and is determined as
follows:
1. If transfer is made by age; i.e., the oldest component in Stage i
+
is transferred t o Stage (i l), then Pj, i + l can be obtained by
eliminating T; between the following two equations:
where T; is the critical age for a component in Stage i. The

critical age for a component in Stage i is defined as the limiting
age of the components in Stage i when the system approaches its
steady state; i.e, when the system approaches its steady state,
the age of each component in Stage i will be less than T;.Solving
Eq. (12.17) yields
5 Nj
[
where P1(
Ti
j=i+l
pi, i+l = X r
n
= R-1( j$iN>)
, (12.18)
) is the inverse function of a component's reliability

function.
2. Iftransferismadeatrandom,thenP1,2,P;,i+l(i=2 , . . . , n - l )
and Pn-1, are given by
So" R(T)e-plJTdT = (Nl/N)rn,
R(T)e-Pivi+lTdT = N;/(?;-l Pi-1, ;), (12.19)
so" dT = Nn/(Nn-1 Pn-1, n).
EXAMPLE 12-3
Assume N components have an exponential life distribution with
failure rate A. Find the transfer rate PI,2 for the Two-stage Replace-
ment Policy with N l and Nz components at Stage 1 and Stage 2,
respectively, if
hf ULTISTAGE REPLACEMENT POLICY 407
(1) transfer is by age,

and
(2) transfer is at random.

For the exponential life distribution, the reliability function is
R(T)= e-’ T,
and the mean life is
m = 1/X.
Since there are only two stages, then n = 2.
1. If transfer is by age, then let i = 1 in Eq. (12.18) and solve for
P ~ Ji.e.,
;
or
N2
P1,2 = - A, transfers/(component). (hr).
N1
2. If transfer is at random, then from Eq.(12.19)
or
1
= - Nl
A t P1,2 A N ’
Then, since N = N1 Nz,+
EXAMPLE 12-4
There are ten (10) interchangeable, non-screened, line-replaceable
units (LRU’s) in a complex electronic system. According to their
failure replacement cost, they can be divided into the following two
groups:
1. Group 1: N1 = 4 with Cjl=$250 per failure.

2. Group 2: N 2 = 6 with Cj2=$600 per failure.
The capital cost of each LRU is C,=$200. Each transfer costs $25.
The life distribution of these non-screened LRU's is mixed expo-
nential with mean life of rn = 1,000 hr, or
where A 1 = 0.01 fr/hr, A2 = 0.000909 fr/hr and pl = 0.10. Do the

following:
1. Derive the transfer rate expressions of the two-stage replacement
policy for both the transfer-by-age and the transfer-at-random
cases.
2. Write down the cost equation for a two-stage replacement policy.
3. Write down the cost equation for a simple corrective replacement
policy.
4. To assure the superiority of the two-stage replacement policy
over the simple corrective replacement policy, how should the
two-stage replacement be conducted in this particular case?
5 . What is the cost savings of conducting the two-stage-replacement
policy over the simple-corrective-replacement policy?
SOLUTIONS TO EXAMPLE 1 2 4
Since this is a two-stage case, then n = 2. For the mixed-exponential
life distribution, the reliability function is
R(T)= Pl e -Xi T
+(1- p 1 ) e-'2 '.
1. If the transfer is by age, then let i = 1 in Eq. (12.18) and solve

for 9 , 2 ; i.e.,
n
os
s,2 =- N2 transfers/ (component 1. (lir). (12.20)

AT1 rn
If the transfer is at random, then from Eq,(12.19)
or
(12.21)
Rearranging yields
(S,2l2 +K S , 2 + G = 0,
where
and
N
G = A1 A2 --
N1 m
[PI A2 + (1- p 1 ) A,].
Solving Eq. (12.21) for 4 , 2 yields
- K + m
p1,2 = (12.22)
2
2. Since this is a two-stage replacement case, substituting n = 2
into Eq. (12.15) yields
c 2 = " N / m - N1 4 , s ) Cjl + 0 + Nl P1,2 C j 2 ]
+ N 1 p1,2 c 1 , 2 + ( W m ) c,,
or
N
C 2 =-
m ( C j l i -C c ) + NI PI,^ (Cj2 + C1,2 - Cj,). (12.23)
3. For a simple corrective replacement policy, the total expected

cost of replacement per unit time of operation is
1
co = -
m "1 (Cfl+ C C ) + N 2 (Cj2 + C,)],
or
(12.24)
410 ADDITIONAL MAINTENANCE POLZCES
4. To assure the superiority of the two-stage replacement policy

over the simple corrective replacement policy, C2, which is given
by Eq. (12.23), has to be less than CO,which is given by Eq.
(12.24). Now let’s calculate the values of these two costs to see
if they meet the requirement of CZ< CO.
Substituting N I = 4, cf1=$250, N2=6, Cj2=$600, N = 10,
Cc=$200, and m = 1,000 hr into Eq. (12.24) yields the total
expected corrective replacement cost per unit time of operation,
or
co = -
1,000
[4 (250) t 6 (600)t 10 (200)] = $6.600/hr.(12.25)
If the transfer is made by age, then substituting N1 = 4, Cj1=$250,

N2=6, Cj2=$6OO, Cc=$200, C1,2=$25, A1 = 0.01 fr/hr, A2 =
0.000909 fr/hr, pl=O.lO and m = 1,000 hr into Eqs. (12.20) and
(12.23) yields the transfer rate and the total expected cost of
two-stage replacement with transfer-by-age, respectively, or
6
p1,2 = 4 (1,000) = 1.5 x transfers/(LRU). (hr),
and
c
2 =-
lo (250 t 200) t 4 (1.5 x (600 t 25 - 2501,
1,000
or
C2 = $6.750/hr. (12.26)
It may be seen from Eqs. (12.25) and (12.2G) that

Cz = $6.750 > Co = $6.600.
Then, two-stage replacement policy with transfer-by-age is less
economical than the pure corrective replacement policy.
If the transfer is made at random, then substituting N1 = 4,
Cfl=$250, N2=6, Cjz=$GOO, Cc=$200, c1,2=$25,A 1 = 0.01
fr/hr, A 2 = 0.000909 fr/hr, pl=O.lO and m = 1,000 hr into
Eqs. (12.22) and (12.23) yields the transfer rate and the total
expected cost of two-stage replaceinelit with transfer-at-random,
respectively, or
-I< t-
4
p1,2 = = 1.391 x transfers/(LRU).(hr),
2
where
10
Ii' = 0.01 + 0.000909 - = 0.0084,
4 (1,000)
and
lo
G = 0.01 (0.000909) -
4 (1,000)
[0.1 (0.000909) + 0.9 (O.Ol)],
or
G = -1.364 x lom5,
and
lo (250 4-200) + 4 (1.391 x

c2 = - (600 + 25 - 250),
1,000
or
C2 = $6.587/hr. (12.27)
It may be seen from Eqs. (12.25) and (12.27) that

C2 = $6.587 < Co = $6.600.
Then, the two-stage replacement policy with transfer-at-random
is more economical than the pure corrective replacement policy.
Therefore, the two-stage replacement policy should be conducted
as follows: Any failed LRU in Group 1 should be replaced by
an identical new LRU. Any failed LRU in Group 2 should be
replaced by an operating LRU picked randomly from Group 1.
5. The net savings per unit time of operation of conducting such
a two-stage replacement policy with transfers-at-random over a
simple-corrective-replacement policy is
CO- C2 = $6.600 - $6.587 = $0.413/hr.
12.2.4 CONDITIONS FOR POLICY EXISTENCE

The conditions for the existence of an optimum Multistage Replacement
Policy are the following [4]:
1. When the transfer is made by age; then, do the following:
(a) If X(T) is a monotonic, non-decreasing function of T , the

grouping has to be done such that Cji > Cj(i+l),and it has
to be assured that
roo
- ( l / m ) ] dT > 0.
R(T)[X(T) (12.28)
JTi
(b) If X(T)is a monotonic, decreasing function of T , the group-
ing has to be done such that C j i < Cf(;+l),and it has to be
assured that
(12.29)
2. When the transfer is made at random, the conditions are almost

the same as in (a) and (b) of Case 1 when the transfer is made
by age, except that Eqs. (12.28) and (12.29) are changed to:
loo e-eT[e-T/m - R(T)] dT > 0, (12.30)
and
(12.31)
respectively, where
12.2.5 SPARES REQUIREMENT MODEL

Since the overall failure rate of the system is not changed under this
policy, then the total expected number of spares of the system with N
components in ( 0 , t ) is [2]
-
N , , = N x [(overall failure rate) x (operating time)],
or
-
N , , = ( N / m )t. (12.33)
The actual number of spares, N s p , with CL = 1- a can be obtained
by solving
(12.34)
OPPORTUNISTIC REPLACEMENT POLICY 413
12.2.6 THE SYSTEM’S RELIABILITY MODEL UNDER

THE MULTISTAGE REPLACEMENT POLICY
Since the failure rate of the system is not influenced by the policy,
the system’s reliability will be the same as that when no maintenance
policy is implemented [2]. If the N components are reliabilitywise in
series, then
(12.35)
12.2.7 COMMENTS
The a.pplication of the Multistage Replacement Policy requires the ex-
changeability among the components in the parent system and a gra-
dient i n their replacement costs.
12.3 OPPORTUNISTIC REPLACEMENT

POLICY - POLICY XI11
12.3.1 PRINCIPLE OF THE POLICY
Many investigations have shown that for multi-component systems, if
the components are economically dependent, the opportunistic replace-
ment policy will be the best one [2; 5 ; 6; 71. The components are said to
be economically dependent if the cost of replacing several components
jointly i n a system is less than the sum of the cost of several separate
replaceiiients of the same components. Opportunistic replacement is
such a strategy that the preventive replacement action upon a compo-
nent in the system can be performed a t any opportunity offered either
by other components’ failures (joint replacement) or by the arrivals
of preventive replacement ages of the designated component (separate
replacement) and of other components (joint replacement), and correc-
tive rephcement is made whenever the failure occurs. The objective of
this policy is to seek optimal component replacement decisions for all
components in the system at any moment and at various state combi-
nations of the components, as to whether to exercise separate or joint,
corrective or preventive, replacements or to keep the component(s) in
service. A multi-stage decision technique can be used to find the best
policy by applying discrete-time, stochastic, dynamic programming.
Backward direction
4
1 1 , 0 0 0 I+.
0
n n-1 n-2 n-3 n-4 2 1 0

Stage or number of periods to operate
0 A 2A 3A 4A (n-2)A (n- 1 ) A n A=T

Accumulated operating t h e
Fig. 12.5 - Accumulated operating time and the dynamic

programming stages.
12.3.2 COST MODEL ESTABLISHMENT

Consider a system composed of m 2 2 components having differ-
ent life distributions with the corresponding reliability functions of
-
R l ( t ) ,R2(t), * .,R m ( t ) . The system’s state can be uniquely repre-
sented by the components’ age combination. Let the individual pre-
-
ventive replacement costs be C p l ,Cp2, * -,C p m , and the joint preven-
tive replacement costs be Cp12,c p 1 3 , ..., Cp(m-l)m;c p 1 2 3 , Cp124,...,
..
Cp~m-21(m-1)m; Cp123.,.(m-1)m.
a; Let the penalty costs of failure
replacement be PC1, PC2, PCm (individual); PC12, Pc13, * . * ,
. . a ,
pc(m-l)m; pc123, pc124, ’ ’ ‘ 9 P c ( m - 2 ) ( m - l ) m ; ’ * ‘i PC123-.(m-l)m

(joint). Also consider that the planned period of operation is T, or
equivalently n periods of operation of duration A for each period; i.e.,
A = T/n, (12.36)
as shown in Fig. 12.5.

The dynamic programming stages are taken to be the time periods
in which the system is expected to operate, as also shown in Fig. 12.5.
The system’s state is taken to be the components’ age combination at
the beginning of a given stage k , and is expressed as
where
Sk = age of component L at stage k, L = 1,2,. m.
a , ,
Obviously s s k not only describes the state transition of the system,

but is also Markovian in nature. This is so because the system’s state
(components’ age combination in the system) at Stage k - 1, s s k - 1 ,
depends only on the system’s state at Stage k, s s k , and the decision
made at Stage k , but is completely independent of the previous states
(at Stages n, n - 1,-..,k + 2 , k + 1) and of how long it takes t o go from
the initial state t o the state at Stage k. The decision at each stage
is whether the components should be replaced or kept in use, and is
represented by d s k .
Define Ck(SSk) as the minimum expected cost of Components 1,
2, 3, - - -, m with ages Si,Sl,. - SF and k periods to go. Then, the
a ,
Rellman hnctional equation can be written out as follows [7; 8; 9; lo]:
(12.37)
where
dSk = decision made on the system at stage k,
t5k = undetermined events which may occur
under d s k and S s k with their own
feasible range & and mass function
p k ( e ‘ k ) , and causes the
next state to be stochastic,
t k ( . ) = state transition function at Stage k ,
-
S s k - 1 = system state at Stage k - 1 which is
a random variable,
fk(dsk,SSk,Zk) = decision cost at Stage b which is a
function of the system’s current state
s s k , decision d s k and the random
events Zk under s s k and dsk,
s. t . = abbreviation of “subject to,”
and
Dk = feasible decision sets for the system
a t Stage k.
Under the opportunistic replacement policy, the feasible decision sets
at any stage of the system are
replacing Component 1 preventively,
replacing Component 2 preventively,
I
replacing Component rn preventively, J
C& in all,
replacing Components 1 and 2 preventively,

replacing Components 1 and 3 preventively,
C;t, in all,
replacing Components (rn - 1) and m preventively,
1
replacing Components 1, 2 and 3 preventively,
replacing Components 1, 2 and 4 preventively,
C$ in all,
ieplacing Component (m- 2), ( m- 1) and m preventively, J
replacing Component 1, 2, 3, and rn preventively,}Cz in all,

a,
replacing Component(s) only upon failure,
(12.38)
where
CL = combination value of m choosing i.
The state transitions of any component L , L = 1,2, * , m, in the
system with an age of Sk a t Stage k under different decisions are shown
in Fig. 12.6, where k = n - 3 and Sk = S,k, = 3. If component L is
replaced preventively at Stage k, then an identical new component will
start its mission immediately at Stage R with an initial age of zero. If
the decision is t o “keep it in service,” then there will be two possible
out comes:
0PPO RT UNISTIC REPLACEMENT POLICY 417
0
w
- _ _q.,_ _s,"_+_ _ _ _
d
PI
*a -r
a
E
= 1=J
.-
C st =3
m-------
8
U
rd
--
- --
0 . I t
I I I
Fig. 12.6 - State transitions of any component L, L =

1,2,. -,m, under different decisions.
418 ADDITIONAL M AIN T E N ANCE POLICES
1. Component L survives the next period with an age increment of

1 at Stage (k - l),or
sk, = s,L + 1.
2. Component L fails before next stage, or a t Stage ( k - l ) , and is
replaced correctively by an identical new component starting its
mission at Stage (k - 1) with an initial age of zero, or
,s,L = 0.
The probability of the first outcome is the probability of component
L with present age Sf surviving the next period. The probability of
the second outcome is the probability of component L with present age
S i , not surviving the next period, or one minus the first probability.
Therefore, the cost model given by Eq. (12.37) may be written as
= MIN
(P1q
+(1 -
with the initial condition of

c ~ ( s ~ , s ~ , . . . ,fso r~d)S=i $o>,O , L = 1,2,...,m,
where
PLs; = probability of Component L with present age
Sk surviving the next period,
C,; + PCi = corrective replacement cost of Component
i where i = 1,2, - - - ,m,
Cp;j+ PCij = joint corrective replacement cost of
Components i and j, where i = 1,2,
---,m,j=1,2,---,m,andi#j,
and
+
CplZ...(m-l)mPC12...(m-l)m= joint corrective replacement
cost of all m components.
By the conditional probability law
PLSt = w s , Li- 1)AI/RL"Sk)Al. (12.40)

If a two-parameter Weibull distribution is used for the components'
lives, or
(12.41)
where
p = shape parameter,
and
77 = scale parameter,
then
or
Since Eq. (12.39)is a stochastic dynamic programming model, the

optimum decision sets at any Stage k, ds;, and the associated minimal
expected costs in the k periods of operation, C k ( S S k ) , can only be
obtained by a backward optimization algorithm [8; 9; lo]; i.e.,
This process is implemented using a computer program whose flow

diagram when m = 2 is given in Fig. 12.10.
12.3.3 TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES AND SOLUTIONS

IN THE DYNAMIC PROGRAMMING PROCESS
12.3.3.1 STATE SETS AND TEE OLDEST AGE

Theoretically, each component’s life (or age) is a continuous variable
with the domain of [0, m). To make the system state sets finite so that
dynamic programming can be carried out, let us introduce the concept
of the “oldest age.” The “oldest age” of a component is defined as the
99th percentile of its life. This percentile can be changed depending on
the positive skewness of the components’ life distributions. It should
be increased for highly-skewed-to-the-right distributions. Therefore,
s: E [O,T&,] , L = l , 2 , . * . , m , (12.42)
OPPORT UArlSTIC REPLACEMENT POLICY 421
in unit of hours, or
in unit of A, where
Tkg9= 99th percentile of unit L7s life,

and
I N T ( X ) = integer part of X rounded to the next
lower integer value.
If the Weibull distribution is used for the component's life, then
Tkgg = T(R(T)=o.oI
= 7 (1% 100)l'p- (12.44)
12.3.3.2 DIMENSIONALITY REDUCTION
To overcome the difficulty due to the dimensional increase of array

Ck(S:,S~,--.,S~) and d s k ( S ~ , S ~ , - . -as, mincreases
S~), during the
iteration of Eq. (12.39), a dimensionality reduction technique is needed
during the computation process. According to the data structure the-
ory [ll],an array of m dimensions, A(al,a2,...,arn), can be stored
rowwise or columnwise into an one-dimensional array, B( b ) , where
al ,a 2 , . .,am are the subscripts of the m-dimensional array A, and
b is the subscript of the one-dimensional array B.
Let a(; and a,; be the lower and upper bounds for a ; , i = 1 , 2 , . . . , m.
Then, the total number of elements in array A is
(12.45)
Let bl and b, be the lower and upper bounds for the subscripts of array
B . Then, the total number of elements in arrays A and B should be
equal; i.e.,
[ 12.4G)
Next Page
-
When array A(u1, u2, * -,am) is stored rowwise into array B(b), their
subscripts have the following relationship:
where
(12.48)
and
w, = 1. (12.49)
Conversely when array B(b)is stored rowwise into array A(u1, u 2 , . - .,urn),
their subscripts have the following relationship:
where
I N T ( X ) = integer part of X.
Using Eq. (12.47), we can store the elements of an m-dimensional ar-
ray, A(u1,up, -
u m ) , into their corresponding locations in an one-
e e ,
dimensional array, B( b). The intermediate computation is done based

on this one-dimensional array. Finally, the information represented by
Array A can be recovered using Eq. (12.50). With these techniques,
we can make a dynamic programming decision on a multicomponent
system with any number of components as long as there is sufficient
computer memory.
12.3.4 CONDITIONS FOR POLICY EXISTENCE

The failure rate of each component should be non-decreasing [a].
Chapter 13
OVERHAUL POLICIES
13.1 OVERHAUL
Overhaul is a maintenance activity undertaken at scheduled time in-
tervals whose primary purpose is to reduce the number of failures and
prevent equipment from reaching the age at which frequent failures
cause substantial loss of performance. In comparison with the preven-
tive maintenance policies, given in Chapters 9, 10, 11 and 12 by which
a component, an equipment or a system is restored to “as good as new”
condition after replacement or repair, an overhaul action is considered
as a restorative action which does not return an equipment to “as good
as new” condition but improves its performance. Figure 13.1 illustrates
the effect of overhaul and repair on the equipment’s condition. It may
be Seen that there is gradual deterioration of the equipment’s perfor-
mance over time which ends eventually in the replacement of the whole
equipment.
In contrast to preventive maintenance policies where the criteria
are most often to determine the optimum replacement or repair sched-
ule so that the total cost per unit of operating time is minimized, an
overhaul strategy is based on making decisions whether, and when, to
overhaul, as well as the level of overhaul to which equipment is to be
repaired. Overhaul versus replacement and repair is a decision most
often based on minimization of future cost, maximization of future
benefits or reducing the failure rate to acceptable levels. The decision
is usually made at regular time intervals so that the loss of production
due to downtime is minimized. For example, overhaul/replacement de-
cision is made once a week, once a month or once a year. To optimize
the overhaul/repair/replacement activities over a sequence of regular
intervals, information about overhaul, repair and replacement costs is
required. Since overhaul may consist of different maintenance activi-
461
462 OVERHAUL
Uptime and maintenance time
Fig. 13.1 - Effect of overhaul and repair t o equipment per-

formance.
OVERHAUL PoLrcms 463
ties, replacements or adjustments of different components, depending

upon their ages, each time the overhaul decision is made the cost of
overhaul is very likely to vary from one decision to the next. There-
fore, to predict the cost of an overhaul may not be possible until the
equipment is inspected. Upon assessing the cost of overhaul it is com-
pared to a predetermined economic overhaul cost limit and a decision
is made whether to overhaul, repair or replace.
13.2 OVERHAUL DEFINED

Overhaul can be classified as follows:
1. Scheduled Overhaul.
2. Off-schedule Overhaul.
Scheduled overhaul is a preventive maintenance, while off-schedule
overhaul is a corrective maintenance.
Overhaul and repair concepts are very important in the maintain-
ability, availability and dependability [See Chapter 3, Volume 2 of this
Handbook] of the equipment.
The system operating time is defined as follows:
Topt = T - T d ,
where
T = calendar time,
Td = total downtime (overhaul time),
and
Topt= system’s operating time.

If rn is equal to the mean time between failures of a system, then
we can find out how often the system will fail in a time Toptbetween
two regular overhauls.
If between two regular overhauls the system is not affected by wear-
out failures so that it behaves exponentially, as shown in Fig. 13.2, its
reliability of operating for Topthours between overhauls is
(13.1)
If the time between two overhauls of an equipment or a system is
fixed and equal to a mission or required operating time (To = Topt),
then from Q. (13.1), it is obvious that, depending on the M T B F
464 OVERHAUL DEFINED
Early failure
period
- Chance failures
- t -
-start of
wear-out
Fig. 13.2 - The “reliability bathtub” curve.

OVERHAUL POLICIES 465
and thereby on the reliability of the equipment, not all equipments

will reach the regular overhaul time of To without failing and Q(To)=
[1 - R(TO)]% is the probability that the equipment will fail before the
time To. So the number of equipments to be overhauled before the To
hours is given by
NF = N Q(T0).
The expected average overhaul time for all these equipments would
be less than To, therefore we need to find the average time between
overhauls (T)which is given by
-
T= iTo R ( t ) dt. (13.2)
In the exponential case this is given by
or
-
T = rn Q(To). (13.3)
Therefore, in general, equals the mean time between failures
multiplied by the unreliability for the overhaul period.
EXAMPLE 13-1
100 units with the mean time to failure, rn = 5,000 hr, are to
be overhauled at regularly scheduled time intervals, To, equal to 500
hours. Determine the following:
1. The reliability of a unit for a mission duration equal to the total

operating time, To,between two overhauls.
2. The expected number of unscheduled overhauls in one interval,
To,or between two scheduled overhaul actions.
3. The average time between overhauls €or both scheduled and un-
scheduled overhaul actions.
1. The reliability of a unit with the mean time between failures of

m = 5,000,for a mission duration of To = 500 hr, is given by
or
R(500) = e-*,
- e-O.l 9
or
R(500) = 0.904837.
2. The expected number of unscheduled overhauls between two sched-

uled ones, or in the interval of To= 500 hr, is equal to the number
of units that will fail before To hours, or
NF = N Q(T'),
= N [1 - R(TO)I,
= 100 [1 - 0.9048371,
= 9.5163,
or
NF = 10 failures or overhauls.
3. The average time between overhauls is given by Eq. (13.3),or

-
T = m &(To),
= 11 - R(TO)I,
= 5,000 [l - R(500)],
= 5,000 [l - 0.9048371,
or
-T = 475.815 hr.
The main function of overhaul is to prevent wear-out. The Weibull
distribution with shape parameter p > 1 represents the times to wear-
out quite well. Figure 13.2 shows a typical "reliability bathtub curve"
OVERHA UL POLICIES 467
with the overhaul schedule, To,so chosen that the occurrence of wear-
out failures is reduced to a minimum. The Weibull pdf is given by
(13.4)
When p = 1 this pdf reduces to the exponential distribution, and then

only chance failures occur. Assuming that the time To is equal to the
time at which chance failures end and wear-out starts; i.e., the time
at which overhaul becomes mandatory, then the reliability function for
this point, where the occurrence of chance failures ends and wear-out
failures start, can be written as
(13.5)
where
Pc = shape parameter for chance failures ( p = l),
pw = shape parameter for wear-out failures (P > l),
qc = scale parameter for chance failures (qc = rn, = x),
1
qw = scale parameter for wear-out failures,

T~ = location parameter for chance failures,
"yw = location parameter for wear-out failures,
NC = subpopulation undergoing chance failures,
-
N
and
-
N W
N
= subpopulation undergoing wear-out failures.
The reliability of the system for a new mission of duration of t hours,
starting the mission at age To(overhaul interval), or after having al-
ready operated a total of To hours, is obtained from
(13.6)
or
3e-(-)@" vc + +e-(T~~~'Ly)pw
Rc,w(To,t ) =
+ +e - ( T o ~ ~ ~ ) P w
Pc
LL
N e-(Tv.
The overhaul interval, To,

should be so determined that the follow-
ing condition is satisfied:
&,w(To, t ) 2 RGOAL.
The mean time between both scheduled and unscheduled overhauls

is given by
MTBO = lTo R,,,(T) 0, (13.7)

or
or
Equation (13.8) can be solved numerically to find the mean time be-
tween scheduled and unscheduled overhauls.
The expected number of overhauls that will be performed in calen-
dar time, T,which is the operating time plus total downtime, is given
bY
(13.9)
where
Nwh = number of overhauls,
T = calendar time,
TD = total overhaul time or total downtime,
and
M T B O = mean time between overhauls.

The number of units that will fail during the calendar time using
the scheduled overhaul period, To, [ I , pp. 531-5591 is given by
NF = N Q(To),
= N [1 - W O ) ] ,
or
EXAMPLE 13-2
A mixed sample of exponential and Weibullian parts is used in
an equipment. Ninety percent of the parts are exponential with the
following parameters:
pc = 1.0; qc = 5,000 hr and yc = 0 hr.
Ten percent of the parts are Weibullian with the following parameters:
& = 2.5; qw = 1,000 hr and -yw = 0 hr.
If the reliability goal is &OAL = 0.985, determine the following:
1. The interval between overhauls, To, so that the reliability for a
mission duration of 50 hr satisfies the reliability god.
2. The mean time between both scheduled and unscheduled over-
hauls, MTBO.
3. If 100 such equipment are in operation, determine the number of
those that will fail prior to the overhaul time, To.
1. Using Eq. (13.6) and the given parameters, the reliability of
an equipment for a mission duration of 50 hr, given that the
equipment is overhauled every To hours, is given by
To determine the value of To so that

&,w(To, 50) Z RGOAL= 0.985, ( 13.10)
choose different values of To and check whether the inequality of
Eq. (13.10) is satisfied. It is determined that for To = 700 hr
&.,(700,50) = 0.985. Therefore, the interval between overhauls
is 700 hr.
2. The mean time between overhauls is given by
MTBO =
5*000 +
- 4,500 (1 - e -1pe i7" 0.1 e - ( m )
T 25
' dT,
- 587.888 + L 7 0 0 0.1 e - c G ) 2 ' 5dT, (13.11)

The integral of Fq. (13.11) can be solved by numerical inte-

gration, or by using Simpson's Rule with sufficient number of
intervals. Then,
M T B O = 587.888 + 62.694 = 650.582 hr.
3. To determine the number of equipment that will fail prior to the
overhaul time, To,calculate the reliability for a mission duration
of To hours. Then,
= 0.782422 + 0.066367,
or
R,,w(700) = 0.848789.
If 100 such equipment are in operation, then the number of those
that will fail prior to To = 700 hr, is given by
N j = N Qc,w(TO),
= N [1 - & ( ~ o ) ] ,
= 100 [l - 0.8487891,
= 15.1211,
or
Nj = 16 units.
13.2.1 WHEN THE WEAR-OUT PDF IS NORMAL

If the wear-out times-tefailure distribution is normal, then
1 -1-2
f(T)= e 2( 1, 0 (13.12)
where
p = mean wear life,
T = age, or accumulated operating time since new,
and
0 = standard deviation of the life times.
Here the case when only one failure mode can occur is considered;
i.e., only chance failures can occur or only wear-out failures can occur
and not both simultaneously.
If T, = ( p - 3 a) is chosen as a replacement or overhaul time,

the probability of wear-out failure for the entire operating life of the
component from T = 0 to T = Tw = ( p - 3 a) amounts to
Qw(Tw)= 0.0015,
which can be obtained from the cumulative normal distribution tables.
For different overhaul intervals, the probabilities of wear-out failures
are as follows:
For
T, = p - 4 Q ; Qw = 0.0000317 = 3.17 x
Tw = p - 5 a ; Qw = 0.000000287 = 2.87 x
Tw = p - 6 Q ; Qw = 9.8659 x lo-',
and so on.
To reduce the number of failures which are caused by wear-out the
overhaul interval, To = T,, or
T ~ = ~ - z u , (13.13)
should be so chosen that the probability of wear-out failures is small.
For single components the replacement or overhaul time must be
kept at ( p - 4 a) or ( p - 5 a) or in between, to prevent wear-out from
appreciably increasing the failure rate. If large numbers of components
are in a system, this replacement or overhaul time must be further
reduced to ( p - 5 a),or even ( p - 6 a),according to the reliability
requirements.
By a proper choice of the replacement, or overhaul, time To = ( p -
t a ) ,wear-out failures can be substantially reduced, or even eliminated.
Then, only chance failures would occur and the probability that the
equipment would fail in operation is drastically reduced.
When only chance failures occur between regular overhauls, the
number of parts of the same kind which will have to be replaced because
of failing prior to regular overhaul time Toamounts, on the average, to
(13.14)
When Q(To)is small and only chance failures occur [2, p. 2001,
then
m
and Eq. (13.14)yields
N j = N - 1. 0 ( 13.15)
m
EXAMPLE 13-3
An equipment has a mean time to failure of m = 4,000 hr, a mean
wear-out life of p = 1,200 hr and a standard deviation of Q = 100
hr. To prevent the wear-out failure from occurring prior to scheduled
overhauls the interval between overhauls, To, should be determined
from To = p - 4 Q. Determine the following:
1. The interval between overhauls, To, and the reliability of an
equipment for a mission duration of T = To assuming that only
chance failures occur.
2. The probability of wear-out failures occurring prior to To.
3. The probability of chance failures occurring prior to To.
4. Compare the results of Cases 2 and 3.
5. If 100 such equipment are in operation how many will fail due to
chance failures prior to To?
6. If the interval between overhauls is extended to To = 1,000 hr,
what is the probability of wear-out failures occurring prior to To?
Compare this result to the result of Case 2.
7. Determine the reliability of an equipment for a mission duration
of T = To = 1,000 hr and compare this result with the result of
Case 1.
8. If 100 such equipment are in operation, how many will fail due
to chance failures prior to To = 1,000 hr?
9. What should be the mean wear-out designed-in life if there is
a requirement that not more than 1% fail due to wear-out, as-
suming that a good approximation of the standard deviation is
,
0 = #.
1. Using Eq. (13.13) yields

To = p - 4 Q,
= 1,200 - 4 (loo),
or
To = 800 hr.
Assuming that only chance failures occur, the reliability of an

equipment for a mission duration of T = To is given by
-&L
R(800) = e 4,000,
- e-o.2 ?
or
R(800) = 0.81873.
2. The probability of wear-out failures occurring prior to To = 800

hr is obtained from
T ~ = ~ - z u .
Since z = 4, then from the standard cumulative normal distribu-
tion tables the probability of wear-out failure is
&(To) = 0.0000317.
3. The probability of chance failures occurring prior to To = 800 hr

is given by
Qc(800) = 1 - R(800),
= 1-0.81873,
or
Qc(800) = 0.18127.
4. Comparing the results of Cases 2 and 3 it can be seen that the

wear-out failures are negligible which is the purpose of overhaul
actions undertaken every To = 800 hr, whereby the equipment is
not allowed to go significantly into wear-out.
5. If there are N = 100 units at the start of an overhaul interval
of To = 800 hr, then the number of those that will fail due to
chance failures is given by
N f = N Q(800),
= 100 (0.18127),
= 18.127,
or
N j = 19 units.
6. If the interval between overhauls is extended to To = 1,000 hr,

the probability of wear-out failures is obtained from Eq. (13.13),
or
T0zp-z U.
Then
z=- P - To
U
- 1,200 - 1,000
-
100 '
or
z = 2.
From the standard normal cumulative distribution tables and for
z = 2 the probability of wear-out failures is
Qw(l,000) = 0.02275.
Comparing the results of Cases 2 and 6 it can be seen that when
the overhaul interval, To, is extended from 800 hr to 1,000 hr
the probability of wear-out failures increases from 0.0000317 to
0.02275.
7. The reliability of an equipment for a mission duration of T =
To = 1,000 is given by
~ ( 1 , 0 0 0 )= e - s ,
- e-0.25 9
or
R(1,000) = 0.7788.
Comparing the results of Cases 1 and 7 it can be seen that when
the overhaul interval, To,is extended from 800 hr to 1,000 hr the
reliability of an equipment for a mission duration of To = 1,000
hr decreases from 0.81873 to 0.7788.
8. If there are N = 100 units at the start of an overhaul interval
of To = 1,000 hr, then the number of those that will fail due to
chance failures is given by
Nf = N Q(l,000),
= N [l - R(TO)]
= 100 [l -0.77881,
= 22.12,
or
N j = 23.
9. Using the standard normal cumulative tables for a value of 1%,

or 0.01 probability of failure, yields z = 2.326. Using Eq. (13.13)
yields
or
To = p (1 - 6). (13.16)
Solving Q. (13.16) for p yields

rn
- 1. ooo
2.326 7
1 - T
or
p = 1,303.1 hr.
Therefore, if it is required that the number of failures due to

wear-out prior to To = 1,000 hr does not exceed 1% then the
designed-in mean wear-out life must be at least 1,303.1 hr.
13.2.2 MEAN TIME BETWEEN FAILURES OF A RENEW-

ABLE DEVICE OR A SYSTEM
Assume that
Tre = operating time between two inspections,
mT,, = mean time between failures if the system is inspected every
T,, hours,
and
-
Tre= average time between scheduled and unscheduled replace-
ments.
The mean time between renewals of a renewable device or a system,

mT,,,is given by [See Section 9.21
( 13.17)
which is the ratio of the expected, or average time, ?ire, between sched-
uled and unscheduled overhauls to the fraction of overhauls caused by
the actual failure of the system. From Eq. (13.17)
( 13.18)
In case of an exponential system Eq. (13.17) reduces to

s,'.. R(t) dt
W r e =
Q(Tre) '
-
-
J2.e-k dt
Q(Tre) '
or
mT,, = m.
It is known that for a nonmaintained system its mean life is given by
00
m= R(t) dt.
However, for a maintained system the average constant failure rate is

given by
(13.19)
Equation (13.17) for mT,,and (13.19) for Aavg are valid regardless of
the failure distribution of the components. For example, if a component
fails only because of wear-out and is not preventively replaced after ?"re
hours of operation, it will fail with a mean time between failures equal
to its mean wear-out life, m.
When the component is overhauled every T, hours, its mean time

between failures is given by
(13.20)
where
T = the age of the component,

and
T, = regular replacement time.

The average stabilized failure rate of the component is given by
(13.21)
13.3 DYNAMIC PROGRAMING BASICS

The most efficient method of solving the overhaul/repair/replace o p
timization problems is by using dynamic programing techniques. In
order to formulate a problem as a dynamic program it is necessary to
define the stages which correspond to a sequence of decision points. If
a decision is made in time intervals of one year, each stage is so num-
bered that the stage number corresponds to the number of remaining
years for which a system should stay in service. For example, the Stage
1 corresponds to the decision point where one year remains, and Stage
n corresponds to the decision point where n years of system operation
remain. Each stage or each decision point is characterized by several
variables such as the equipment's age at the present stage, or the state
of the equipment at the next stage.
Now, we can define the equipment as a system whose state (i,j , .. .)
is defined by these variables. S,,(i,j,. . .) is an objective function to be
optimized and is usually called the "optimum value function." Starting
from Stage n on a decision path, a decision is made regarding overhaul,
repair or replace, and by that decision the state of the equipment at the
next stage, S,+l(i,j...), as well as the set of variables ( i , j , . . .) at the
next stage are determined. At the same time the decision determines
the value of going from the present to the next decision point, C,. In
terms of costs, Cn represents the cost of operation for one period, or
interval of time, or the cost of going from Stage n to the next stage,
478 OPTIMAL OVERHALJL/REPAIR/REPLACE POLICY
(n - l), depending on the decision made at the starting point, n. The

optimum value function, Sn-l(i,j,. . .), is the optimum future cost at
-
the ( n 1)th stage. The optimization criterion is to find the optimum
decision for which the cost of going from the nth to the (n- 1)th stage,
C,, plus the minimum cost of being at the next stage, S,.,-l(i,j,...),
is minimum.
In general, the recurrence relation is given by
s&j) ...) = Inp{c:+s:-I(i)j)...)}, (13.22)
where
d = set of decisions possible at each decision point.
The minimum total expected future cost, S,(i,j, ...), is selected as
the minimum among the costs calculated for each possible decision,
d, at the decision point n. Since the future cost, Sn-1(i,j, ...), is
not known, a general procedure is to start from the stage where it is
known; i.e., So(i,j,. ..), and generate the values of the total expected
..
future cost backwards for n = 1,2,. using the recurrence Eq. (13.22).
Application of this general idea is presented in the remaining sections
of this chapter.
13.4 OPTIMAL OVERHAUL/REPAIR/REPLACE

POLICY: FINITE TIME HORIZON [3]
A complex system is put into operation and should be in service for a
limited period of time. At regular time intervals; e.g., every month or
every year, the system is inspected and its state is determined. If the
system is in a failed state, two possible decisions can be made: repair
or replace the whole system. If the system is in good condition, either
an overhaul or a replacement decision can be made. The strategy is
to determine the sequence of the best decisions made at each decision
point so that the total expected future cost is minimized over the n
remaining periods of time.
The immediate cost, the cost of going from Stage n to Stage (n- l),
or the cost of the first decision is denoted by Cf(i,j) where the variable
i is the state of the system at the start of a period and variable j is the
state of the system at the end of the period. In both cases the state
of the variables can be either good, G, or failed, F. Then, the cost of
the first decision, which depends upon the decision, d, is given by
N
(13.23)
j=1
where
p d ( i , j ) = probability that the system will go from state i
to state j in one period of time if decision d is
made,
and
N = number of possible states of variable j .

After the first interval the system is in the stage with (n- 1) remaining
intervals, and being in state j the minimal total expected future cost
is denoted by S n - l ( j ) . Using the recurrence relation of Ehq. (13.22)
the minimal total expected future cost for the system, which starts in
state i, after one period of time, and ends in state j and decision d is
made at the start of the period with n remaining periods of time to
operate, is given by
Knowing that decision d can be overhaul, 0, repair, r, or replace, Rp,

which depends on the initial state, i, the minimal total expected future
cost, Sn(i),is obtained as the minimum value among those calculated
by using Eq. (13.24) for each possible decision d.
If the system is initially in good state, a = G , then, the possible
decisions are either overhaul or replacement. Consequently, there will
be two equations on the right side of Eq. (13.24) from which the
minimum value should be determined. Since j can be either G or F,
then N = 2 which is only a symbolic way of summing up over all values
of variable j . When making an overhaul decision the probabilities of
going from State i to j in one period of time are either po(G,G) or
po(G, F ) . When making a replacement decision, the probabilities of
going from state i to j in one period of time are either p"(G,G) or
p R p ( G , F).Then, using Eq.(13.24) the minimum total expected future
cost is given by
S,,(G) = min
i
C O ( G ,GI PO(G,G ) + cO (G , F ) PO(G,F)
+PO(G,G ) s n - m +PO@, F ) % - l V ) ,
or
C % ( G , G ) p&(G,G) + C R p ( G , F )pRp(G,F)
+ P W , G)Sn-dG) + P Y G , F ) %-l(F). I
(13.25)
The first two lines are for the case where the decision is to overhaul.
The first two terms represent the cost of overhaul if the system is ini-
tially good and after one period of time it is still in good condition,
480 OPTIMAL OVERHA UL/REPAIR/REPLACE POLICY
Co(G,G), times the probability that the system is still in good con-
dition after one period of time if it was initially good, po(G,G), plus
the cost of overhaul if the system is initially good and after one period
of time it is in a failed state, Co(G, F),times the probability that the
system is in a failed state after one period of time if it was initially
good, po(G,F). The next two terms represent the total expected fu-
ture cost with (n - 1) remaining intervals if the system is in a good
condition after one period of time, S,,-l(G), times the probability that
the system is still in good condition after one period of time if it was
initially good, po(G, G ) plus the total expected future cost with (n- 1)
remaining intervals if the system is in a failed state after one period
of time, Sn-l(F), times the probability that the system is in a failed
state after one period of time if it was initially good, po(G, F).
The next two lines are for the case if the decision is to replace.
The first two terms represent the cost of replacement if the system is
initially good and after one period of time it is still in good condi-
tion, C%(G,G), times the probability that the system is still in good
condition after one period of time if it was initially good, p b ( G ,G ) ,
and the system is replaced, plus the cost of replacement if the system
is initially good and after one period of time it is in a failed state,
CRp(G,F),times the probability that the system is in a failed state
after one period of time if it was initially good, pRp(G,F), and the
system is replaced. The next two terms represent the total expected
future cost with ( n - 1) remaining intervals if the system is in a good
condition after one period of time, Sn-l(G), times the probability that
the system is still in good condition after one period of time if it was
initially good, p&(G, G ) ,and the system is replaced, plus the total ex-
pected future cost with ( n - 1) remaining intervals if the system is in
a failed state after one period of time, Sn-l(F), times the probability
that the system is in a failed state after one period of time if it was
initially good, pRp(G,F),and the system is replaced.
The minimum of the two values on the right side of Eq. (13.25)
determines the best decision, and the minimum total expected future
cost if the system is initially in a good state.
Similarly, if the system is initially in a failed state, i = F ; then,
the possible decisions are either repair or replace. Making a repair de-
cision the probabilities of going from state i to j in one period of time
are pr(F,G ) and pr(F,F ) . Making a replacement decision, the proba-
bilities of going from state i to j in one period of time are p b ( F ,Gj
and p h ( F , F ) . Figure 13.3 shows possible decisions and the associ-
ated probabilities of going from state i to state j . Using Eq. (13.24)
*
n Time n-1
Fig. 13.3 - Possible decisions and associated probabilities of

going from State i to j .
482 OPTIMAL OVERHAUL/REPAIR/REPLACE POLICY
TABLE 13.1 - Transition probabilities for Example 13-4.
State of Condition at end of interval

the system at
start of interval,
i Decision
I
Overhaul
Good Replace
Repair
Failed Replace
the minimum total expected future cost is given by
Sn(F)= min
i
' (F,G)P'(F, G) + (F,F )P'(F, F)
C
+P'(F, G ) Sn-l(G) + P V ,F) Sn-dF),
or
+
C&(F,G) p%(F,G) CRp(F,F)pRp(F,F)
+pRp(F,G) Sn-l(G) + P & ( F , F ) Sn-l(F)+ ,I (13.26)
The minimum of the two values on the right side of Eq. (13.26) de-
termines the best first decision, and the minimum total expected fu-
ture cost with n remaining periods of time to operate if the system
is initially in a failed state. In both EQ. (13.25) and (13.26) the o p
timum future cost, Sn-l(j), is not known and to find the minimum
total expected future cost, Sn(i),these two equations should be solved
recursively by starting from the stage where the value of Sn-l(j) is
known. Usually So(i),or the optimum future cost with zero remaining
intervals to operate, is known. Now, using a s . (13.25) and (13.26)
the minimum total expected future cost with one remaining interval to
operate, Sl(i), can be determined. This value is used again to calculate
&(i) and going backwards, repeating the same procedure, the values
of Sn(i),or the minimum total expected future costs with n remaining
intervals to operate, are determined.
EXAMPLE 13-4 [3, p. 1291
A complex system is put into operation. It is decided that the
system is inspected at regular one-year intervals and, depending on the
condition of the system, replacement, repair or overhaul is undertaken.
The transition probabilities from State i to State j are given in Table
13.1. Costs of the system's operation for a one-year interval, depending
on the system's condition at the start and at the end of an interval,

the system at
start of interval,
i I Decision Good Failed
[ Overhaul CU(G,G) = $200 Cu(G,F) = $1,200
Good Replace Ch(G,G)= $500 CRp(G,F) = $1,500
Repair Cr(F,G) = $100 Cr(F,F) = $1,100
Failed Redace C h (F.GI = $500 12%(3'.FI = $1.500
are given in Table 13.2. Assuming that the system should be in

operation for four more years, determine the best possible decisions
among replacement, repair and overhaul at each oneyear interval so
that the total expected future cost is minimum.
Since the minimum expected future cost is zero if zero years of
operation remain, or n = 0, then
&(i) = 0.
Then, using Eq. (13.24), the total expected future cost with one re-
maining year of operation, n = 1, is given by
r N 1
(13.27)
If the system is in Condition G, the unit can be either overhauled,

0, or replaced, Rp. Then, from Table 13.1 it can be seen that if the
system is overhauled it will still be good at the end of the interval
with probability po(G, G) = 0.75, and it will be in a failed state with
probability po(G,F) = 0.25. If the system is in Condition F , then it
can be either repaired, r , or replaced, Rp. If the system is repaired it
will be good at the end of the interval with probability p'(F, G) = 0.60
and it will be in a failed state with probability p'(F,F) = 0.40. If the
system is replaced, it will be good after a one-year interval with proba-
bility p R p (F,G) = 0.95 and it will be in a failed state with probability
p R p ( F ,F) = 0.05. Substituting these transition probabilities, and the
484 OPTIMAL OVERHAVL/REPAIR/REPLACE P o L r c Y
operation costs given in Table 13.2 into Eq. (13.27), yields
& ( G ) = min [ C C o ( G , j )p 0 ( G , j )
c C Y G , j ) P Y W replace, ]
overhaul,
C O ( G ,G ) PO(G,G ) + C O ( G ,F)P 0 ( G F)
= min
@( G, G ) pRp(G,G)+ C b ( G ,F )p%(G, F)
+ (1,200)
1 '
or
= min
(200) (0.75)
(500)(0.95) + (1,500)
(0.25)
(0.05) 1'
450
S l ( G ) = m i n [ 550 ] overhaul,
replace, (13.28)
and
repair,
&(F) = min N
c C R P ( F , jP) Y F , j )
j=1 replace,
= min
= min
or
s~(F)
= min [ 500
550
3 repair,
replace.
(13.29)
From Eqs. (13.28) and (13.29) the following decisions can be made:
If the system is in good condition at the decision point, where one
year of operation remains, then the minimum total expected future
cost is achieved if the system is overhauled; i.e., & ( G ) = $450.
If the system is in a failed state at the decision point, with one
year of operation to go, then the minimum total expected future cost
is achieved if the system is repaired; i.e., S1(F) = $500.
To go one step backward consider two intervals or two remaining
years of operation, n = 2, of the system. Using Eqs. (13.24) and (13.27)
yields
S2(i)= min
d
j=1 J
OVERHAUL POLICLES 485
- C O ( G , G )PO(G,G)+ cO (G , F ) PO(G,F) -
+PO(G, G ) Sl (GI+ P O (G, F) Si(F) overhaul,
& ( G ) = min (13.31)
C%(G,G) p G ( G , G )+ C G ( G , F ) pRp(G,F)
~ +p%(G, G ) + pRp(G,F)Si(F) replace.
follows:
&(G) = rnin
+
(200)(0.75) (1,200)(0.25)+ (0.75)(450)+ (0.25)(500)
,
+ +
(500)(0.95) (1,500)(0.05)+ (0.95)(450) (0.05)(500)
450 + 300 + 337.5 + 125
or
= min
475+ 75+427.5+ 25 ' I
s ~ ( G=) min [ 1002.5
912.5
] overhaul,
replace.
(13.32)
If i = F ,either repair or replace decision can be made, or
1 1
' (4G ) P' (4G ) + C'V, F)P'V, F)
C
+P'(F, G ) Sl ( G ) + P'P, F ) s1(F) repair,
&(F) = min (1 3.33)
+
CRp(F,G)pRp(F, G) C b ( F ,F)p&(F, F )
+ P Y F , G ) Sl(G) + P R V , F ) s1(F) replace.
Substituting the transition probabilities given in Table 13.1, the o p
eration costs given in Table 13.2 and the minimum values from Eqs.
(13.28)and (13.29) into Eq. (13.33)the minimum total expected fu-
ture cost with two remaining years of operation can be obtained as
follows:
[ + + +
s~(F> = min
(100)(0.60) (1,100)(0.40) (0.60)(450) (0.40)(500)
+ +
60 440 270.0 + 200
+ +
(500)(0.95) (1,500)(0.05)+ (0.95)(450) (0.05)(500) 1
or
= min
475+ 75+427.5+ 25 ' 1
(13.34)
486 OPTIMAL OVERHA UL/REPAIR/R.EPLACE POLICY
F'rom Eqs. (13.32)and (13.34)the following conclusions can be drawn:

If the system is in good condition at the decision point, where 2 years
of operation remain, then the minimum total expected future cost is
achieved if the system is overhauled; i.e., &(G) = $912.50. If the
system is in a failed state at the decision point, with two years of o p
eration to go, then the minimum total expected future cost is achieved
if the system is repaired; i.e., &(F) = $970.00.
Applying the same procedure for three and four remaining years of
operation the minimum total expected future costs, &(i) and S4(i),
respectively, can be calculated. Table 13.3 gives the summary of the
calculations for values of n = 1 to 4, the best decisions to be made at
the start of each period and the minimum total expected future costs
for each value of n. It can be seen from Table 13.3 that if there are four
more years for the system to operate, the best decision is to overhaul
if the system is in good condition at the start of a Cyear time and the
minimum achievable total expected future cost is &(G) = $1,841.60.
If the system is in a failed state at the start of a Cyear time, the best
decision is to repair and the minimum total expected future cost is
&(F) = $1,900.30. Table 13.3 also gives the best decision at the start
of any of the subsequent intervals with the corresponding minimum
total expected future cost.
EXAMPLE 13-5 [4, pp. 319-3201
A complex system whose age at present is two years is to be in-
spected, and either overhauled or replaced at one-year intervals. The
cost of overhaul, Co(i),the annual cost increase over the annual cost
of a new system, C A J ( ~and
) , the salvage d u e of the replaced system
are given in Table 13.4. The acquisition cost of the system is $30,000.
Determine the sequence of decisions for a five-year period in which the
system should be in operation.
Let the variable i denote the age of the system and the variable j
denote the order number of a decision point at the start of each year.
Since the initial age of the system is two years, then, i varies from 1 to
7. If the first decision is with the Order Number 1, then the variable
j varies from 1 to 6 when the operation of the system ends. Let c(i)
be the sum of the overhaul cost and the annual cost increase of the
system of age i, or
C(i) = co(i) +cAJ(i). (13.35)

The net aquisition cost of the system when the replaced one is of age
i is defined as the price of the new system minus the salvage value of
TABLE 13.3 - Summary of calculations for Example 13-4.
Remaining intervals, I 1 I
n 4 3
system at start
of interval i G F G F
Decision to be
made at start
of interval Overhaul Repair Overhaul Repair
Expected
future cost,
Sn(i), $ 1,841.60 1,900.30 1,376.90 1,435.50
488 OPTIMAL OVERHAUL/REPAIR/REPLACE POLICY
TABLE 13.4 - The overhaul cost, Co(i), the annual cost

) , the salvage cost, Cs(i),
increase, C A I ( ~and
for Example 13-5. All costs are given as
multiples of $1,000.
TABLE 13.5 - Values of c ( i ) , A ( i ) and S ( i , 6 ) for Example

13-5.
the system of age i, or the net aquisition cost of the system; i.e.,
A ( i ) = 30 - Cs(i), (13.36)
where the price of the new system is given in thousands of dollars.
Table 13.5 gives the values of c(i), A ( i ) and S(i,S), where S(i,6) is the
optimum value function after the fifth year of system operation; i.e., it
is the negative of the salvage value for the system of age i, or
S(i,6) = -Cs(i). (13.37)
Using the recurrence relation of Eq. (13.22) and Eqs. (13.35) and
(13.36),the total expected future cost is given by
S(i,j)= min
+ + +
c ( i ) S(i 1,j 1)
(13.38)
+ +
A ( i ) S(1,j 1) replace,
where the top line of Eq. (13.38)refers to the overhaul option and the
bottom line corresponds to the replacement option. If the decision is
to overhaul, then the total expected future cost consists of the cost of
OVERHAUL PoLrcrm 489
the overhaul and the annual cost increase, c ( i ) ,plus the optimum value
function after one year of operation, S(i+l,j+l),where the age of the
system now is (i+l) and the Order Number of a decision point is (j+l).
If the decision is to replace, then the total expected future cost consists
of the total acquisition cost, A(i), plus the optimum value function
+
after one year of operation, S(1,j l ) , where the age of the system
now is i = 1, since the system was replaced and the Order Number
of a decision point is j +
1. As in Example 13-1, to determine the
minimum total expected future cost of the system, initially of age two
years subjected to the given overhaul/replacement policy, Eq. (13.38)
should be solved recursively starting from the decision point where
S(i,j) is known. Since the values of S(i,6) are known, determine the
values of S ( i ,5 ) as follows: Using Eq. (13.38), the values given in Table
13.5 and assuming that the system’s age at the start of the fifth year
is one year, i = 1, yields
or
’(1 9 5) = min { --1110 } overhaul,

replace.
Hence, the minimum future cost is
S(1,5) = -$11,000, (13.39)
and the best decision to be made is to overhaul. The next stage the
system will be in is (2,6), meaning that at the beginning of the sixth
year the system will be two years old, since at the previous stage the
overhaul is done on the system which was one year old.
If the system’s age at the start of the fifth year is two years, i = 2,
then,
or
-3 overhaul,
S(2,5) = min { -6} replace.
490 OPTIMAL OVERHAVL/REPAIR/REPLACE POLICY

S(2,5) = -$6,000, (13.40)
and the best decision to be made at the start of the fifth year is to
replace. The next stage the system will be in is (1,6).
If the system’s age at the start of the fifth year is three years, i = 3,
then,
or
~ ( 3 , s=
) min { I:} overhaul,
replace.
S(3,5) = 4 3 , 0 0 0 , (13.41)
and the best decision to be made at the start of the fifth year, if the
system’s age is three years, is to replace. The next stage the system
will be in is (1,6).
If the system’s age at start of the fifth year is four years, i = 4,
then,
15- 8
or

S(4,5) = $0, (13.42)
and the best decision t o be made at the start of the fifth year if the
system age is four years, is to replace. The next stage the system will
be in is (1,6).
Now, consider the fourth decision point or the decision point at the
start of the fourth year, (i,4). If the system’s age at the start of the
fourth year is one year, i = 1, then,
Using Table 13.5 and Eqs. (13.39) and (13.40) yields
S(1,4) = min {l E } ,
or
overhaul,
S(1,4) = min { I:} replace.
(13.43)
Since there is a tie, the best decision at the start of the fourth year, if
the system’s age is one year, can be either repair or replacement. The
next stage the system will be in is (2,5) if the decision is to repair or
(1,5) if the decision is to replace.
If the system’s age at the start of the fourth year is two years, i = 2,
then,
Using Table 13.5 and Eqs. (13.39) and (13.41) yields
or

S(2,4) = $3,000, (13.44)
and the best decision to be made at the start of the fourth year, if the
system’s age is two years, is to replace. The next stage the system will
be in is (1,5).
Now, consider the third decision point at the start of the third year,
or the Stage (i,3).
492 OPTIMAL OVERHA UL/REPAIR/REPLACE POLICY
If the system’s age at the start of the third year is one year, i = 1,
then,
or
{
8 overhaul,
S(1,3) = min 9 }
replace.
S(1,3) = $8,000, (13.45)
and the best decision to be made at the start of the third year, if the
system’s age is one year, is to overhaul. The next stage the system will
be in is (2,4).
If the system’s age at the start of the third year is two years, i = 2,
then,
or

S(2,3) = $13,000, (13.46)
and the best decision to be made at the start of the third year, if the
system’s age is two years, is to replace. The next stage the system will
be in is (1,4).
Consider the second decision point, or the decision point at the
start of the second year. If the system’s age at the start of the second
year is one year; i.e., i = 1, then,
OVERHAUL POLICIES‘ 493
or
18 overhaul,
{
s(l’ 2, = min 18} replace.
S ( l , 2) = $18,000, (13.47)
and either an overhaul or a replace decision can be made with the same
minimum total expected future cost.
If the system’s age at the start of the second year is three years;
i.e., a = 3, then,
or
28 overhaul,
{
s(3’ 2, = min 25) replace.
S(3,2) = $25,000, (13.48)
and the best decision to be made at the start of the second year, if the
system’s age is three years, is to replace.
The next stage the system will be in is (1,3). What is left is to
consider the initial stage, or the first decision point where the system’s
age at the start of the first year is two years; i.e., i = 2. Then,
or
s(2’’) = min { 3532} overhaul,

replace.
Hence, the total minimum expected future cost for a system age of two
years, and five years of operation to go, is
S ( 2 , l ) = $32,000, (13.49)
494 OPTIMAL OVERHAUL/REPAIR/l?EPLACE POLICY
TABLE 13.6 - The minimum future cost by stages, the

best decision for each stage and the tran-
sition stages for Example 13-5.
Minimum future
C o s t , in $1,000,
W,j> Decision
-11 0
-6 RP
-3 RP
0 RP
4 RP
-1 or 0
3 RP
6 RP
11 RP
8 0
13 RP
19 RP
18 or 0
25 RP
32 Rp
and the best decision to be made at the start of the first year of o p
eration is to replace. Since the annual cost increase, which is the
difference between the cost in a particular year and the first year of
operation, is used throughout these calculations instead of the actual
annual cost, then the total future cost of $32,000 is the additional cost
for a five-year operation and failure costs determined on the cost of
the first year. Table 13.6 gives all stages necessary to determine the
minimum total expected future cost and the sequence of decisions for
the next five years of operation. To determine the sequence of best
decisions, which results in the minimum total expected future cost,
consider Table 13.6. Start from the initial stage where the system’s
age is two years, or (2,l). The best decision that minimizes the total
future cost, which is that of all future stages, is to replace and the next
stage is (1,2). At stage (1,2) either overhaul or replacement can be
chosen with the same future cost and the next stage is either (1,3) if
replacement, or (2,3) if overhaul is chosen. If overhaul is chosen the
next stage is (1,3). The minimum future cost at stage (1,3)is obtained
if the overhaul decision is made and the next stage is (2,4). At stage
(2,4)the replacement decision minimizes the future cost and leads to
the stage (1,5). The hal decision at the start of the fifth year is over-
haul and after the fifth year of operation the system's function ends.
Since at stages (1,2)and (1,4)both replacement and overhaul deci-
sions are possible, then there are three possible sequences of decisions
which have the same minimum total expected future cost; i.e.,
1. replace, replace, overhaul, replace, overhaul, dispose,
or
2. replace, overhaul, replace, replace, overhaul, dispose,
or
3. replace, overhaul, replace, overhaul, replace, dispose.
Each of these decisions is made at the beginning of a decision interval
and after the fifth year of operation the system is disposed.
13.5 OPTIMAL OVERHAUL/REPAIR/REPLACE

POLICY: INFINITE TIME HORIZON [3, pp.
125-1291
The problems in Section 13.4 are based on the minimization of the
objective function over a finite number of time intervals, n, and it is
said that the spanning horizon is finite. If n + 00, the planning horizon
becomes infinite and the minimum total expected future cost per unit
time of operation is to be determined. The minimum value function of
having a system in its ith year of age, or ith stage, is defined by
Sn(i)= n g + v ( i ) , (13.50)
where
g = steady state average cost per unit time,
and
v ( i ) = transient cost which depends on the initial State i.
From Eqs. (13.24) and (13.50)
496 INFINITE TlME HORIZON
Using Eq. (13.50)yields

Sn-l(j) = (n - 1) g + w(i). (13.52)
Substituting Eq. (13.52) into Eq. (13.51) yields
or
N
Since C p d ( i , j ) = 1, then,
j=1
or
1
N
g + v ( i )= 9{ j N= 1 Cd(i,j) p d ( i , j ) + jCpd(i,j)
=1
v(j) . (13.53)
Equation (13.53) represents a system of N equations; i.e., N states in

+
which the variable i can be in, with (N 1) variables. Optimization
of Eq. (13.53), using the algorithm developed by Howard IS], consists
of the following five steps:
1. Arbitrarily choose some policy, or decision for each State i.
2. For N possible states choose w ( N ) = 0, which reduces the number
of variables to solve for the N unknowns.
3. Solve simultaneously the N equations of Eq. (13.53) for the steady
state average cost per unit time, 9,and the transient cost, w(i).
4. Using the value of v ( i ) obtained in Steps 2 and 3, for each State
i, determine the best decision, d, which minimizes the right side of
Eq. (13.53); i.e.,
(13.54)
5, Repeat Step 3 with the policy, or decisions, obtained in Step 4

until the minimum total future cost is obtained. This will h a p
pen when g is minimized and the decisions at two successive
iterations are identical.
EXAMPLE 13-6
The system of Example 13-4 is to be maintained over "a long"
period of time. The transition probabilities are given in Table 13.1 and
the operation costs in Table 13.2. Determine the best overhaul/repair/
replace decisions or the optimum maintenance policy and the steady
state average cost per unit time of operation.
To determine the optimum decisions depending on the state of the
system at start of one-year interval use the Howard's algorithm as
follows:
Step 1
Assume the following decisions at the start of an interval:
1. If the system is in good condition, G, then replace it.
2. If the system is in a failed state, F, then replace it.
Step 2
Since the variable i can be only'in N = 2 states; i.e., i = G or F,
then using Step 2 of the Howard's algorithm yields
v ( F ) = 0. ( 13.55)
Step 3
Using the data given in Tables 13.1 and 13.2 and the decisions
defined in Step 1, solve Eq. (13.53) for the steady state average cost
per interval, g, and the transient cost, v ( i ) ,or for i = G and for j = G
and F,
g + v(G) = CRp(G,G ) p R P ( G , G+) C%(G,F )p%(G, F)

+ P Y G , G)v(G) + P W , F) v ( F ) , (13.56)
498 INFlNITE TIME HORIZON
and for i = F and j = G and F

g + v ( F ) = CRp(F,G)pRp(F,G)+ C b ( F , F ) p G ( F , F )
+pRp(F,G)v ( G )+p"(F,F) v ( F ) . (13.57)
Using the data from Tables 13.1 and 13.2, and Eqs. (13.55) and (13.56)
yields
g + v(G) = (500)(0.95) + (1,500)(0.05)
+
+(0.95) v ( G ) (0.05) ( 0 ) ,
and Eq. (13.57) yields
g + 0 = (500)(0.95) + (1,500)(0.05)
+
+(0.95) v ( G ) (0.05) ( 0 ) ,
or
+
g + v(G)= 475 + 75 (0.95) v ( G ) ,
and
g = 475 + 75 + (0.95) v ( G ) ,
or
g + v(G) = 550 + (0.95) v ( G ) , (13.58)
and
g = 550 + (0.95) v ( G ) . (13.59)
The solution to the system of Eqs. (13.58) and (13.59) is
g = 550 (13.60)
and
v(G) = 0. (13.61)
Step 4
Using Eqs. (13.55) and (13.61) determine the best decisions for
each state of the variable i which minimizes Eq. (13.54).
If the system is initially in good condition, or i = G,using Tables
13.1 and 13.2, j = G and F , and Eq.(13.54), yields
I 5 C o ( G , j )p 0 ( G , j )+ C p 0 ( G , j )
11
N
~ ( j ) overhaul,
j=1
min
5 C R p ( G , j )p R p ( G , j+) C p R P ( G , jv(j)
j=l
j=l
N
j=1
) replace,
(200)(0.75) + (1,200)(0.25) + (0.75)(0) + (0.25)(0)

min [ (500)(0.95) + (1,500)(0.05) + (0.95)(0) + (0.05)(0) '
OVERHAUL POLICIES 1 499
or
450
min[ 550 1 overhaul,
replace.
Hence, the minimum of Eq. (13.54)is obtained if the decision is to
overhaul.
If the system is initially in a failed state, or i = F, using Tables
13.1 and 13.2,Eq. (13.54)and j = G and F ,yields
min [ i?
j=1
5
j=l
~ " ~ 7 p'(~,j)
j )
+ j=l
C % ( F , j ) p"(F,j)
F p ' ( ~ , j )v(j)
+ j=l
N
c p R p ( F , j ) 4 j ) replace, 1 repair,
[ (100)(0.60) + (1,100)(0.40)+ (0.60)(0)+ (0.40)(0) '

or
min
(500)(0.95) + (1,500)(0.05)+ (0.95)(0) + (0.05)(0) 1
500 repair,
[
min 5501 replace.
Hence, the minimum of Eq. (13.54)is obtained if the decision is to
repair.
The first iteration results in the new set of decisions; i.e.,
1. if the system is in good condition at the start of an interval,
then overhaul,
2. if the system is in a failed state at the start of an interval,
then repair.
Step 5 + Go to Step 3
Using the decisions obtained in Step 4, solve simultaneously Eq.
(13.53) for the steady state average cost per interval, g, and the tran-
sient cost, v ( G ) ,or for i = G and j = G and F,Eq. (13.53) yields
g + v(G) = Co(G,G ) pO(G,G ) + Co(G,F)po(G, F )

+P O (G , G ) v ( G ) + PO(G,F) 4F), (13.62)
and for i = F and j = G and F
g + v ( F ) = C'(F,G) p'(F,G) +C'(F,F) p'(F,F)
+P'(F,G) v ( G )+P'(F,F) @). (13.63)
500 INFINITE TIME HORIZON
Using data from Tables 13.1 and 13.2, and Eqs. (13.55) and (13.62)
yields
g + v(G) = (200)(0.75) + (1,200)(0.25)
+(0.75) v(G)+ (0.25)(0),
and Eqs. (13.55) and (13.63) yield
g = (100)(0.60) + (1,100)(0.40)
+(0.60) v(G) + (0.40)(0),
or
g + v(G) = 150 + 300 + (0.75) v(G), (13.64)
and
g = 500 + (0.60) v(G). (13.65)
The solution to the system of Eqs. (13.64) and (13.65) is
v(G) = -58.82 (13.66)
and
g = 464.71. (13.67)
Step 6 + Repeat Step 4

Using Eqs. (13.55), (13.66) and (13.67), or the values of v ( F ) ,v(G)
and g obtained in Step 5, determine the best decisions for each state
of the variable i which minimizes Eq. (13.54).
If the system is initially in good condition, or i = G, and j = G
and F,then
min
+ (1,200)(0.25) + (0.75)(-58.82) + (0.25)(0)

min
’ (200)(0.75)
. (500)(0.95)+ (1,500)(0.05) + (0.95)(-58.82) + (0.05)(0)
’(150 + 300) + (0.75)(-58.82)
I ’
or
min
. (475 + 75) + (0.95)(-58.82) ’ I
OVERHA UL POLICIES 501
Hence, the minimum is obtained if the decision is to overhaul.

If the system is initially in a failed state, or i = F,and j = G and
F , then
(lOO)(O.sO) + (1,100)(0.40) + (0.60)(-58.82) + (0.40)(0)

min [ (500)(0.95) + (1,500)(0.05) + (0.95)(-58.82) 1
+ (0.05)(0) '
or
464.71 repair,
min[ 494.12 ] replace.
(13.68)
Hence, the minimum is obtained if the decision is to repair.

The second iteration results in the following decisions at the start
of an interval:
1. If the system is in good condition at the start of an interval,
then overhaul.
2. If the system is in a failed state at the start of an interval,
then repair.
Comparing the resulting decisions of the first and the second iteration,
it can be seen that both give the same policy. Therefore, the procedure
is terminated and from Eq. (13.68) the resulting steady state average
cost per interval is obtained to be g = $464.71 /year.
13.6 OPTIMAL COST LIMITS; FINITE TIME

HORIZON [3, pp. 129-134; 4, pp. 323-327; 6,
pp. 101-1051
One of the main assumptions in the previous models is that the over-
haul costs axe known in advance. Most often this is not true since the
real costs depend on the equipment's age and the level of equipment
damage and wear-out, therefore the overhaul cost should be consid-
ered as a random variable. In this model an equipment is inspected at
regular time intervals and the overhaul cost is estimated. If the esti-
mated overhaul cost is less than the overhaul cost limit, the equipment
is overhauled and if the estimated overhaul cost is greater than the
overhaul cost limit, the equipment is replaced.
502 OPTIMAL OVERHAUL COST LA4ITS
Knowing the distribution of the overhaul cost for an equipment

of a given age, the optimal overhaul cost limits for a fixed remaining
time of operation are so determined that the total expected future cost
is minimized. At the start of each time interval the overhaul cost is
estimated and compared with the overhaul limit for that interval, and
the decision whether to overhaul or replace the equipment is made.
If fi(s)is the probability density function of the overhaul cost for an
equipment of given age, i, then the probability that the actual cost will
not exceed the overhaul cost limit is given by
W L i )= 1”’ fi(4 dx, (13.69)
where
Li = overhaul cost limit for an equipment of age i.
The expected cost of overhaul and inspection per interval is given by
(13.70)
Using the recurrence relation of Eq. (13.24),the total minimum ex-

pected future cost for an equipment of a given age, i, subjected to an
overhaul/replace maintenance policy, with n remaining time intervals
of operation, is given by
(13.71)
where
Cn(i,j) = expected cost of the first decision for an equipment of
age i and with n remaining time intervals of operation,
and
Sn-l(j)= minimum expected future cost for ( n - 1) remaining
time intervals of operation.
The expected cost of the first decision, Cn(i,j), is the sum of the
expected cost of overhaul times the probability that the overhaul cost
is less than the overhaul cost limit, Li, and the cost of a replacement,
A*, times the probability that the overhaul cost exceeds the overhaul
cost limit, Li. Using Eqs. (13.69)and (13.70) the expected cost of the
first decision is given by
-
+
C n ( i , j )= Li Pi(Li) A* [l - Pi(Li)]. (13.72)
Then,
or
-
The minimal expected future cost for the (n 1) remaining time in-
tervals of operation, S,,-l(j), is the sum of the minimum future cost,
S,,-l(i+ l ) , if the equipment is overhauled at the start of the nth inter-
val times the probability that the estimated cost is less than the over-
haul cost limit, Pi(Li), and the minimal expected future cost, Sn-l(l),
if the equipment is replaced at the start of the nth interval times the
probability that the estimated cost exceeds the overhaul cost limit.
Then, the minimum expected future cost is given by
+
Sn-l(j) = Sn-l(i 1) E ( L i ) + Sn-l(l)
[I - Pi(Li)]. (13.74)
Substituting Eqs. (13.72) and (13.74) into Eq. (13.71), the total ex-
pected future cost is given by
s n ( i ) = min {Cn(i,j) + S n - l ( j ) } 7
Li
or
) min (z pi(^,) + A* [I - p i ( ~ i ) l
~ , , ( i=
Li
+Sn-l(i + 1) Pi(Li)+ Sn-1(1) [l - f i ( L i ) ] } . (13.75)
Apparently, the starting condition, or the minimum expected future
cost for n = 0 remaining time intervals of operation, is
So(i)= 0 for all i. (13.76)
The optimum overhaul cost limits are so determined that the total ex-
pected future cost given by Eq. (13.75) is minimized. The iteration
process starts from the terminating stage; i.e., n = 0, where the total
expected future cost is known, and going backwards the minimum ex-
pected future costs, Sl(i), S2(i),-..,are determined for possible equip
ment ages, i.
Alternatively, the optimum overhaul cost limits can be determined
as follows: Assume that the equipment is in state n, with the optimum
value function Sn(i), and the overhaul cost is $2. If the equipment is
overhauled, the total cost is given by
5 + Sn-l(i + l ) , (13.77)
504 OPTIMAL OVERHAUL COST LIMITS
and if the equipment is replaced, the total cost is given by

A* + Sn-1(1). (13.78)
The equipment will be overhauled only if the total overhaul cost is less
than the total replacement cost, or
+
z &i(i + 1) 5 A* + Sn-i(l). (13.79)
Using E&. (13.79) the optimal overhaul limit is determined from
Li + &1(i + 1) = A* + Sn-1(1),
or
Li = A* + S n - i ( l ) - Sn-i(i + 1). (13.80)
To find the minimum total expected future cost, the calculations should
be done by alternating between Eq. (13.80) and Eq. (13.75). Start-
ing from the terminating stage of equipment operation determine the
optimum overhaul limit, Li,at the start of the interval and substitute
its value into Eq. (13.75) and determine the optimum value function
for all possible ages, i. Continue this iteration procedure until the
minimum total expected future cost is determined.
EXAMPLE 13-7
A complex unit, initially new, is to be inspected regularly at one-
year intervals and the overhaul cost estimated. The unit can be in
operation at most three years; i.e., the unit is always replaced if its age
reaches three years. At the end of the first year the overhaul cost is
uniformly distributed over the range (0, $loo), at the end of the second
year the overhaul cost is uniformly distributed over the range (0, $150)
and the cost of a new unit is $150. If the unit is to be in operation for
the next five years determine the optimal overhaul cost limits for the
unit.
The optimal overhaul cost limits and the minimum total expected
future cost given by Eq. (13.75) can be solved recursively starting from
the stage where one year of operation remains. The optimum overhaul
cost limits are then calculated backwards for n = 1,2,. ,5.--
Stage 1, n = 1
Since the minimum expected future cost at the end of the system
operation or the minimum future cost for n = 0 is So(i)= 0 for all i,
then, from Eq. (13.75), the minimum expected future cost with one
remaining year of operation is given by
OVERHAUL PoLrcriw 505
or
-
Sl(i)= Li pi(&) + A*[1- Pi(Li)].
For the three-year-old unit and one remaining year of unit operation,
replacement is compulsory, or
&(3) = $150. (13.81)
For the two-year-old unit and one remaining year of unit operation,
since the overhaul cost is uniformly distributed over the range (0; $150)
and the cost of a new unit is A* = $150,overhaul should be always
done. Consequently, P’(L2) = 1, because overhaul is a certainty. The
overhaul cost pdf at the end of the second year of a unit’s operation is
f2W = 150’ 0 5 z 5 150. (13.82)

Therefore, the minimum expected future cost is given by
c
Sl(2) = L2,
or
Sl(2) = $75. (13.83)
For the one-year-old unit with one remaining year of operation, since
the overhaul is uniformly distributed over the range (0,$100) and the
cost of a new unit is A* = $150, the overhaul is always cheaper, and
the decision is always to overhaul. The overhaul cost pdf at the end of
the first year of the unit’s operation is given by
fib)= 100’ 0 5 5 5 100, (13.84)

Therefore, the minimum expected future cost is given by
Sl(1)= z1,
or
Sl(1)= $50. (13.85)
Stage 2, n = 2
For the three-year-old unit with two remaining years of operation,
it is replaced always. Using Eq. (13.75)the total expected future cost
is given by
+
&(3) = A* Si(l),
= 150f50,
or
&(3) = $200. (13.86)
For the tweyear-old unit and two remaining years of operation, the
probability that the overhaul cost does not exceed the overhaul cost
limit is found from Eq. (13.69), or
or
(13.87)
The expected cost is determined from Eq. (13.70),or
& =g ' x & &

SOL'&&'
= - L;
2 L2'
or
(13.88)
Then, the expected cost of overhaul and replacement per interval,

C n ( i , j ) ,is given by
-
C2(2) = L2 q ( L 2 ) + A * [I- p2(L2)],
L2 L2
=--+150
2 150
or
C2(2)= -
300
+ 150 (1 - 4)
. (13.89)
Using Eqs. (13.75) and (13.89),the total expected future cost for the
unit of age two years, and two remaining years of operation, is given
= mL2i n ( 300
Z+l50 ( 1 - 3150
)
or
(13.90)
To find the optimum overhaul cost limit, L2,which minimizes the total
expected future cost given by Eq. (13.90), find the first derivative of
&(2) with respect to L2,equate it to zero and solve for L2. Then,
dS2(2) 2 L2 200
-=---
dL2 300 150
+ 1,
or
-dSz(2)
=--- L2 50
dL2 150 150'
Now,
and
L2 = $50. (13.91)
Substituting Eq. (13.91) into Eq. (13.90) the minimum total expected
future cost is
502
&(2) = -
300
+ 200
2,500
=-
300
+ 200-100
150
+ 50,
or
&(2) = $191.67. (13.92)
Hence, if the estimated overhaul cost is less than $50, then the decision
is to overhaul, otherwise replace the unit. The minimum total expected
future cost for the unit of two years of age, and for two remaining years
of operation, is $191.67.
For a one-year-old unit and two remaining years of operation, the
probability that the overhaul cost is less than the overhaul cost limit,
is given by
(13.93)
The expected overhaul cost is given by
or
-
L1 = -
L1 (13.94)
2'
Using Eqs. (13.75), (13.93) and (13.94) the total expected future cost
for the unit of one year of age and two remaining years of operation is
given by
= rnin(Z1
s~(I)
L1
PI(L~) + A* [I - R ( L ~ ) ]
+S1(2) W L 1 ) + Sl(1)[1 - pl(L1)I) 9
(13.95)
Substituting the values of Sl(2) and Sl(1) from Eqs. (13.83) and
(13.85), respectively, into Eq. (13.95) yields
100
or
S2(1) = n
I: {g + 200 (1 - k)
+ 75$} . (13.96)
The first derivative of & ( l ) is given by
Equating the first derivative to zero and solving for L1 yields

5
L1 = 100-
4’
or
L1 = $125. (13.97)
Since the optimal cost limit, L1 = $125, is greater than the overhaul
cost whose range is (0,SlOO) for a unit age of one year, the decision
should always be to overhaul. Then, the minimum total expected
future cost for the unit with an age of one year and two remaining
years of operation is given by
-
S20) = L1 + Sl(Z),
- -1 x’2
2(100) 0
100
+75,
= 50 75, +
or
& ( l ) = $125. (13.98)
Hence, the optimum total expected future cost for the unit of an age
of one year and for two remaining years of operation is S2(1) = $125,
and the decision should be to overhaul regardless of the overhaul cost
estimate.
Stage 3, n = 3
Since the unit is initially new at this stage, when three years of
unit operation remain, the system can not be three years of age.
Therefore, the minimum total expected future cost, S3(3), should not
be considered.
Consider a unit of two years of age, or i = 2, and three remaining
years of unit operation, or n = 3. Using Eqs. (13.75), (13.86), (13.87),
(13.88) and (13.98) the total expected future cost is given by
~ ~ ( =2 min
) { ~ s2( L ~ ) + A * 11- PZ(L~)]
L2
+W)WL2) + Wl) [ I - P2(L2)1) ,
or
(13.99)
To determine the optimum overhaul cost limit, Eq. (13.80) may be

used as an alternative to differentiating Eq. (13.99). Then,
+
1;= A* &(l) &(3). - (13.100)
Substituting Eqs. (13.98) and (13.86) into Eq. (13.100) yields
& = 150 + 125 - 200,
or
1;= $75. (13.101)
Substituting Eq. (13.101) into Eq. (13.99) the minimum total expected
future cost is given by
&(2) = - 752
300
+275 1 -- ( :5”o)
+ f 75,
or
S3(2) = $256.25. (13.102)
Consider a unit of one year of age, i = 1, and three remaining years
of operation, or n = 3. Using Eqs. (13.75), (13.93), (13.94), (13.92)
and (13.98) yields
s ~ ( I )= min(Z1
L1
PI(L~) + A* [ I - p1(~1)1
+S2(2) W L 1 ) + S2(1) (1- Pl(L1)I) ,
or
S3(l)= min
L1
{2 + 275 (1 E)+
- L1 (1.9167)L I } . (13.103)
Using Eq. (13.80)the optimum overhaul cost limit is given by

L1 = A' + Sn-l(1) - Sn-i(i + l),
or
L1 = 150 + &(l) - S2(2). (13.104)
Substituting Eqs. (13.98)and (13.92)into Eq. (13.104)yields
L1 = 150 + 125 - 191.67,
or
L1 = $83.33. (13.105)
Substituting Eq. (13.105)into Eq. (13.103)yields
83.332
S3(l)= -+275
200
(1 --':f)+ (1.9167)(83.33),
or
S3(1) = $240.28. (13.106)
The minimum total expected future cost for the unit of one year of age
and three remaining years of operation is &(l) = $240.28.
Stage 4, n = 4
Since the unit is new at the start of the five-year period of operation,
at Stage 4 where four years of operation remain, the unit's age can be
only one year, then only one state should be considered; i.e., n = 4
and i = 1.
Using Eq. (13.80) the optimum overhaul cost limit is then given
by
+
L1 = A* &(I) - s3(2). (13.107)
Substituting Eqs. (13.106)and (13.102)into Eq. (13.107)yields
L1 = 150 + 240.28 - 256.25,
or
L1 = $134.03. ( 13.108)
TABLE 13.7 - The optimum overhaul cost limits for all

possible stages a n d unit ages for Example
13-7.
Unit Remaining years of operation,

age, n
i 4 3 2 1
1 Overhaul 83.33 Overhaul Overhaul
2 75.00 50 Overhaul
3 ReDlace ReDlace
Since the overhaul limit is greater than the maximum ovei..aul cost
for the unit of age of one year, then the unit should be overhauled
regardless of the cost estimate. From Eq. (13.75) the minimum total
expected future cost for the unit with an age of one year, and four
years of operation remaining, is given by
S4(1)=
-L1+ S3(2),
= 50 + 256.25,
or
S4(l)= $306.25. (13.109)
Table 13.7 gives the summary of the optimal overhaul cost limits for
all possible stages and unit ages. In the table “overhaul” means that
there is no cost limit and the unit should be overhauled regardless of
the estimated overhaul cost. Figure 13.4 gives the optimal paths for
the unit, which is initially new and is maintained over the five-year
period. The minimum total expected future cost over the five years of
system operation is $306.25 which corresponds to the state &(l) since
the initial acquisition cost is not included.
EXAMPLE 13-8
A system, initially one year of age, is to be in operation for the next
four years. At regular one-year intervals the system is inspected and
the overhaul cost estimated. If this estimate is less than the overhaul
cost limit the system is overhauled, otherwise it is replaced. The over-
haul cost is uniformly distributed. The ranges of the overhaul cost,
(a,@,for different system ages, along with the system salvage values
are given in Table 13.8. The cost of a new system is A* = $10,000.
k 0 0
Fig. 13.4 - Optimal paths for Example 13-7.
System age, i
1 2 3 4 5
Overhaul cost range,
(a,P ) (1,2) (2,4) (3,6) (5,W
Salvage value,
S(i) 3 2 0 0 0
514 OPTIMAL OWRHAUL COST LIMITS
Determine the optimum overhaul cost limits so that the total expected
future cost is minimized.
The system is to be in operation for four more years, therefore
the variable n, number of remaining years of operation, has the values
n = 0,1,... ,4. Since the overhaul/replace policy is to be applied at
a time when the system’s age is one y e a , the system’s age, i, has
the values i = 1,2, ,5. To determine the optimum overhaul cost
a
limits for each interval under consideration, Eq. (13.75) should be

used starting from the terminating stage, or n = 0, when the system’s
operation ends. Therefore, the values of the minimum total expected
future cost, So(i),for all possible system ages should be determined
first. Because with So(i) we are reaching the end of operation the
only cost left is the salvage value which is obtained from Table 13.8.
Consequently,
So(1)= -3, So(2) = -2,
and
so(3) = so(4) = &(5) = 0.
Since the overhaul cost is uniformly distributed in each age interval,
the probability that the estimated cost will be less than the overhaul
cost limit, Li, is given by
( 13.110)
and the expected cost of overhaul and replacement is given by
or
- Li+a
Li = -. (13.111)
2
Then,
0 for Li 5 CY,
- {9
~i = for (Y < ~i < p,
for ~i 2 p.
(13.1 12)
Stage 1, n = 1, i = 1,2,3,4
Using Eq. (13.80) the optimum overhaul cost limit for a system
age varying from i = 1 to 4 years yields
+
Li = A* - S ( i ) Sn-l(l)- Sn-l(i l ) , +
+
L1 = A* - S(1) So(1) - So(2),
= 10-3-3+2,
or
L1 = 6. (13.113)
L2 = A* - S(2) + - s0(3),
= 10-2+3-0,
or
L2 = 5. (13.114)
L3 +
= A* - S(3) So(1)- s0(4),
= 10-0-3-0,
or
L3 = 7, (1 3.115)
and
+
L4 = A* - S(4) So(1) - s0(5),
= 10-0-3-0,
or
L4 = 7. (13.116)
If i = 1, then the overhaul cost is uniformly distributed in the range
) (1,2). Since the optimum overhaul limit is L1 = 6, then the
( c Y , ~=
estimated overhaul cost is always less than L1 and an overhaul decision
516 OPTIMAL OVERHAUL COST LlMITS
is made regardless of the estimate. Then, Pl(L1)= 1 and from Eq.

(13.112)
-L1 = -
a+p
2 ’
= -1 + 2
2 ’
or
-L1 = 1.5. ( 13.1 17)
= (2,4),and since L2 = 5 then Pz(L2)= 1.
Similarly, for i = 2, (a,p)
Then,
-
L2 = -
2+4
2 ’
or
-L2 = 3. (13.118)
For i = 3, (a,p)= (3,6),and since L3 = 7 then P3(L3)= 1. Then,
-L3 = -
3+6
2 ’
or
-L3 = 4.5. (13.119)
For i = 4, (a,p)= (4,8),and since L4 = 7, then, from Eq. (13.111)’
or
P4(L4)= 0.75, (1 3.120)
and
-
L4 = -
7+4
2 ’
11
=-
2’
or
-
Lq = 5.5. (13.1211
The minimum total expected future cost for all i is determined

by using Eq. (13.75) and the appropriate values of Sl(i)calculated
previously. Then,
Sl(1)= 'z1 S(L1) + [A* - S(l)][1 - Pl(L1)J
+ SO(2) Pl(L1)+ SO(1)11 - Pl(Ld1,
= (1.5)(1) + (10- 3)(0) - (2)(1) - (3)(0),
= 1.5 - 2,
or
Sl(1)= -0.5. (13.122)
or
Sl(2)= 3. (13.123)
or
SI(3) = 4.5, (1 3.124)
and
-
&(4) = L4 p4(L4)+ [A* - s(4)] [I - p4(L4)]
+ So(5) P4(L4)+ So(1)[I - P4(L4)],
= (5.5)(0.75)+ (10 - 0)(1 - 0.75)
+(0)(0.75) - (3)(1 - 0.75),
= 4.125 + 2.5 - 0.75,
or
Si(4) = 5.875. (13.125)
Table 13.9 gives the summary of the calculaticjns for Stage 1.
Optimum Expected Minimum

System overhaul cost of Probability expected
age, cost limit, overhaul,
- of overhaul, future cost,
i Li Li pi(Li> Sl(9
1 6 1.5 1.00 -0.500
2 5 3.O 1.00 3.000
3 7 4.5 1.00 4.500
4 7 5.5 0.75 5.875
Stage 2, n = 2, i = 1,2 and 3

Using Eq. (13.80) the optimum overhaul cost limit for a system
age varying from i = 1 to 3 years yields
Lj = A* - ~ ( +
i )Sn-1(1)- Sn-l(i + I),
L1 = A* - ~ ( 1 )+ Sl(1)- S1(2),
= 10 - 3 - 0.5 - 3,
or
L1 = 3.5. (13.126)
L2 +
= A* - ~ ( 2 ) Sl(1)- S1(3),
= 10 - 2 - 0.5 - 4.5,
or
L2 =3, ( 13.127)
and
L3 +
= A* - ~ ( 3 ) Sl(1)- s1(4),
= 10 - 0 - 0.5 - 5.875,
or
L3 = 3.625. (13.128)
For i = 1, (cu,P) = (1,2)and L1 = 3.5, then Pl(L1) = 1 and

Q+P
z1=2'
-
- -1 + 2
2 '
or
-
L1 = $1.5. (13.129)
For i = 2, ( q P ) = (2,4) and L2 = 3, then
= -3 - 2
4-2'
or
(13.130)
and
-
L2 = -
3+2
2 3
or
-L2 = 2.5.
(13.131)
P) = (3,6)and L3 = 3.625, then
For i = 3, (a,
- 3.625 - 3
6-3 '
or
P3(L3) = 0.21, (13.132)
and
-L3 = -
L3+ff
2 '
- 3.625 +3
, 2 '
or
-
L3 = 3.313. (13.133)
520 OPTXMAL OVERHAUL COST LLMXTS
The minimum total expected future cost, Sz(i), for n = 2 and i = 1,2,3
is determined using Eq. (13.75) and appropriate values of Pj(Lj) and
the Zi calculated previously. Then,
&(l) = El Pl(L1) + [A* - S(l)l[l - S(L1)1
+ -
Sl(2) Pl(L1) + Sl(l)[l PdLl)],
+
= (1.5)(1) (10 - 3)(0)
+ +
(3)(1) (-0.5)(0),
or
S2(1) = 4.5. (13.134)
or
&(2) = 7.25, (13.135)
and
or
S2(3)= 9.434. (13.136)
Table 13.10 gives the summary of the calculations for n = 2 and i = 1,2
and 3.
Stage 3, n = 3, i = 1 , 2
Using Eq. (13.80) the optimum overhaul cost limit for the system
of ages i = 1 and 2 years, yields
+
Li = A' - S ( i ) Sn-l(l) - Sn-l(i + l),
+
L1 = A' - S(1) &(1) - S2(2),
+
= 10 - 3 4.5 - 7.25,

age,
i
cost limit, -
overhaul, of overhaul, future cost,
Li Li pi (Li) S2(i)
1 3.500 1.500 1.00 4.500
2 3.000 2.500 0.50 7.250
3 3.625 3.313 0.21 9.434
or
L1 = 4.25, (13.137)
and
L2 = A* - S(2) + & ( I ) - &(3),
= 10 - 2 + 4.5 - 9.434,
or
L2 = 3.066. (13.138)
If i = 1, (cr,p) = (1,2)and L1 = 4.25, then,
Pl(L1) = 1, (13.139)
and
- a+p
L1 = -
2 ’
=- 2
1 +
2 ’
or
-
L1 = 1.5. (13.140)
If i = 2, (a,P) = (2,4)and L2 = 3.066, then,
- 3.066 - 2
4-2 ’
or
&(L2) = 0.533, (13.141)
and
-
L2 = -
L2+a
2 '
- 3.066 2 +
- 2 '
or
-L2 = 2.533. (13.142)
The minimum total expected future cost for n = 3 and i = 1,2 is
determined using Eq. (13.75) and appropriate values of Pi(Li) and
calculated previously. Then,
&(I) = zi pi(L1)4- [A* - s(l)][l- Pi(Li)]
+ S2(2) S(L1)+ s2(1)[1 - Pl(L1)1,
+
= (1.5)(1) (10- 3)(0)
+ +
(7.25)(1) (4.5)(0),
or
S3(l)= 8.725, (13.143)
and
or
S3(2) = 12.216. (13.144)
Table 13.11 gives the summary of calculations for n = 3, and i = 1
and 2.
Stage 4, n = 4, i = 1
Using Eq. (13.80) the optimum overhaul cost limit for the system
of age i = 1 year, yields
L1 = A* - S(l)+ &(l) - S3(2),
= 10 - 3 + 8.725 - 12.216,

age, cost limit, -
overhaul, of overhaul, future cost,
i Li Li pi (Li) s 3 (4
1 4.250 1.500 1.00 8.725
2 3.066 2.533 0.533 12.216
or
L1 = 3.509. (13.145)
Since the overhaul cost limit is greater than the maximum overhaul cost
for a system of one year of age, then the overhaul should be undertaken
regardless of the overhaul cost estimate. Then, PI(&)= 1 and
- a+P
L1 = -
2 ’
=- 2
1 +
2 ’
or
-
L1 = 1.5, (13.146)
and
or
S4(l)= 13.716. (13.147)
Hence the total expected future cost for the system of an age of one
year and four remaining years of operation is $13,716, which may be
achieved using the optimal overhaul cost limits given in Table 13.12.
The word “overhaul” means that the overhaul decision should be made
regardless of the overhaul cost estimate since it is always less than the
overhaul cost limit. Figure 13.5 gives the optimal paths for this system
which is initially one year old, and is to be maintained over the four-
year period with the optimal overhaul cost limits given in Table 13.12.
TABLE 13.12 - T h e optimum overhaul cost limits for Ex-

ample 13-8.
System
2 3,064 3,000 Overhaul

3 3,625 Overhaul
4 7,000
Fig. 13.5 - Optimal overhaul/replace paths for Example 13-8.

PROBLEMS 525
PROBLEMS
13-1. 1,000 units with the mean time to failure of rn = 1,000 hr, are
to be overhauled at regularly scheduled time intervals, To,equal
to 1,000 hours. Determine the following:
(1) The reliability of a unit for a mission duration

equal to the total operating time, To,between
two overhauls.
(2) The expected number of unscheduled over-
hauls in one interval, To, or between two
scheduled overhaul actions.
(3) The average time between overhauls for both
scheduled and unscheduled overhaul actions.
13-2. A mixed sample of exponential and Weibullian parts is used in
an equipment. Ninety percent of the parts are exponential with
the following parameters:
PC= 1.0, qc = 1,000 hr and -yc = 0 hr.
Ten percent of the parts are Weibullian with the following pa-
rameters:
P, = 1.5, ~7~ = 2,000 hr and 7, = 0 hr.
If the reliability goal is R G O A=~0.98, determine the following:

(1) The interval between overhauls, To, so that
the reliability for a mission duration of 50 hr
satisfies the reliability goal.
(2) The mean time between both scheduled and
unscheduled overhauls, MT B 0.
(3) If 100 such equipment are in operation, deter-
mine the number of those that will fail prior
to the overhaul time, To.
13-3. An equipment has a mean time to failure of rn = 5,000 hr, a
mean wear-out life of p = 1,500 hr and a standard deviation of
Q = 200 hr. To prevent wear-out failures from occurring prior to
scheduled overhauls the interval between overhauls, To, should
be determined from To= p - 5 0 . Determine the following:
526 OVERHAUL POLICIES
(1) The interval between overhauls, To, and the

reliability of an equipment for a mission du-
ration of T = To,assuming that only chance
failures occur.
(2) The probability of wear-out failures occurring
prior to To.
(3) The probability of chance failures occurring
prior to To.
(4) Compare the results of Cases 2 and 3.
(5) If 100 such equipment are in operation how
many will fail due to chance failures prior to
To?
(6) If the interval between overhauls is extended
to To = 1,000 hr, what is the probability of
wear-out failures occurring prior to To? Com-
pare this result to the result of Case 2.
(7) Determine the reliability of the equipment for
a mission duration of T = To= 1,500 hr and
compare this result with the result of Case 1.
(8) If 100 such equipment are in operation, how
many will fail due to chance failures prior to
To = 1,500 hr?
(9) What should be the mean wear-out designed-
in life if there is a requirement that no more
than 1%fail due to wear-out, assuming that a
good approximation of the standard deviation
isa=$?
13-4. Given is the system of Fig. 13.6, which is subjec-
ted to overhauls every To = 1,000 hr. Determine
the following:
(1) What percent of such systems will fail before
the regular overhaul time, To,is reached?
(2) What is the mean time between both sched-
uled and unscheduled overhauls for this sys-
tem?
. . How many overhauls will be performed for
(3)
500,000 calendar-hours, when 50,000 hr are
spent to perform overhauls? Consider no
other downtime or idle time.
PROBLEMS 527
h,, = 1,000 fr/106 hr

bE= 1,200 fr/ lo6hr
&= 100 fr/106 hr
2 = 200fr/106hr
SE
sw *
h,,, = 10 fr/106 hr
1 hswQ = 50 fr/106 hr
. 6
h, = 100 fr/lO cycles
Fig. 13.6 - Standby system with one active and one standby
unit for Problem 13-4.
h,, = 100 fr/106hr

hE= 120 fr/106hr
. %9= 0
2
= 0
hsw,
1 hWQ= 0 6
> = 50 fr/lO cycles
hswE
Fig. 13.7 - Standby system with one active and one standby
unit for Problem 13-5.
(4) How many of Unit 1 will fail during the period

given in Case 3?
( 5 ) How many of Unit 2 will fail during the same
period?
13-5. Given is the system of Fig. 13.7, which is subjected to overhauls
every To = 1,000 hr. Determine the following:
(1) What percent of such systems will fail before
the regular overhaul time, To,is reached?
(2) What is the mean time between both sched-
uled and unscheduled overhauls for this sys-
tem?
(3) How many overhauls will be performed for
500,000 calendar-hours, when 50,000 hr are
spent to perform overhauls? Consider no
other downtime or idle time.
PROBLEMS 529

the system at
s t a r t of interval,
a Decision Good Failed
Overhaul pu(G, G) = 0.85 pu(G, F ) = 0.15 '
Good Replace pRp(G,G) = 0.99 p%(G, F)= 0.01
Repair p'(F,G) = 0.80 p'(F,F) = 0.20
Failed Replace pRp(F,G) = 0.95 @ ( F , F ) = 0.05
TABLE 13.14 - Costs of the system's operation for a one-

year interval for Problem 13-6.

the system at
start of interval,
a Decision Good Failed
Overhaul C"(G,G) = $300 Cu(G,F) = $1,500
Good Replace C h ( G ,G) = $400 C h ( G ,F ) = $1,400
Repair Cr(F,G)= $200 C'(F,F) = $1,ooO
Failed Replace CRp(F,G) = $500 C&(F,F) = $1,200
(4) How many of Unit 1 will fail during the period

given in Case 3?
( 5 ) How many of Unit 2 will fail during the same
period?
13-6. A complex system is put into operation. It is decided that the
system is inspected at regular one-year intervals and, depending
on the condition of the system, replacement, repair or overhaul
is undertaken. The transition probabilities from State i to State
j are given in Table 13.13. Costs of the system's operation for
a one-year interval, depending on the system's condition at the
start and at the end of an interval, are given in Table 13.14.
Assuming that the system should be in operation for four more
years, determine the best possible decisions among replacement,
repair and overhaul at each one-year interval so that the total
expected future cost is minimum, for this finite time horizon
case.
TABLE 13.15 - The overhaul cost, Co(i), the annual cost,

) , the salvage cost, Cd(i),
C A ( ~and for Prob-
lem 13-7. All costs are given as multiples
of $1,000.
13-7. A complex system whose age at present is one year is to be in-

spected, and either overhauled or replaced at one-year intervals.
The cost of overhaul, Co(i),the annual cost, c ~ ( iand) , the sal-
vage value of the replaced system are given in Table 13.15. The
acquisition cost of the system is $25,000. Determine the sequence
of decisions for a four-year period in which the system should be
in operation.
13-8. The system of Problem 13-6is to be maintained indefinitely. The
transition probabilities are given in Table 13.13 and the operation
costs in a b l e 13.14. Determine the best overhaul/repair/repl-
ace decisions or the optimum maintenance policy and the steady
state average cost per unit time of operation.
13-9. A complex unit, initially new, is to be inspected regularly at
one-year intervals and the overhaul cost estimated. The unit
can be in operation at most three years; i.e., the unit is always
replaced if its age reaches three years. At the end of the first
year the overhaul cost is uniformly distributed over the range
(O;$l,OOO), at the end of the second year the overhaul cost is
uniformly distributed over the range (0; $1,500) and the cost of
a new system is $1,500. If the unit is to be in operation for the
next seven years determine the optimal overhaul cost limits for
the unit.
13-10. A complex unit, initially new, is to be inspected regularly at
one-year intervals and the overhaul cost estimated. The unit
can be in operation at most four years; i.e., the unit is always
replaced if its age reaches four years. At the end of the first
year the overhaul cost is normally distributed with the mean,
p = $1,000 and standard deviation of Q = $100. At the end of
REFERENCES 531
the second year the overhaul cost is normally distributed with

the mean,p = $150 and standard deviation, Q = $100, and the
cost of a new system is $1,500. If the unit is to be in operation for
the next seven years determine the optimal overhaul cost limits
for the unit.
REFERENCES
1. Kececioglu, Dimitri B., Reliability Engineering Handbook, DEStech

Publications, 1148 Elizabeth Am., #2, Lancaster, PA 17601-
4359, Vol.1, 720 pp., 2002.
2. Bssovsky, I., Reliability Theory and Pructia, Prentice Hall,Up
per Saddle River, New Jersey 07458, 292 pp., 1963.
3. Jardine, A.K.S., Maintenance, Replacement and Reliability, Wi-
ley & Sons,New York, 199 pp., 1973.
4. Blanks, S.B.,Reliability in Pmumment and Use,Wiley dz Sons,
New York, 356 pp., 1992.
5. Howard, R.A., Dynamic PI.ogmmrning and Markou Processes,
Wiley & Sons,New York, 136 pp., 1960.
6. Hastings, N.A.J., Equipment Replacement and the Repoir Limit
Method, Operational Research in Maintenance, ed. A.K.S.Jar-
dine, Manchester University Press/Barnes and Noble, pp. 100-
118, 1970.
Chapter 14
SPARES PROVISIONING
14.1 SPARES PROVISIONING AT A DESIRED

CONFIDENCE LEVEL
The expected number of spare parts needed for a particular product,
for a prescribed period of time can be determined from the expected
number of failures [l,Vol. 1, p. 1931, or from
(14.1)
where
- T I ) = estimate of the expected number of failures
NF(T~
for a life period (T2 - T I ) ,per part,
X(T) = failure rate function for a life period (2'2 - T l )
for that part,
and
(2'2 - 2'1) = part life period for which the spare parts pro-
visioning is to be determined.
Equation (14.1) applies to any type of reliability bathtub curve (RBTC),
with or without preventive and/or corrective maintenance, provided
the RBTC is representative of the situation for which the number of
spare parts is determined, the appropriate X(T) is used, and the total
number of identical parts in use remains essentially constant. Then,
the total number of expected spare parts is given by
NFT(T2 - = NT NF(T2 - (14.2)
533
534 SPARES PRO VISIONING
where
Nm(T2 - 2'1) = total number of expected spare parts in life
period (2'2 - T I ) ,
and
NT = total number of identical parts in use during life period
(T2 - Tl).
If NT varies with T, then
(14.3)
where
N = ( T ) = functional relationship for the total number of identical
parts in use during part life period (2'2 - TI).
N F T ( T-~2'1) can be determined only when, in addition t o X(T) which
is obt&ned from the RBTC, NT(T) is also known. N T ( T ) may be
determined either by monitoring such parts, or by the theory of main-
tainability and the preventive and corrective maintenance policy and
schedule used, as it will be presented in the next sections. If NT and
X(T) are both constant for life period (Tz- TI), then X(T) = X and a
good estimate of the spare parts is given by
N F ~ - (- ~ = NT x X x
T 2'1) (2'2 - Ti). (14.4)
To determine the number of spares at the desired confidence level use
the assumption that if the times to occurrence of an event are expo-
nentially distributed, having rate A, then the number of events in any
interval of length t is Poisson distributed with mean X t. The Poisson
distribution can be obtained from the following identity
e-= ez = 1
Expanding the term ex into the Taylor series expansion yields
Then,
2
e-x -t ie-x
X2
+ -e-z + . . . + 2" + . . . = 1.
2 n!
SPARES PROVISIONING 535
Each term represents a probability, and the sum of all these prob-
abilities is equal to 1. Hence, each term is a term of a p d f , and in this
case of the Poisson p d f .
The interpretation of this distribution is as follows: If x is taken to
be the expected, or average, number of occurrences of an event, then
e-= = probability that that event will not occur if x remains
constant,
xe-“ = probability that that event will occur exactly once,
X2
-e’” = probability that that event will occur exactly twice,
2!
and so on.
In reliability, the event of concern is failure, and the average number
of failures in time t is given by x = A t , when A is constant. Conse-
quently, e‘” = e - X * , which is R ( t ) for a single system having a constant
failure rate, A, gives the probability that no failure will occur in time
t. ze-” = Ate’” is the probability of exactly one failure occurring
in time t , [ x 2 / 2 ! ] e - ” = [ ( X t ) 2 / 2 ! ] e - x t is the probability of exactly two
failures occurring in time t , and so on.
Therefore, the probability of exactly k failures occurring in t is
given by
f(k) = e -”-,( A t > k k = 0,1,2,*..

k!
This is the discrete Poisson distribution.
The cumulative Poisson distribution is given by
F( k) = P(k or fewer failures),
0s
These results may be used to determine the probability of occurrence

of a specific number of failures during a mission, to determine standby
reliability, or to calculate the number of spares required when units
have constant and identical failure rates. Applications of these are
given in the examples that follow.
EXAMPLE 14-1
Given is a unit exhibiting a constant failure rate of 150 fr/106hr
and operating for a mission of 100 hr. Find the following probabilities:
536 SPARES PROVISIONING
1. No failures occur during this mission.

2. One failure occurs during this mission.
3. Two failures occur during this mission.
4. Two or fewer failures occur during this mission.
5. Should two spares be provided for this unit?
1. The probability that no failures occur during this mission, or
f(O), is the system's reliability for this mission, or
RS = f ( ~ =) e-xf,
R~ = e-(150)(10-6)(100) = e-0.0150 7
Rs = 0.98511.
2. The probability that one failure occurs during this mission is
given by
f(1) = Ate-",
f(1 ) = (150)( 100)e-(150)( lo-')( 100)9
f(1) = (0.015)(0.9851),
or
f (1) = 0.01477.
3. The probability that two failures occur during this mission is
given by
- A t 0 2
f(2) = e 2! '
-0.015 (0-015)2
f(2) = e 2 '
0.000225
f(2) = (0.9851) ,
or
f(2) = 0.00011,
a much lower probability than for one failure.
4. The probability that two or fewer failures occur during this m i s -

sion is given by
F ( 2 ) = 0.98511 + 0.01477 + 0,00011,

or
F ( 2 ) = 0.99999.
5. As the probability of having up to two failures is as high as
0.99999 it will be very safe to provide two spares for this unit.
EXAMPLE 14-2
In a system there exists a very critical unit which requires spares
to attain a specified unit reliability of 99%,for a period of 250 hr. The
unit has an M T B F of 1,250 hr and exhibits a constant failure rate
characteristic.
How many spares would be required if the unit is easily accessible
and can be replaced almost immediately, by successfully plugging in an
identical spare when the functioning unit fails, to increase its reliability
from 81.87% to 99%?
The solution may be found by using the Poisson distribution and
answering the question, “HOWmany failures, equal to the number of
spares,.can be tolerated to attain the reliability of 99%?” or the ques-
tion, “How many standby (spare) units are required to attain the
reliability of 99%?” Therefore,
and
1
= (MTBF) (t) = (E)1
(250) = 0.2.
Consequently,
(0.2)2 + . . . + -
2 k!
This equation should be solved for the nearest integer, k, which satisfies
the equality; then the required number of spares is found t o be
k = 2.
With two spare units, the actual reliability is
Rs = F(2) = 0.99885,
whereas with one spare it would be
Rs = F( 1) = 0.98248.
Consequently, k = 2 is the right answer.
EXAMPLE 14-3
A battery has an expected failure rate of 0.01 fr/hr and is used 24
hr per day.
1. How many spares will be required for a three-calendar-month
period (assume 30 days per month) for a 95% probability (ad-
equacy, assurance, or confidence) that there will be a sufficient
number of spares?
2. What would the battery reliability be for a 24-hr period?
3. If a battery adequacy of 95% is required for a 24-hr period, how
many spares would be required for a three-calendar-month pe-
riod, assuming the replacement of the failed batteries is immedi-
ate?
4. Compare and discuss the results obtained in Cases 1 and 3.
1. The average number of spares required for a three-calendar-month

period, assuming operation during useful life and no preven-
tive maintenance other than immediate replacement of a battery
whenever it fails, is
-
Nsp = X t,
where
t = total operating time,
= (
(a,)
24 hr 30 days
month) (3 months),
t = 2,160 hr,
and
X = 0.01 fr/hr.
Then,
-
N s p = (0.01)(2,160),
or
-
N s p = 21.6 failures.
For a 95% assurance of having sufficient spares
and with Fsp = 21.6, N s = 30 spares.
2. The battery reliability for a 24-hr period is

~ ( t=)e - X t -
-e (-0.01)(24)
or
R ( t ) = 0.7866.
3. For a 24-hr period and 95% assurance,

-
N s p = (0.01)(24) = 0.24 failures.
Then,
j=O J'
For N s = 1,
0.95 5 e-0.24(l t 0.24),
0.95 < 0.9754;
therefore, one spare will be required for a 24-hr operating period.
Extending this to a three-calendar-month period, or to 90 days,
yields
Ns = (1)(90) = 90 spares.
4. In Case 1 the 95% assurance requirement is for a period of 3

months, whereas in Case 3 it is for a 24-hr period; consequently,
Case 1 requires only 30 spares, whereas Case 3 requires 90 spares;
i.e., substantidy more!
With 90 spares a daily battery adequacy probability of 97.54% is
achieved, whereas only 95% is required. This means that money
can be saved by having fewer spares that give an adequacy prob-
ability closer t o 95%. To find the number of spares, z, that are
necessary, we can interpolate as follows:
z (0.9754) + (90 - ~)(0.7866)= (90)(0.95),
where
(90)(0.95) = average number of days the battery
completes a 24-hr mission for a total
of 90 days,
z (0.9754) = average number of days the battery
of 2 days,
(90 - z)(0.7866) = average number of days the battery
of (90 - z) days,
0.9754 = probability that there is one or fewer
battery failures during a 24-hr period,
and
0.7866 = probability that there is no failure dur-
ing a 24-hr period.
Therefore, the left side of the equation is the average number of
days the battery completes a 24-hr mission, for a total of 90 days,
and so is the right side. Now solving for z yields
2 (0.9754 - 0.7866) = (90)(0.95 - 0.7866),
(90)(0.95 - 0.7866)
x =
(0.9754 - 0.7866) ’
or
x = 77.88, or 78 spares.
Therefore, 78 spares would be sufficient to achieve a daily battery
adequacy probability of 95% for a 3-month period, instead of the
90 spares found in Case 3.
EXAMPLE 14-4
There are N = 100 identical units operating in the field, or in a
production facility. Each unit has a mean time t o failure, M T T F , of
500 hr. For a period of 6 months, during which each unit operates
cumulatively to = 600 hr, determine the following:
1. The average number of spare units required.
2. The number of spare units required at the 80%, 90%, 95% and
99% confidence levels.
SOLUTIONS TO EXAMPLE 1 4 4
1. The average number of spares, x s , can be determined from

- 1
Ns = to N,
MTTF
or
-
N s = 120 spares.
2. The number of spare units required, N s , at the given confidence

level, C L , can be determined from the cumulative Poisson dis-
tribution, or from
(14.5)
L J
In Eq. (14.5)the summation term says that the probability of

occurrence of zero (0), one, two up to and including N s failures,
is equal to the confidence level, CL , and N s failures will require
N s spares, one for each failure. It is this fact that makes the
summation equal to the confidence level. Using Eq. (14.5) the
cumulative terms of the Poisson distribution may be determined
for the average number of spare units calculated in Case 1, or
for W S = 120. Entering Table 14.1, which is one page from
[2, p. 2021 and is only for xs = 120, going down the column
headed by C(Ns),which stands for the cumulative Poisson dis-
tribution value given x s , stop at the C ( N s ) value nearest the
chosen confidence level, go left to the first column and read off the
corresponding Ns value, which is the required number of spares.
TABLE 14.1 - Table of the Poisson distribution, individ-

ual and cumulative terms, for the average
number of spares of 120 units, for Example
14-4.
-
-
Ns P(Ns) C(Nd
119 0.03639300 0.48786002
120 0.03639300 0.52425302
121 0.03609223 0.56034525
122 0.03550055 0.59584580
123 0.03463469 0.63048049
124 0.03351744 0.66399793
125 0.03217674 0.69617467
126 0.03064452 0.72681919
127 0.02895545 0.75577464
128 0.02714573 0.78292037
129* 0.02525184 0.80817221*
130 0.02330939 0.83148161
131 0.02135212 0.85283373
132 0.O 1941102 0.87224475
133 0.01751370 0.88975844
134* 0.01568391 0.90544235*
135 0.01394125 0.91938360
136 0.01230111 0.93168471
137 0.01077469 0.94245940
138* 0.00936930 0.95182870*
139 0.00808860 0.95991730
140 0.00693309 0.96685039
141 0.00590050 0.97275088
142 0.00498634 0.97773722
143 0.00418434 0.98192156
144 0.00348695 0.98540851
145 0.00288575 0.98829426
146" 0.00237185 0.99066611*
147 0.00193620 0.99260231
148 0.00156990 0.99417221
149 0.00126435 0.99543656
150 0.00101148 0.99644803
TABLE 14.2 - Required number of spare units, N s , at the

confidence levels of 80%, SO%, 95% and
SS%, for Example 14-4.
Actual
Confidence Number confidence
level, of level,
% spares %
80 129 80.8
90 134 90.5
95 138 95.2
99 146 99.1
For example, for C L = 80% the closest value to it, in the C ( N s )

column in Table 14.1, is 0.80817221 in decimals. Going to the
corresponding value in the first column yields Ns = 129, or nine
(9) more than the average. Going to the value of C ( N s ) closest
to C L = 90% yields Ns = 134, or 14 more than the average.
For C L = 95% Table 14.1 yields N s = 138, or 18 more than the
average, and for CL = 99% it yields Ns = 146, or 26 more than
the average. The number of spare units required at the desired
confidence levels are summarized in Table 14.2. Reference [3]
may also be used to find N s .
14.1.1 SELECTION OF THE CONFIDENCE LEVEL

Selecting the right confidence level, C L , to use for spares provisioning
is very important, because with the wrong CL the number of spares
can be either over- or under-estimated. For example, when the spare
unit when needed can be obtained from a nearby supplier who stocks
it and can deliver it within 30 minutes if contacted by electronic mail,
and the time to prepare the failed equipment and the administrative
time consume 30 minutes and not much more, and this downtime is
acceptable, then the confidence level of spares provisioning would be
zero (0), because there is no need to have a spare on hand. At the other
extreme, if the units to be spared for are very critical for the function-
ing of much used products whose downtime is very costly in terms of
loss of valuable production or performance output, and there is a long
lead time of procuring the spares, then the confidence level of spares
provisioning should be very high, such as 99%. An interpretation of
the C L is as follows:
If the spares are provided at a CL of 99%, then, in the long run,

in 99 out of 100 requests for a spare, during the spares provisioning
period of these failed units, a spare will be available.
14.2 SPARES PROVISIONING FOR A DECAY-

ING POPULATION
When dealing with a decaying population of identical units the failed
units are not replaced or maintained as soon as they fail. To find
the number of units which should start a mission, or the number of
missions one unit undertakes, NT, to end up with the desired number
at the end of the mission or the number of successful missions, N s ( T ) ,
use
or
(14.6)
The number of units that will fail, N F , and need to be spared would
be given by
NF = NT Q ( t ) = NT [l - R(t)]. (14.7)
The conditional reliability function, R ( T , t ) , may be used t o find
the number of units which should start the new mission, starting at
the age T , N s ( T ) , to end up with the desired number at the end of the
new mission o f t duration, Ns(T+t),and the number that should start
at age zero, Ns(O), to end up with desired number at the end of the
+
new mission, Ns(T t ) , and vice versa. By definition the conditional
reliability is given by
(14.8)
Also
(14.9)
From Eq.(14.9)the number of units which should start the new mission
at age T , N s ( T ), is given by
(14.10)
SPARES PRO VISIONING 545
Also, by definition,
Therefore, the number of units that should start at age zero, Ns(O),is
given by
(14.11)
EXAMPLE 14-5
The times-to-failure distribution of identical units is represented
well by the normal distribution with mean 9; = 43,679hr and a stan-
dard deviation of UT = 562 hr. Do the following:
1. Find the number of units which should start the new mission
of 300-hr duration, each unit having already accumulated 42,850
hr, t o end up with 100 such units at the end of the mission.
2. Find the number of units which should start at age zero to end
up with 100 such units at the end of the new mission.
1. From Eq. (14.10)
where
Ns(T + t ) = 100 units.
From Eq. (14.8)
or
0.8267
R(T,t) = 0.9299 = 0.8890. (14.12)
Therefore, by substitution in Eq. (14.10) the number of units

needed at the beginning of the new mission t o end up with 100
units at the end of the new mission is
100
Ns(T) = -
0.8890'
or
N s ( T )= 112 units.
2. From Eq. (14.11)
+
Substitution of Ns(T t ) = 100 and R(T 4- t ) = 0.8267, found
in Case 1, gives the number of units needed at age zero t o end
up with 100 units at the end of the new mission; then,
100
Ns(0)= -
0.8267'
or
N s ( 0 ) = 121 units.
Consequently, not 100 but 121 units need t o be provided, or
so to speak 21 additional spares should have been on hand to
accommodate this situation.
14.3 SPARES PROVISIONING WHEN REPLAC-

ING UNITS THAT FAIL BY A PRESCRIBED
OPERATING TIME
The conditional reliability function may be used in the case of replacing
those units that fail by a prescribed operating time [l,Vol. 2, pp. 351-
3621. Identical units operate a prescribed period of time, 2'1, from age
zero; those that are found to have failed after TIhours of operation are
replaced by fresh ones, and the replaced and nonreplaced units operate
an additional T hours. The reliability of No such units for the first 21'
hours of operation is R(T1),and from Eq. (14.7)the number that will

fail by TI hours of operation is
NF-R(TI)= No Q(Ti)= No [I - R(T1)I. (14.13)
These are replaced by fresh ones and they operate T hours thereafter.
The number of these replaced units that will fail after T additional
hours of operation, using Eq. (14.13),would be
NF-R(T)= NF-R(TI)Q(T)= NO [I - R(T’)][1-R(T)]. (14.14)
The number of those that do not fail by T1 is
NS(T1) = No R(T1). (14.15)
The number of these units that will fail while operating T additional
hours, using Eq. (14.15),would be
NF-NR(Tl,T)= NS(T1) [I - R(Tl,T)I,
or
(14.16)
+
Consequently, the total number of such units that will fail by (TI T )
hours of operation, under the condition that those that fail by TI hours
are replaced, is given by the sum of Eqs. (14.13),(14.14)and (14.16),
or
Simplification of Eq. (14.17)yields

+ T ) = No
NF-T(TI [2 - R(Ti)- R(T)
tR(T1) R ( T )- R(T1 + T ) ] . (14.18)
Eqeuation (14.18)gives the average number of spares that should be
provided for NOsuch units with the replacement policy considered here.
Of those that fail by TI hours of operation and are replaced, the
number that will survive after additional T hours of operation is given
by
NS-R(T)= N F - R ( T ~R) ( T ) = No [I - R(T1)I R ( T ) . (14.19)
Of those that do not fail by 2'1 hours of operation and operate T

additional hours, the number surviving is given by
NS-NR(Tl+ T)= No R(T1) R(T1,T) = No R(T1)R(Tl+ T)

R(T1) '
or
Ns-NR(T~t T ) = No R(Ti + T). (14.20)
Out of the No that started out, the number of those that survive, after
replacement of those that failed by 2'1, is given by the sum of Eqs.
(14.19)and (14.20),or
Ns-R(T~t T ) = No {[I - R(Ti)] R ( T )+ R(Ti + T)}. (14.21)
EXAMPLE 14-6
Identical types of bearings have a Weibull times-to-failure distribu-
tion with the following parameters:
,O = 2, 7 = 2,000 hr, and 7 = 0 hr.
Do the following:
1. If 100 of such bearings are operating in identical equipment at
the same application and operation stress level, how many will
survive if each operates Ti = 1,300hr at 675 rpm, and how many
will fail?
2. If the failed bearings are replaced by new ones and all of them
operate for T = 700 hr thereafter, how many of the fresh ones
will fail?
3. Of those that survived Tl hours, how many will fail during the
additional T hours of operation?
+
4. What is the total number of bearings that will fail by (TI 7')
hours of operation, given that 100 start at age zero and that
those that fail by Ti hours are replaced by fresh ones?
5. What is the total number of bearings that survive after (TI+ T )
hours when we follow the policy of replacing the failed ones by
Tlhours?

1. The reliability for TI= 1,300 hr is given by
R ( T ~=) ~-[(TI-T)/~I’
1300 2
R(1,300 hr) = e-(m),
or
R( 1,300 hr) = 0.655406.
The number of bearings that will survive is
Ns(2’1) = Ns(l,300 hr) = NoR(T1) = 100 x 0.655406,
= 65.5406,
or
Ns(l,300 hr) % 65.
The number of such bearings that will fail is
NF-R(TI)= No Q(T1)= No [1 - R(Tl)],
= 100 X (1 - 0.655406),
= 34.4594,
or
N F - R ( ~ ,300 hr) % 35.
2. From Eq. (14.14)
NF-R(T) = No [I - R(T1)][1- & ( T ) ] ,
where
700 )2
R(T)=e-(T;ooo ,
or
R(700 hr) = 0.884706.
Then,
NF-R(T = 700 hr) = l O O ( 1 - 0.655406)(1- 0.884706),
= 100 (0.344594)(0.115294) = 3.97,
or
N ~ - ~ ( 7 0hr)0 2 4.
Therefore, four out of the fresh bearings will fail while operating
700 hr after replacement.
3. FYom Eq. (14.16)
and from Case 1
Then
0.367879
NF-NR( 1,300hr; 700 hr) = 65 (1 -
0.655406]'
= 65 x 0.438701,
or
300 hr; 700 hr) = 28.52E 29.

NF-NR(~,
Therefore, 29 of these bearings will fail.
, hr + 700 hr) = 100 [2 - 0.655406- 0.884706

N F - T ( ~300
+
(0.655406)(0.884706) - 0.3678791,
or
hr + 700 hr) = 100 (0.671851)= 67.19Z 68.
N~-~(1,300
Consequently, 68 such bearings will fail by 2'1 + T = 2,000hr.
The same answer can be obtained from
or
N ~ - 7 - ( 2 , 0 0 0hr) = 35 + 4 + 29 = 68.
SPARES PROVISIONING 55 1
5. From Eq. (14.21)

Ns-R(TI + T ) = NO {[I - R(Ti)]R(T)t R ( T ; I +T ) } ,
N s - R ( l , 300 hr + 700 hr) = 100 {[l - 0.655406](0.884706)
t (0.367879)},
+
NS-R(2,000 hr) = 100[(0.344594)(0.884706) (0.367879)],
or
Ns-~(2,000hr) = 100 x 0.672743 = 67.27 S 67.
Therefore, a total of 67 of these bearings will survive.
The same answer can be obtained from
14.4 PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE POLICIES

AND SPARES PROVISIONING
14.4.1 AGE REPLACEMENT POLICY - POLICY I
A unit is replaced preventively once it has reached a specified age, T p ,
and correctively whenever it fails before age Tp [See Section 9.21. The
optimal replacement age, TP, is so determined that the total expected
cost per unit operating time is minimized using Eq. (9.31), or
To determine the spares needed for corrective and preventive mainte-

nance of a unit, its corrective and preventive replacement rates need
to be known. Since the term
gives the mean time between both preventive replacements and cor-
rective failures, the total replacement rate, AT, is given by Eq. (9.22),
or
1
AT = = A, + A,.
J P R ( r )dr
As defined in Section 9.5 the total average number of spares over a
long period of operation of the equipment, say t hours, is given by
= (14.22)
ASP
JFR ( r ) dr’
The total number of spares at the confidence level, CL = 1 - a , is
obtained from Eq. (9.29) by solving for N s p which is the actual number
of spares, or
(14.23)
EXAMPLE 14-7
Consider Example 9-3 and the system of Fig. 9.12. Determine
the total average number of spares for a period of 10,000 hr and the
number of spares at a 95% confidence level.
1. In Example 9-3 the stabilized preventive maintenance, or re-

placement rate, is calculated from
RVP) - R( 1,000)
A, = -
J?R(r) dr so 1
R(r)d r ’
or
A, = 0.000549 rp/hr.
The stabilized corrective failure rate is calculated from
A, = Q(Tp) - Q(1,OOO)
J ~ R ( Tdr) so 1,000
R(7) d ~ ’
or
A, = 0.000871 fr/hr.
Then, the total average number of spares for a period t = 10,000

hr is given by
-
+
N S P = A, t A, 2,
= (A, + A,) 4
= (549 + 871)( lO,OOO),
or
-
N s p = 14.2 spares.
2. The number of total spares at the confidence level of CL = 95%

is obtained from Eq. (14.23)by solving for N s p . Substitution of
the value for l j f s p from Case 1 yields
j=o J.
Using cumulative Poisson distribution tables yields
N s p = 20 spares.
The normal distribution with mean of Fsp and standard devi-
ation of 6may be used to approximate the Poisson distri-
bution if the mean of the Poisson distribution is large enough,
say 10 or more. Since the Poisson distribution is discrete and
the normal distribution is continuous, the continuity correction
should be used as follows:
where
a = lower value of the random variable X ,

6 = upper value of the random variable X ,
or for one-sided cumulative probability
P ( X 5 b ) = !I)
(b + 0.5) - Fsp (14.24)
In this example
I- -
or
0.95 = @
+
( N S P 0.5) - 14.2
FYom the cumulative normal distribution tables the probability

of 0.95 yields z, = 1.G45. Then,
2, = 20.95 = 1.645 =
+
( N S P 0.5) - 14.2
3.768
Solving for N s p yields
Nsp = 19.898,
or
Nsp = 20 spares,
at the 95% confidence level.
14.4.2 BLOCK REPLACEMENT POLICY - POLICIES 11

AND VII
In these policies a unit is replaced preventively at constant intervals
of length Tp irrespective of its age, and correctively whenever it fails
between preventive replacements [See Sections 9.7 and 11.11. The op-
timal interval between preventive replacements, T;, is so determined
that the expected replacement cost per unit time of operation is min-
imized using Eq. (11.5), or
1
CT
TP
+
= - {cp cc Ho(Tp)} 9 (14.25)
where Ho(Tp)is the expected, or mean number of failures in a pe-

riod (0, Tp),is defined as the ordinary renewal function (ORF), and is
obtained by using Eqs. (11.2) and (11.3), or by
H,(T) = C - ’ H , ( s ) ,
SPARES PR 0VISIONING 555
where
and
f(s) = L [ f ( T ) ]= Laplace transform of f ( T ) .
For any given time period
where
(14.26)
is the total average number of preventive replacement cycles in the

time period, t , and
+=t-jT; (14.27)
is the remaining time after j preventive replacement cycles are com-
pleted. The total average number of spares for a unit in the time period
1 is the sum of the expected number of spares in j preventive replace-
ment cycles which includes j R(T,’) spares for corrective replacements
and j spares for preventive replacements, plus the expected number of
spares in remaining time T, I?(+),or
-
NSP = j [I t w;)] t ~ ( . r ) , (14.28)
where
H ( T i ) = expected number of spares needed in a time
interval (0, Tp).
One additional spare is added due to a preventive replacement at the
end of each preventive replacement interval.
EXAMPLE 14-8
Given the unit of Example 11-1, determine the following:
1. The total average number of spares for a period of t = 10,000 hr.
2. The number of spares at a 95% confidence level.
1. From Example 11-1 the optimum T; that minimizes the total

cost per unit time of operation given by Eq.(14.25) is determined
to be 300 hr. Then, from Eq. (14.26)
and
r = t - j T;,
= 10,000 - (33)(300),
or
r = 100 hr.
Using Eq. (11.10) the expected nuniber of replacements in a T;
interval is given by
1 m
- 300 + -e-2,oo - -1
- (2)(200) 4 4’
or
H(T; = 300 hr) = 0.512 spares per T; = 300-hr interval.
Also
1
100 + -e-2,,,
H ( T = 100 hr) =
100
- -1
(2)(200) 4 4’
or
H(100) = 0.092 spares.
The total average number of spares for t = 10,000 hr is given by
-
N s p = 33 [l + 0.5121 + 0.092,
-
N s p = 49.988,
or
-
N s p = 50 spares.
CL = 95%
2. The number of total spares at the confidence level of
is obtained by using the normal approximation to the Poisson
distribution, then
+ 0.5) - 49.988
0.95 = @
1
(Nsp
l/m 1 9
or
1.645 =
(Nsp + 0.5) - 49.988
7.07
The value of N s p which represents the number of total spares is
then found by solving for N s p , and it yields
N s p = 61.12,
or
14.4.3 GROUP REPLACEMENT WITH POLICY I1

If groups of parts have similar life characteristics then they can be r e
placed preventively simultaneously [See Section 9.81. Assuming that
an equipment consists of n parts, of which s parts are replaced pre-
ventively every Tpl hours, k parts are replaced preventively every Tp2
+
hours, and the remaining parts, n - (k s) = h, are replaced only
correctively, then by using the renewal theory approach the total cor-
rective and preventive maintenance cost per hour of operation of the
equipment for Policy I1 is given by
n-(kSs)
h= 1
where
HB(Tps),Hk(Tpk) = expected number of failures in inter-
vals (O,?',) and (O,Tpk)for s and k
groups of parts, respectively.
C,, Cc = preventive replacement cost per unit
and corrective replacement cost per
unit, respectively.
The spares requirement model for any given operating time period t ,
or the total expected number of spares for the ith part in Group s is
given by
-4
+
N s p s = ICs [I H;(T',)] t Ad(r),
i = 1,2,...,s,
where
is the total average number of preventive replacement cycles in the

time interval, t , for Group s and
T, = t - IT, T;,.
is the remaining time after I<, preventive replacement cycles are com-
pleted.
Similarly, the expected number of spares for the j t h part in Group
k is given by
- + +
N.Sip k = I<k [I Hi(T&)] H i ( T ) ,
j = 1,2,-*.,k,
where
and
= t - l < k T&.
rk
The expected number of spares for each Group h part is given by
--m
NSPh =K(t),
m = 1,2,-..,h.
The actual number of spares for the ith unit in Group s, for example, at
the confidence level CL = 1-cu can be determined by using Eq.(14.23),
or
i = 1,2,*.*,s.
Similarly, the equations for the actual number of spares for the units in
Group k and Group h can be obtained by using appropriate subscripts
and superscripts.
14.4.4 ORDINARY PERIODIC REPLACEMENT SPARES

FOR POLICY I11
A unit is replaced preventively at constant intervals, Tp,.and restored
to “as bad as old” state by minimal repair at any f d u r e between
adjacent preventive replacements so that the failure rate, X(T),remains
the same as it was prior to failure [See Section 10.11. The optimum
preventive replacement schedule, Tp’, is so determined that the total
expected cost per unit per hour of operating time, given by Eq. (10.4),
or by
(14.29)
is minimized. The total expected number of spares for a unit in an

operating time period, t , is given by
(14.30)
14.4.5 MODIFIED PERIODIC REPLACEMENT SPARES

FOR POLICY IV
A unit is replaced preventively at the end of each replacement cycle,
Tcy,and restored to “as bad as old” state by minimal repair at any fail-
ure between adjacent preventive replacements. The optimum ordering
schedule, To,followed by a constant spares procurement lead time, L ,
is so determined that the total cost per unit, per hour of operating
time, given by Eq. (10.18) is minimized [See Subsection 10.2.11, or by
(14.31)
where
roo
and
A TO
Tw = L i- R(T)dT. (14.32)
The total expected number of spares, or the total number of spare

orders in a time period t is given by
-
N s p = INT [&I. (14.33)
EXAMPLE 14-9
Given the units of Example 10-2 with a Weibull times-to-failure
p d f , determine the expected number of spares, or the expected number
of spare orders to be made in a period t = 1,000 hr of operation.
In Example 10-2 the total cost per unit time of operation given by
Eq. (14.31) is minimized and the optimum ordering schedule is found
to be T,* = 23.5 hr. Using Eq. (14.32) the expected cycle length is
found to be T,, = 29.463 hr. Then, the expected number of spares, or
the expected number of single-unit orders, in time period t = 1,000 hr
is
-
N s p = INT [-]
1,000
29.463 ’
or
-
N s p = 34 spares, or orders for spares.
14.4.6 AGE REPLACEMENT WITH MINIMAL REPAIR

SPARES FOR POLICY V
A unit is replaced preventively by a new one every Tptime of operation.
If a unit fails, while in operation, but before a time To 5 Tpit undergoes
minimal repair to be brought back into operation while retaining the
same instantaneous failure rate, X(T),it had just prior to failure. If a
failure occurs after To but before Tp the failed unit is replaced with a
“less” reliable spare with constant failure rate, A’. It is replaced as often
as necessary with identical spares until the next scheduled replacement
time, Tp [See Subsection 10.2.21. The optimum switchover time, T,*,
and the preventive replacement schedule, Tp*,are so determined that
the total expected cost per unit time of operation is minimized using
Eq. (10.27), or
SPARES PROVISIONING 56 1
where
(14.35)
is the expected number of minimal repairs in the interval (O,To),and
(14.36)
is the expected number of less reliable spares for the units failing in
the intervd (T6,Tp).8 ( r ' )is the expected residual life of a unit having
age T6 up t o time Tpand is given by
(14.37)
Substituting Eq. (14.37) into Eq. (14.36) and adding 1 in anticipation

that at least one failure may occur in the interval (To,
Tp),
the expected
number of the "less" reliable spares is given by
(14.38)
EXAMPLE 14-10
Given the units with the gamma times-to-failure pdf of Example
10-3, determine the following:
1. The expected number of minimal repairs during t = 10,000 hr of
operation.
2. The expected number of spares during t = 10,000 hr of operation
and the total number of spares at a 95% confidence level.
1. The solution to Example 10-3 provides the optimum switchover

time T,* = 185.5 hr and the optimum preventive replacement
schedule T; = 210 hr. The expected number of minimal repairs
in a cycle is determined from Eq. (14.35).The failure rate func-
tion of the gamma pdf is
Then,
or
T,']]= To* -log,

E [Nl[0,
17 3.
(1i--
For 17 = 200 hr the expected number of minimal repairs in a cycle
is given by
The expected number of cycles in 10,000 hr of operation is ob-

tained as follows:
j = 144, 10,000
= INT [F] 9
or
j = 47.
Then,
T = 1 - j T; = 10,000- (47)(210) = 130 hr.
The expected number of total minimal repairs in 10,000 hr of
operation is given by
Since
or
E INl[,-,,130j] = 0.149 repairs,
then, the expected number of total minimal repairs is given by
-
N , , = (47)(0.271) t 0.149,
or
-
ATrp = 12.886 repairs.
SPARES P R 0VISIONING 563
2. The expected residual life, E ( T ' ) ,in a cycle for the gamma pdf
is given by Eq. (10.41),or
and the expected number of spares in a cycle is given by Eq.(10.42),

or
With A' = 0.05 fr/hr, the expected number of spares per cycle
becomes
pi] = 0.05
E [N~[T,',
200+2oo185.5 [185.5
+2 (200)- e-210;01085.5 (210+ 2 (~oo)]]},
= 0.05 [24.5- (0.5188)(585.5- 539.67)],
= 0.05 (24.5- 23-78),
or
E "2[185.5, 21011 = 0.036.
Then, the expected number of spares during t = 10,000 hr of
operation is
-
NSP = i { E [NZ[T& t 1)*;]I 9
= 47 (0.036t l),
or
-
To determine the total number of spares at a 95% confidence
level, the normal approximation t o the Poisson distribution yields
0.95 = @
+
( N S P 0.5) - 48.692
Then,
( N s p t 0.5) - 48.692
=
~0.95 1.645 =
G.978
Solving for N S P yields

N s p = 59.67,
or
N s p = 60 spares.

SPARES WITH RECONDITIONED SPARES
USED FOR POLICY IX
A unit is replaced preventively by a new one every Tp accumulated
hours of operation. If the operating unit fails before time To it is
replaced with a new identical item; if the failure occurs after To,it
is replaced with a "less" reliable, reconditioned spare [See Subsection
11.2.21. The optimum d u e s of the turnover time, T,*, and preventive
replacement schedule, TP,are determined so that the total cost per
unit time of operation is minimized using Eq. (11.44), or
The expected number of failures; i.e., spares in a time interval (O,T,)

is the sum of the mean number of failures in the time interval (O,To),
E [Nip, T , ] ] , and the number of failures; i.e., spares in the interval
(To,Tp), E [N2[rO,~ ~ 1 1The
. expected number of spares in interval
(O,To)is given by Eq. (11.45), or
(14.39)
where Ho(T,*)is the ordinary renewal function defined by Eq. (11.2).
The expected number of "less" reliable spares, E [ N q p , TJ] , is de-
termined by introducing the concept of forward recurrence time, VT.
Defining the pdf of VT by Eq. (11.46), the expected number of failures
in the (To,T') period can be defined by
"2[T.., TJ] = {T; - T,+- [VTI} ? (14.40)
where
-t /"
0
/&,(To- u ) f(. +- r') du
1 dr'.
Then, the expected number of "less" reliable spares in the (T,*,T,)

interval is given by Eq. (11.52),or
+AT' h,(T,'
1 1.
- u ) f(u t r') du dr' (14.41)
EXAMPLE 14-11
Given the units with the gamma times-to-failure pdf of Example
11-3, determine the following:
1. The expected number of spares for the original units during t =
10,000hr of operation.
2. The total number of spares at a 95% confidence level.
3. The expected number of "less reliable" spares during t = 10,000
hr of operation.

1. In Example 11-3 the total expected cost per unit time of oper-
ation function, given by Eq. (11.67), is minimized and the opti-
mum values of 7'; and TZ are found to be
T i = 300 hr
and
T,' = 40 hr.
For the gamma pdf the ordinary renewal function is given by
Eq. (11.37), or
H,(T,') =
T,' + -2
- 1 T*
-R - -1
211 4 4'
With 7 = 200, hr it yields
or
H,(T,* = 40 hr) = 0.01758 spares per cycle.
Determine the expected number of cycles during t = 10,000 hr

as follows:
or
j = 33.
Then,
r = t - j ;'2 = 10,000- 33 (300)= 100 hr.

Since r - GO = 100 - 60 = 40 = T:, then
r = T,' + 60,
and the expected number of spares during t = 10,000 hours of
operation is given by
-
NSP +
= (j 1) &(T,'),
= (34)(0.01758),
or
-
Nsp = 0.598 spares.
2. The total number of spares at a 95% confidence level is given by
j=O J'
and for N S P = 2
0.95 5 e-0*598 (I t-
0.598 + -)
0.5982 = 0.977.
I! 2!
Hence,
N s p = 2 spares.
3. For the gamma pdf the mean number of "less reliable" spares
during the interval (T:, T,) may be found from Eq. (11.66),or
For X = 0.002 fr/hr, it yields
= 0.002
E[N~[T;,T;I]
- - e - E [3002 - (300)(40)
200
+200 [2 (300)- 40 t 2 (200)]]
200
- [(300200- 40)2 + 2 (300- 40)+ 2 (200)1

.[e-% - 112}} + 1.
Then,
= 0.002 (2GO - 301.226
E[N~~T;,T;~]
t0.136 [ (200)(2.3)( 1.635)
-(I, 258)(0.03286)]} t 1,
= 0.002 [-41.226 + 96.6641+ 1,

= 1.111.
Therefore, the expected number of the “less reliable” spares is
-
NSPL = j WZ[T,.,T,’]l
= (33)(1.111),
or
-
N S P L = 36.663 spares.
+
0.95 = 9 ( N S P L 0.5)- 36.663
or
1.645 =
+ -
( N s p ~ 0.5) 36.663
6.055
Solving for N s p yields
~
N s p =
~ 46.123,
or
N s p=
~ 47 spares.
14.4.8 OPTIONAL REPLACEMENT POLICY SPARES FOR

POLICY XI
In this policy preventive replacement is not obligatory at every re-
placement opportunity [See Section 12.11, where the opportunity is
defined as the point in time at which the preventive replacement is
either allowable or possible. The unit is replaced preventively only if a
replacement opportunity occurs and the unit’s age exceeds a prespeci-
fied replacement age, Tp. If the age is less than Tp,then the unit is left
to continue operating during the opportunity. The optimal age, T;, is
so determined that the total expected cost per unit time of operation is
minimized. If the interval between replacement opportunities is expo-
nentially distributed with a constant appearing rate, u, the expected
replacement cost per unit time, CT,is given by Eq.(12.4).or
where N is the mean number of failures before the preventive replace-

ment age, Tp,is reached, or
(14.43)
L is the mean time to the preventive replacement age, or
( 14.44)
1is the mean time the system remains above the preventive replacement
age, or
(14.45)
and u 1 is the mean number of preventive replacements above Tp.

The total average number of spares of the component initially aged
To,R s p , required for both corrective and preventive replacements in
operating period t can be determined as the ratio of the operating
time, t, and the average length of one renewal cycle times the average
number of corrective plus preventive replacements in one renewal cycle,
or
(14.46)
EXAMPLE 14-12
Given is a component with the gamma times-to-failure pdf of Ex-
ample 12-1, with parameters
p = 2.5 and q = 40 hr.
The cost of a corrective replacement is C, = $100 and the cost of a
preventive replacement is Cp= $20. If the replacement opportunities
are exponentially distributed at the rate of u = 0.01 op/hr determine
the following:
1. The expected number of spares in t = 100 hr for the qqtimum
replacement age, T;, and the minimum total cost per unit time,
CT -
3. Repeat Case 1 for the opportunity rate of u = 0.04 op/hr.
4. Repeat Case 2 for the opportunity rate of u = 0.04 op/hr.

5. Discuss the results obtained in Cases 1, 2 and 3.
1. For given C, = $100 and C, = $20 the ratio C,/C, = 0.2. Also,
for u = 0.01 op/hr, /3 = 2.5 and 9 = 40 hr the ratio, CR,of the
mean time to failure to the mean interval between replacement
opportunities is
CR = -!?-1 = /3 7 u = (2.5) (40)(0.01)= 1.

U
Then, from Table 12.1 for C,/Cc = 0.2 and CR = 1, the optimum
replacement age is 2’; = 0.25 m hr, where m = ,6.q = (2.5)(40) =
100 hr. Consequently, 2’; = 25 hr. Using Eq. (14.43)the mean
number of failures, before the preventive replacement age, T;,is
reached, is given by
where R(T,*)
is given by
(14.47)
Substitution of the values for ,6, q and T; yields

R(25 hr) = 0.939991.
Then,
1 - 0.939991
N= = 0.063840.
0.939991
Using Eqs. (14.44)and (14.47)the mean time to the preventive
replacement age, L , is given by
-- Ji5
R ( t ) dt
0.939991 ’
or
L = 26.092599 hr.
Using Eq. (14.45)the mean time the system remains above the
preventive replacement age, 1, is given by
I=
JrR(t + Tp) e-u dt
9
R(T,’)
-
- JF R(t t 25) e’’.’ dt
7
0.939991
or
1 = 48.015763 hr.
Then, the average number of spares for an operating period of
2 = 100 hr is given by Eq. (14.46),or
100
-
26.092599+ 48.015763
+
(0.063840 1) ,
or
-
2. Using Eq. (14.5),the total number of spares at a 95% confidence

level is given by
NSP - (T.P)j
c
j=O
e-Nsp ;I
J.
> 0.95,
-
j=O
From the Poisson distribution’s cumulative distribution tables

N s p = 4 spares.
3. For the opportunity rate of u = 0.04 op/hr the ratio CR is
CR = Q
- =p 7) = (2.5)(40)(0.04),
21
or
Then, for the cost ratio Cp/Cc= 0.2 and CR = 4, from Table
12.1, the optimum replacement age is
T; = 0.37 m = (0.37) (100) = 37 hr.
Using Eq. (14.47) the reliability for the mission duration of T;
hours is
P-l T
R(37 hr) = Jrn 1 (2)
37 77 r(P> 77
e-T dT = 0.869486.
Then, the mean number of failures before the preventive replace-

ment age, TP, is reached is given by
1 - 0.869486
N= = 0.150105.
0.869486
The mean time t o the preventive replacement age, L , is given by
L= ’:’ R(t) dt = 40.717859 hr.

R(37)
The mean time the system remains above the preventive replace-
ment age, I, is given by
1=
JrR(t + 37) e-Oao4 * dt 3
R(37)
- JrR(t t 37)
- e-Oao4 * dt
9
0.869486
or
1 = 19.907018 hr.
Then, the average number of spares for an operating period of
t = 100 hr is given by Eq. (14.46), or
100
-
+
40.717859 19.907018
(0.150105 + l),
or
-
NSP
c
j = O e-1*897
(1’897)3’ 2 0.95.
j!
From the Poisson distribution’s cumulative distribution tables

N s p = 4 spares.
5. Comparing results of Cases 1 and 2 to those of Cases 3 and 4,

it can be concluded that the best replacement age increases as
replacement opportunities become more frequent and the aver-
age number of spares increases. This is so because the increase
of preventive replacement age results in more frequent corrective
replacements. However, as a consequence of increasing the fre-
quency of replacement opportunities the mean time the system
remains above the preventive replacement age decreases, conse-
quently, fewer preventive replacements will be needed.
14.5 SPARES PREDICTION WITH GROWTH AND WAR-

RANTY [4]
Traditionally, spares prediction is conducted without taking the un-
dergoing reliability growth factor into account. If the equipment has
not reached its maturity, in other words if all the early failure causes
have not been eliminated, traditional spares prediction would lead to
escessive spares and therefore result in unnecessary waste of money
because higher failure rates will be used and the removal of the defec-
tive units will not be adequately considered. This method is based on
the knowledge that the growth curve follows the Duane model [l,Vol.
2, pp. 434-4381and if the equipment’s number of failures occurring
in any time interval, [ t l ,t z ] , is statistically independent, the average
number of spares for the equipment is determined by integrating the
instantaneous failure rate over that interval. By this method the num-
ber of spares may be determined in support of the Mean Time Between
Failures Warranty program. The procedure is as follows:
1. Determine the parameters of the M T B F growth curve based on
field data.
TABLE 14.3 - Calculation of the annual and cumulative

operating hours of growth in the first seven
calendar years for Example 14-13.
Calendar Number of Flight
operating months hours Annual Cumulative
12 24,000 33,600 33,600
12 96,000 134,400 168,000
12 240,000 336,000 504,000
12 480,000 672,000 1,176,000
2 168,000 235,000 1,411,200
10 672,000 940,800 2,352,000
7 10 720,000 1,008,000 3,360,000
2. Calculate the average number of spares for the specified time

period.
3. Estimate the confidence limits on the spares.
The method is illustrated by the next example.
EXAMPLE 14-13
The reliability growth curve for a single component in a certain type
of aircraft, as given by the manufacturer, is shown in Fig. 14.1, and it
represents the instantaneous M T B F growth curve [ l , Vol. 2, pp. 434-
4431. The curve is drawn according to the accumulated operating hours
of growth provided by the customer in Table 14.3 and the specified
4,100-hour M T B F at a maturity of 175,000 total hours of operation.
1. Estimate the parameters of the growth curve.

2. Calculate the total average number of spares for seven calendar
years (CY) based on the accumulated operating hours given in
Table 14.3.
3. Calculate the upper, one-sided and two-sided confidence limits
on the number of spares for each year at the risk levels of 40%,
30%, lo%, 5%, 1%, 0.5% and 0.1%.
10,Ooo
- MTBF = 4,100 hr
hours is achieved at
175,OOO hours of
100 I I I I I
1 10 100 1,OOO 10,Ooo 100,Ooo 1,000,Ooo
Cumulative operating hours
Fig. 14.1 - Component M T B F growth projection for Example 14-13.
1. The instantaneous MTBF growth curve of Fig. 14.1 is the Du-

ane Model, hence the MTBF function is given by
mi(T4)= b' T,Q, (14.48)
where
mi(T,) = instantaneous MTBF at growth time Ta,
T, = accumulated growth time by all equipment
undergoing growth,
a = parameter, growth rate,
b' = instantaneous MTBF at T, = 1.0, [ l , Vol. 2,
pp. 438,4431.
and
b = cumulative MTBF at T, = 1.0 [l, Vol. 2, pp.
438, 4431.
The values of a and b may be determined as follows:
Take the logarithm of Eq, (14.48), or
log[mi(T,)] = log b' + logT,. (14.49j
It may be seen that cr is the slope of the line represented by
Eq. (14.49) on log-log scales. Pick two arbitrary points on Fig.
14.1; for example,
mil(T41 = 1 hr) = 100 hr,
and
V L ; ~ (=
T ,175,000
~ hr) = 4,100 hr.
Then, the slope, a,is
log [mi2(Ta2= 175, OOO)] - log [Wl(Ta1 = I)]. (14.50)
cr=
log Ta2 - log Ta1
Substituting the previous values,into Eq. (14.50) yields
10g4,lOO - IOg 100
a= = 0.3076.
log 175,000 - log 1
From Eq. (14.49)

b’ = m;(Ta = 1.0) = 100 hr.
Therefore, the instantaneous M T B F function is
0.3076
mi(Ta) = 100 T, (14.51)
and the cumulative M T B F function [l,Vol. 2, p. 438,4431 is
mc(Ta) = (1 - 0 ) mi(Ta). (14.52)

Then,
m,-(Ta) = (1 - 0.3076) 100 T00.3076,
or
mc(Ta)= 69.24 Tf.3076. (14.53)
2. Theoretically, an estimate of the average number of failures for

all components in the field, in time interval ( t l ;t z ] , may be found
from Eq. (14.1), or
(14.54)
or
(14.55)
where
X;(Ta)= instantaneous failure rate function.
The average number of spares from time zero t o the time of
175,000 accumulated hours of operation, when these components
reach maturity, or an M T B F of 4,100 hr, using Eqs. (14.51) and
(14.54), is give11 by
-
Nsp(0; 175,000 hr) = 1 175,000
1
1
loo T;0*3076d T a 3
~:1-0.30,6)1 175,000 ,
-
(1 - 0.3076)( 100) 0
1
- - (175, 000)(0.6924),
69.24
or
-
N s p ( 0 ; 175,000 hr) = 61.649.
According to the M T B F growth curve, the MTBF after 175,000
accumulated hours of operation should be 4,100 hr. So the av-
erage number of spares during the time interval 175,000 hr t o
1,411,200 hr, or until the end of the fifth calendar year is
-
Nsp(175,OOO hr; 1,411,200 hr) =
1,411,200 - 175,000
9
4,100
= 301.512 spares.
For the last two years, or from the end of the fifth year t o the
end of the seventh year, the average number of spares is
-
N S P (1,411,200 hr; 3,360,000 hr) =
3,360,000 - 1,411,200
7
4,100
or
-
NSp(1,411,200 hr; 3,360,000 hr) = 475.317 spares.
Therefore, the average number of spares, before the time of ma-
turity is 61.649, say 62; from the time of maturity up to the end
of the fifth year is 301.512, say 302; during the last two calendar
years is 475.317, say 476; and the total average number of spares
for seven calendar years is
-
Nsp +
= 61.649 301.512 + 475.317,
= 838.478 spares,
or
-
N s p = 839 spares.
3. To calculate the annual requirement of the number of spares the

same procedure as in Case 2 is used. Using Eq. (14.55) and
the value of accumulated hours of operation from Table 14.1 the
average number of spares for the first year is given by
-
N s p ( 0 ;33,600 hr) = 133’600
1
100
~ ~ 0 . 3 0 dT
7 6a ,
1 ~:1-0.3076)133,600 ,
-
(1 - 0.3076)( 100) 0
1 T?924/ 33,600 7
- -69.24
0
or
-
N s p ( 0 ; 33,600hr) = 19.66 spares.
If we assume that the number of failures occurring in any time in-
terval is statistically independent of the number of failures in any
intervd which does not overlap the first interval, then the non-
homogeneous Poisson process may be applied. Using Eq. (14.5)
the upper, one-sided confidence limit on spares can be calculated
by choosing the smallest NSP-UI such that
pSp(t1; -
P"(t) 5 NSP-u11 = c
NSP-u1
j=O
t 4 j e--NSP(tl;f2)
j! 7
>CL=l-a. (14.56)
At the risk level of (Y = 5% the upper, one-sided confidence limit
for the first year is given by
Nsp-ul (19.66)j e-19.66
c
j=O j!
20.95.
Using the normal approximation t o the Poisson pdf;i.e., Eq. (14.24),

yields
4- 0.5) - 19.66
or
(NSp-UI
1 = 0.95,
( N s p - u ~-I-0.5) - 19.66
= 1.645.
4.434
Solving for Nsp-uI yields
Nsp-uI = 26.454 spares.
Rounding up to the nearest integer yields
N s p - u ~= 27 spares.
For the two-sided confidence limits on the spares, round out to
the next higher integer value of NsP-L:! such that
(14.57)
and round out t o the next higher integer value of N s p - u 2 such

that
[Tsp(tl;
t2)]j e-Xsp(ti;tz)
P"(t) 5 NsP-vzl = c
NSP-uz
j=O j!
,
a
3 1-- (14.58)
2'
Then, N s p - ~ zand N s p - u z are the two-sided, lower and upper
confidence limits on the spares, respectively.
At the risk level of a = 5% the lower, two-sided confidence limit
on the spares for the first year is given by
NSP-LZ
0.05
C (1g;6)j ,-19.66 5 2 9
j=O
or
Using the normal approximation to the Poisson pdf yields

( N s P - L ~- 0.5) - 19.661 = 0.025,
or
-
( N s p - , ~ 0.5) - 19.66 = -1.96.
4.434
Solving for N s p - ~ zyields
N S P - L ~= 11.47 spares,
or
N S P - L ~= 12 spares.
At the risk level of cr = 5% the upper, two-sided confidence limit
on the spares for the first year is given by
Nsp-u2 (19.66)' e49.66 0.05

C
j-0
j!
21--
2 '
or
Using a normal approximation t o the Poisson pdf yields

- 19.66
or
( N s p - v z t 0.5)
1 = 0.975,
(Nsp-uz + 0.5) - 19.66 = 1.96.

4.434
Solving for Nsp-uz yields
N s p - v ~= 27.85 spares,
or
Nsp-uz = 28 spares.
For the third calendar year, since the M T B F is constant af-
ter 175,000 accumulated operating hours, the average number of
spares during the accumulated time interval (168,000 hr; 504,000
hr) is calculated in two parts; i.e.,
-
N s p ( 168,000 hr; 504,000 hr) = J 175,000
168,000
-
1
100
Ta-Oa307= dTa
504,000 - 175,000
t 7
4,100
175,000
-
-- 0.6924
+ 80.244,
= 1.718 t 80.244,
or
-
N s p ( 168,000 hr; 504,000 hr) = 81.962 spares.
At the risk level of a = 5% the upper, one-sided confidence limit
on the spares for the third year is given by
NSP-UI
(81*962)j
,-81.962
10.95.
C
j=O j!
Using the normal approximation to the Poisson pdf yields

t 0.5) - 81.962 = 0.95,
or
(NSP-UI
1
(NSp-Ui t 0.5) - 81.962 = 1.645.
9.053
Solving for Nsp-UI yields
Nsp-ul = 96.354 spares,
or
Nsp-ul = 97 spares.
At t e risk level of Q = 5% the rawer, two-sided confi-ace limit
on the spares for the third year and using the normal approxi-
mation to the Poisson pdf yields
(Nsp-~z- 0.5) - 81.9621
= 0.025,
or
-
(Nsp-~z- 0.5) 81.962 = -1.96.
9.053
Solving for Nsp-~zyields
Nsp-~z= 64.718 spares,
or
N S P - L ~= 65 spares.
At the risk level of Q = 5% the upper, two-sided confidence limit
on the spares for the third year and using the normal approxi-
mation to the Poisson pdf yields
+ 0.5) - 81.962 = 0.975,
(NsP-u~
or
+ 0.5) - 81.962 = 1.96.
(NsP-u~
9.053
Solving for N S P - U ~yields
Nsp-uz = 99.206 spares,
or
Nsp-uz = 100 spares.
According t o the M T B F growth curve, the M T B F after 175,000
accumulated hours of operation should be a t the constant value
of 4,100 hr. Consequently, the average number of spares for the
fourth and subsequent years can be calculated lrom
For example, the average number of spares €or the fourth year is
given by
-
Nsp(504,OOO hr; 1,176,000 hr) =
1,176,000 - 504,000
9
4,100
or
-
Nsp(504,OOO hr; 1,176,000 hr) = 163.9 spares.
The upper, one-sided and both the lower and upper, two-sided
confidence limits on the number of spares, at a given risk level,
can be calculated using Eqs. (14.56), (14.57) and (14.58), as il-
lustrated for the first and third year.
The upper, one-sided confidence limits on the number of spares,
a t various risk levels, are given in Table 14.4 and both lower
and upper, two-sided confidence limits, at various risk levels, are
given in Table 14.5.
14.6 SPARES PROVISIONING WITH COST OF

SPARES CONSIDERATION
14.6.1 PROVISIONING AN OPTIMUM NUMBER OF
SPARES IN A KIT WITH THE DESIRED
CONFIDENCE LEVEL
When valuable equipment is used, it is wise t o provide a spares kit
of critical units in it, so that such urgently needed units are available
when needed a t a desired confidence level and a t minimum cost. An
optimum kit is the kit that provides the needed number of spares at
minimum cost a t the desired confidence level.
TABLE 14.4 - Upper, one-sided confidence limits on the

number of spares for each year, at the risk
levels of 40%, 30%, 20%, lo%, 5%, 1%,
0.5% and O . l % , for Example 14-13.
5 57.366 59 61 64 67
~~
70’ 75 - 77 81
’ 6 229.463 233 237 242 249 254 265 268 276
7 245.a50 250 254 259 266 272 282 286 294
TABLE 14.5 - Two-sided confidence limits on the number

of spares for each year, at the risk levels of
40%, 30%, 20%, lo%, 5%, 1%, 0.5% and
O . l % , for Example 14-13.
1 1 259 I 262 I 266 1 272 I 277 I 286 I 290 I 297 ]

One method of arriving at this optimum spares kit is illustrated by

the next example.
EXAMPLE 14-14
An optimum amplifier spare parts kit is to be determined for fire
control systems aboard a submarine tender for a pack of 8 submarines
over a 3-year period 15; 61.
The Functional Unit Replacement, FUR,concept is used. If a md-
function occurs in one of the fire control sub-systems, the entire offend-
ing sub-system is removed and replaced by a spare. This reduces the
repair process aboard the submarine t o a minimum, increases the sys-
tem’s reliability, reduces downtime, and thereby increases the system’s
availability or utilization time. The actual number of various classes
of amplifiers to be provided in this kit are based on the following:
1. The failure rates of the six classes, or different types, of amplifiers
that are needed.
2. A chosen, desired confidence level of function of these amplifiers,
defined as the probability that either the system does not fail due
t o amplifier malfunction, or if the system does fail an amplifier
replacement is available to assure continued successful operation
of the system. This way the reliability is extended to include the
system and its spares.
3. Minimum cost spares will be provided under the constraints of
Cases 1 and 2.
Determine the optimum spares kit that complies with the previous
requirements.
The technique to be used was developed by Black and Proschan [6].
The concept used is this: Suppose I have a kit made up of N A spares
of Component A and N g spares of Component B. Denote such a kit
by ( N A , N B ) .This kit provides a certain assurance, PN,that a spare
for Component A will be available in case of need. This assurance can
of course be increased by adding another spare of Component A to the
+
kit. This makes the kit [ ( N l ) ~ N B, ] and increases the assurance to
. the number of spares of Component A increases, the ratio
P N + ~As
P(N+I)-A - PN-A
Cost per spare A
rapidly shows a condition of vanishing returns. Black and Proschan call
this ratio the marginal assurance. If ( N A ,N B ) is an optimum kit then
the marginal assurances for spares for Components A and B should be
equal. In this example the following are assumed:
TABLE 14.6 - Types of amplifiers, failure rates, cost per

unit and the number of units in the assem-
1 1 1
nu?,
bly of Example 14-14.
AIn;fer A;,
fr/106 hr
102
I ci,
cost/unit,
3
500
500
Ni 7
number of units
in the assembly
7
11
500 7
500 5
500 2
500 1
1. The failure rates of the amplifiers are constant.

2. Amplifier failures occur independently.
3. When spares are needed they can be easily obtained from the
supply system, in this case the submarine tender.
The type of amplifier, failure rates, cost per unit and the number of
units in the assembly are given in Table 14.6.
The total time for which the spares will be provided is determined
in unit-hours of operation of the equipment over a three-year period,
for eight fire-control systems in eight submarines.
Three cases are considered:
1. 48,000 operating hours, based on 2,000 hr of operation per year,
for three years, per submarine (8 in all), or 2,000 x 3 x 8 = 48,000
hr .
2. 9,600 operating hours, based on 100 hr of operation per 90-day
patrol, or 400 hr per year per submarine, or 400 x 3 x 8 = 9,600
hr .
3. 28,800 operating hours, based on a time midway between that of
Cases 1 and 2.
The calculations for Case 1 only are given, but the results for all
three cases are given in Fig. 14.2. The expected number of spares for
each type of amplifier used during the specified 48,000 hr of operation
is given by
Case 1 - 48,000 equipment hours - 3 years, 8 assemblies

(assumes 2.000 hr operation per year)
.Case 2 - 9.600 equipment hours - 3 years, 8 assemblies
(assumes 100 hr operation per 90 day patrol)
Case 3 - 28,800 equipment hours, midway between that
of Cases 1 and 2 - 3 years, 8 assemblies
Fig. 14.2 - Confidence level versus cost of the spare-parts kit

for Example 14-14.
588 SPARES PR 0VISIONING
-
Ns-i = X i x N; x T , (14.59)
For Amplifier A, Eq. (14.59)yields
-
Ns-A = 102 x lo-' x 7 x 48,000,
or
-
Ns-A = 34.3.
Similarly,
-
Ns-B = 27.5,
-
N s - E = 8.45,
and
-
Ns-F = 4.80.
The optimum kit of amplifiers is determined using a form of the marginal
assurance as follows:
or
N:+l
p" = -1 log10 x=o

cP W
(14.60)
ci Nf 1
C
x=o
where
is the Poisson term, and N;' is the number of a specific amplifier in the
optimum kit
SPARES P R 0 VISIONING 589
An optimum kit is such that, for a specified confidence level, no better

kit can be found for the same cost. -
Start with N: = 50, C1 = $500, ~ S - A= 34.3 = N s - 1 , and
calculate p*. Next, find N;, the optimum number of Type B amplifier
such that the value of p* corresponding to it is equal to, or approaches
from above, the p* corresponding to the choice of N i . N l is found using
--
the cumulative Poisson tables, through trial and error. N z , .,N,‘ are
found similarly.
After the optimum kit for the choice of Z .Vi = 50 is determined,
then the confidence level for the whole kit is calculated from
i=l r = O
and the optimum kit’s cost from

6
C ( N * )= c c i Ni’.
Next a different choice of N ; is made and the corresponding new

optimum kit is determined with the corresponding P ( N * ) and C ( N * ) .
This way a curve of P ( N * ) versus C ( N * ) can be drawn. Each point
on the curve represents the optimum kit for that particular value of
P ( N * ) and C ( N * ) .
In this case, starting with N ; = 50, yields
p* = -1 0.997007
500 l o g l o 0.995340’
or
y* = 1.454 x loe6
Next N ; is determined by trial and error such that
1
- log1
c
2
x=o
This yields N2+ = 41. Similarly the number of the remaining amplifiers
in the kit are determined yielding the optimum kit
.V’ = (50,41,38,16,17,11),
Next Page
for a kit starting with N ; = 50. Then,

P ( N * ) = (0.995340) (0.993758) (0.99717)
*( 0.995819) (0.99777) (0.996008),
= 0.9761, (14.61)
or
P ( N * ) = 98%,
and
C(N*)= 500 (50 + 41 + 38 + 16 + 17 + l l ) ,
or
C ( N * )= $86,500.
It must be observed that the values in Eq. (14.61) are the denomi-
nators of the loglo term in Eq.(14.60) for each N;*. To plot the P ( N * )
versus C ( N * ) curve additional points are determined for N ; = 40,
N ; = 45 and N ; = 60. These are plotted in Fig. 14.2. The results
and the curves for Cases 2 and 3 are also given.
If a P ( N * ) = 85% is considered adequate then the optimum kit
would be
N * = (45,37,33,14,14,9),
and the cost would be
C ( N * )= $76,000.
If a P ( N * )of 95% is considered necessary, then the optimum kit may
start at N; = 47. The rest of the kit can then be calculated, or
estimated.
It may also be seen from the curves in Fig. 14.2 that above about a
95% confidence level the expense of increased confidence becomes too
high. For example for Case 3, from P ( N * ) = 68% to P ( N * ) = 93%
the cost increase is
53,500 - 45,500
= $320 per unit percent increase in confidence.
93% - 68%
From P ( N * )= 93% to P ( N * ) = 98%, the cost is
58,000 - 53,500
= $900 per unit percent increase in confidence.
98% - 93%
Finally, from P ( N * ) = 98% to P ( N * ) = 99.95% the cost increment is
$5,745 per unit percent increase in confidence!
Chapter 15
DISTRIBUTIONAL TEST AND

REPAIR TIMES IN A TEST AND
REPAIR FACILITY
15.1 HOW TO APPLY

A test-and-repair facility [l, pp. 195-1981 consisting of six stations
is used t o check out systems. Each system has t o pass through each
station. The time spent at each station is a random variable whose
pdf has been estimated from available data and is independent of the
times at the other stations. An estimate of the time required t o test
and repair a randomly chosen system is to be found. Total time spent
by a system in the facility is
t = 11 + +
t2 t3 t4 + t5 + t6.
We need the pdf of t so that we can determine t at the desired con-

fidence level. These distributions are shown plotted in Fig. 15.1, and
their parameters are given in Table 15.1.
15.1.1 METHOD 1 - CENTRAL LIMIT THEOREM

The pdf of the average, and therefore of the sum of independent ob-
servations from pdf’s each with finite mean and variance, approaches a
normal pdf as the number of observations becomes large, with a mean
of
(15.1)
635
636 DISTRIBUTIONAL TEST A N D REPAIR TIMES
0.4
tl = ll.3hr.
0.1
08
At station No. 3
r, = 1.9hr.
02
At station No.4
' t
0' 2 4 6 t 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
At station No. 5
4 = 0.3hr.
1.o
1.0 2.0
0.10
At station No.6
la = 9 2 hr.
0.02
Fig. 15.1 - The times-to-test-and-repair distributions at

each one of six stations in a test-and-repair fa-
cility.
HOW TO APPLY 637
TABLE 15.1 - T h e distributions for test-and-repair times

in hours for a test-and-repair facility.
Station Probability density
number function ~~ ~
Parameters
1 N ( p = 10;a= 1)
2 N ( p = 20;a= a)
3 G(P = 9 ; =~6)
4 G(P = 1 0 ; =
~ 1)
5 E(X = 5 )
6 x2(u = 10)
I
N = normal pdf,
G = gamma pdf,
E = exponential pdf,
x2 = chi-square pdf,
p = mean,
u = standard deviation,
,B = shape parameter,
7 = scale parameter,
u = degrees of freedom.
638 DISTRIBUTIONAL TEST AND REPAIR TIMES
for the six stations in the previously presented test-and-repair facility,

and if the variables are not correlated then,
a; = c
n=6
u;i. (15.2)
Station number
1 2 3 4 5 6
5 10 20 1.50 10 0.20 10
1 2 0.25 10 0.04 20
P(t 5 59.1 hr) = 90%,

P(2 5 61.2 hr) = 95%,
HOW TO APPLY 639
and
P ( t I 6 5 . 2 hr) = 99%,
or the maintainabilities for these times are

M ( t 5 59.1 hr) = 90%,
M ( t 5 61.2 hr) = 95%,
and
M ( t 5 65.2 hr) = 99%,
or 90% of the test-and-repair times will be equal to or less that 59.1
hr, or will not exceed 59.1 hr, etc. Another interpretation is that, in
the long run and for M = 90%, if up to 59.1 hr of test-and-repair
time are made available then 90% of the test-and-repair actions will
be completed successfully.
Observations on the applicability of the results:
1. Only 6 stations are involved which is not "very many," that Cen-
tral Limit Theorem requires.
2. The Central Limit Theorem also requires that variances be of
similar range, or none be much different so that it dominates the
value of ~ t Here
. Stations 4 and 6 have variances which highly
dominate the value of the total variance. Hence the applicability
of the Central Limit Theorem is questionable, but later we will
be able to check the adequacy of the normal pcCr approximation
using more precise methods.
3. One does not need to know the exact pdf's of the ti's but only
their means and variances.
15.1.2 METHOD 2 - SYSTEM MOMENTS

Find the first four moments for t ; and using a Pearson distribution
approximation [I, pp. 220-2241, estimate the percentiles of the distri-
bution oft. The system moments are
where
p { ( t ) = p i ( z ) = first moment about zero,
= h(tl, t 2 , * * * ,431,
and
8%
- d2h
means - evaluated at the mean value of all
at; at; variables involved, or of the t’s.
Most books only give the first term of Eq. (15.3) and consider the
accuracy sufficient. The first term only provides an exact result for
our problem because a l l second and higher order partial derivatives
are zero. Equation (15.3) contains only up to second order terms of a
multivariate infinite Taylor’s series. Hence, it is only approximate in
the general case. Also,
p2(1) = V A R ( z )= U: = pi - (pi)’,
where
p2(z) = second moment about the mean.
The Taylor’s series expansion for the variance of the system’s perfor-
mance, with uncorrelated variables and retaining up to third order
terms, is given by
where p ~ ( t iis) the third central moment for the ith variate. Most texts
use only the first term, which may be a satisfactory approximation.
The third central moment is given by
(15.5)
retaining only the lowest-order non-zero term, and the fourth central
moment is given by
2 2 [(s)2
(s)2
+ 6 i L j + l j=1 dtj at;
1
V A R ( t j ) V A R ( t ; ) . (15.6)
HOW TO APPLY 641
If the yaw data are available then,

f ti
k L = mean about zero, or raw mean, (15.7)
N
f * -?N 0 2
i-l = VzR(t), (15.8)
N
(15.9)
and
These equations are in the most convenient form for calculation, if the
raw data are available. If the pdf's of the data are given then,
Cc3(t) = P i -
3 $2 r; t 2 MI3. (15.11)
It is related to the coefficient of skewness, as, which is given by
(15.12)
Also,
P40) = CL: - 4 Pi Cci i-6 P i
(CL:)z 3 (r9" - (15.13)
It is related t o the coefficient of kurtosis, a d , which is given by
(15.14)
tk f(t) dt; for k = 1,2,3,4,... (15.15)

= kth raw moment of the distribution f(t),
= kth moment about zero, or about the origin,
642 DISTRlBUTIONAL TEST AND REPAIR TIMES
and
Pk(t) =q t
00
- P‘llC’
= (t - p ’ l ) k f ( t )tit; for k = 1,2,3,4,... (15.16)
= fth central moment,
= f t h moment about mean.
15.1.3 APPLICATION TO OUR PROBLEM

Let’s determine the checkout time, t, in the test-and-repair facility.
+ + +
t = z = tl tl t3 t4 t t t6
or
is1
Then,
and
Therefore, from Eq. (15.3),

6 6
I = E ( Z ) = C E(ti) = Eli,
i-1 it1
and from Eq. (15.4)
6 8
U: = VAR(2) = C VAR(ti) = Cu:~.
is1 i=l
From Eq. (15.5)
6
~ 3 ( z=) ~ 3 ( t =
) C
i d
Pg(ti)c
and from Eq. (15.6)
The required data are the following:

HOW TO APPLY 643
Station number
1 2 3 4 5 6
Mean 10 20 1.50 10 0.20 10
Variance 1 2 0.25 10 0.04 20
1
~ 3 ( t i 0 0 0.08 20 0.02 80
P4(ti) 3 12 0.23 360 0.01 1,680
6 6
P4(z) = p4(t) = 2,055.24 +

1+
+ V A R ( t 4 ) .C V A R ( t ; ) + I/AR(t5).VAR(t6) ,
i=5
6 [l (2 t 0.25 + 10 t 0.04 20)

+
+2 (0.25t 10 0.04 + 20)
t0.25 (10t 0.04 20) +
+
+lo (0.04t 20) (0.04)(ZO)],
or
p 4 ( z ) = 3,864.7 hr4.
Then.
or the coefficient of skewness a3 = fi

= 0.52. For a. normal pdf
a3 = 0 . Also ,& = 0.27. The coefficient of kurtosis is
For a. normal pdf a 4 = 3.00.

Using the upper tail in a Pearson pdf approximation we do the
following:
1. Find
h
1.1 - i = t .
1.2 - &= = &f = Jm.
1.3 - = hi.
1.4 - pz = 64.
2. Find in Tables 15.2 thru 15.15 the standardized percentile z& for
a chosen (Y using 81 and k.
3. Calculate the estimated 100 a% percentile from
z 4- 2; 6,
or
t , = t + %; &,
n h
and
P (t 5. &.go) = 0.90.
In this case
n
t0.W
c'
= t 4- .& &t = 51.7 + (1.32) (5.78),
or
A
to.90 = 59.3 hr.

%he., is found by interpolation from Table 15.3. A precise method
of interpolation is given in the next section.
Also,
P (t 5 r 0 . g ~ )= 0.95,
+
n
n
t0.95 = 7 d . 9 5 bt,
+
= 51.7 (1.77)(5.78),
or
h
to.95 = 62.0 hr,
where zk,g5is found in Table 15.4,
HOW TO APPLY 645
and
P (1 5 ib.99) = 0.99,
+
h
h
to.99 = 3 z;.gg 4,
+
= 51.7 (2.71)(5.78),
or
-t0.W = 67.4,
h
where z&.99is found in Table 15.6.
15.1.4 INTERPOLATION PROCEDURE FOR zk TABLES

To find the z; value for a given P 2 and PI, to be designated here as P;
and Pi, when interpolation is required, do the following:
1. Interpolate z' for P$ linearly.
2. Interpolate z' for pi from
t* = (1 - e) z; + e z;+l
- -1 (1 - 6) (6: z; + 6+:, z;+,) , (15.17)

4
where
EXAMPLE 15-1
Given P; = 3.49 and pi = 0.27, find the upper 10% percentage
point, a = 0.90, z' d u e .
TABLE 15.2
PERCENTAGE POINTS OF PEARSON CURVES
Lower 10% p o i n t s of t h e standardized d e v i a t e ( x
I
- [ a =0.10) - All s i g n s negative.
- ~)/LI;
-
0.00 0.01
-
0.03 0.05 0.10
-0.70
1.8
2.0
1.3856
1.3741
1.3491
1.3475
1.3189
1.3265 1.3104 1.2747 1.2394 I I I I I
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3.0
1.3545
1.3339
1.3144
1.2970
1.2816
1.3342
1.3176
1.3009
1.2854
1.2714
1.3188
1.3057
1.2913
1.2773
1.2643
1.3074
1.2972
1.2846
1.2818
1.2596
1.2828
1.2794
1.2710
1.2609
1.2505
1.2589
1.2625
1.2585
1.2512
1.2427
1.2342
1.2454
1.2462
1.2419
1.2354
1.2059
1.2183
1.2214
1.2197
1.1839
1.1965
1.2012
I I 1.1655
1.1781
1.1278
1.1501 1.1158
3.2 1.268 1.259 1.2524 1.2481 1.2406 1.2341 1.2280 1.2155 1.2012 1.1837 1.1625 1.1366
3.4 1.256 1.248 1.2421 1.2381 1.2309 1.2259 1.2208 1.2102 1.2007 1.1851 1.1687 I . 1488
3.6 1.245 1.238 1.2329 1.2293 1.2229 1.2179 1.2135 1.2046 1.1951 1.1840 1.1710 1.1554
3.8 1.236 1.229 1.2238 1.2205 1.2151 1.2108 1.2069 1.1990 1.1907 1.1816 1.1710 1.1585
4.0 1.227 1.221 1.2166 1.2136 1.2080 1.2038 1.2003 1.1935 1.1861 1.1782 1.1695 1.1593
4.2 1.220 1.213 1.2093 1.2066 1.2012 1.1976 1.1943 1.1878 1.1817 1.1753 1.1675 1.1586
4.4 1.213 1.207 1.2025 1.1998 1.1952 1.1916 1.1887 1.1834 1.1777 1.1714 1.1649 1.1574
4.6 1.207 1.201 1.1973 1.1948 1.1902 1.1866 1.1817 1.1783 1.1729 1.1675 1.1616 1.1552
4.8 1.201 1.196 1.1915 1.1890 1.1852 1.1817 i.178C 1.1737 1.1692 1.1645 1.1593 1.1535
5.0 1.196 1.191 1.1873 1.1848 1.1804 1.1775 1.1747 1.1697 1.1652 1.1606 1.1560 1.1508
5.2 1.191 1.186 1.1823 1.1800 1.1764 1.1735 1.1707 1.1656 1.1615 1.1576 1.1530 I . 1480
5.4 1.187 1.182 1.1783 1.1760 1.1724 1.1695 1.1666 1.1621 1.1586 1.1546 1.1499 1.1453
5.6 1.183 1.178 1.1743 1.1720 1.1684 1.1655 1.1631 1.1592 1.1555 1.1516 1.1477 1.1433
5.8 1.179 1.174 1.1710 1.1691 .l. 1654 1.1625 1.1601 1.1562 1.1525 1.1486 1.1446 1.1406
6.0 1.176 1.171 1.1680 1.1661 1.1624 1.1595 1.1571 1.1532 1.1494 I. 1457 1.1424 1.1386
6.2 1.172 1.168 1.1651 1.1631 1.1594 1.1565 1.1541 1.1501 1.1468 1.1437 1.1404 1.1366
6.4 1.169 1.165 1.1621 1.1601 1.1563 1.1535 1.1516 1.1482 1.1444 1.1407 1.1373 1.1339
-
6.6 1.167 1.162 1.1590 1.1573 1.1544 1.1515 I 1.1491 I 1.1451 I 1.1418 I 1.1387 I 1.1353 -
1.1323
'Prepared by Mr. Raul Krivoy. Based on "Table of percentage p o i n t s of Pearson curves, for given 6.and 8 2 . expressed
i n standard measure." Compiled by N . L. Johnson, E r i c Nixon and L1. E . A m o s , with an introduction by E. S. Pearson,
Bioaetrika. Vol. 50, Nos. 3 and 4, pp. 459-498. 1963.
PERCENTAGE POINTS OF PEkRSON CURVES
Lower 10%p oints of the standardized d e v i a t e (x' - p)/o; ( a =0. 10) - A l l signs negative*
- ~-
0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30 1. 40 1. 50 1. 60 1.70 1.80

~~
3.0 1.0748
3.2 1.1048 1.0674 1.0245
3.4 1.1241 1.0951 1.0606
3.6 1.1360 1.1133 1.0858 1.0538 1.0173
3.8 1.1430 1.1250 1.1029 1.0774 1.0474
4.0 1.1467 1.1321 1.1143 1.0937 1.0692 1.0411 1.0093
4.2 1.1482 1.1363 1.1216 1.1049 1.0848 1.0617 1.0352
4.4 1.1484 1.1383 1.1261 1.1122 1.0956 1.0766 1.0545 1.0292 1.0008
4.6 1.1478 1.1392 1.1287 1.1170 1.1031 1.0873 1.0688 1.0476 1.0236
4.8 1.1467 1.1391 1.1300 1.1200 1.1082 1.0951 1.0795 1.0617 1.0412 1.0181 0 .9 9 2 3
5.0 1.1447 1.1379 1.130 1.1215 1.1115 1.1002 1.0868 1.0717 1.0544 1.0347 1.0126
5.2 1.1426 1.1367 1.130 1.1225 1.1137 1.1038 1.0923 1.0793 1.0644 1.0475 1.0286
5.4 1.1405 1.1351 1.129 1.1224 1.1147 1.1062 1.0961 1.0849 1.0720 1.0574 1.0411
5.6 1.1385 1.1335 1.128 1.1224 1.1157 1.1080 1.0989 1.0889 1.0777 1.0650 1. 0508
5.8 1.1364 1.1320 1.127 1.1218 1.1157 1.1087 1.1007 1.0919 1.0820 1.0709 1.0585
6.0 1.1344 1.1305 1.126 1.1206 1.1146 1.1087 1.1019 1.0943 1.0853 1.0753 1.0643
6.2 1.1324 1.1283 1.124 1,1195 1.1145 1.1091 1.1028 1.0957 1.0876 1.0786 1.0689
6.4 1.1304 1.1269 1.123 1.1185 1.1135 1.1083 1.1025 1.0962 1.0891 1.0812 1.0725
6.6 1.1293 1.1259 1.122 1.1175 1.1125 1.1076 1.1022 1.0966 1.0903 1.0833 1.0754
'Prepared by Mr. Raul Krivoy, Based on "Table of percentage p o i n t s of Pearson curves, for given 6,and
82, expressed i n standard measure," Compiled by N. L. Johnson, Eric Nixon and D. E . Amos, with an
introduction by E. S. Pearson, Biometrika, Vol. 50, Nos. 3 and 4 , pp. 459-498, 1963.
TABLE 15.3
PERCENTAGE FOINTS OF PEARSON CURVES
- (a= 0.90)'
-
l e p e r 10% p o i n t s of the standardized d e v i a t e (x'
-
~)/IJ;
-
2
-q 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
-
0.30 0.40 0.50
--
0.60 0.70
1.8 1.3856 1.4202 1.4461

2.0 1.3741 1.4008 1.4215 1.4370 1.4691 1.4978
2.2 1.3545 1.3758 I. 3928 I. 4055 1.4323 1.4566 1.4796
2.4 1.3339 1.3513 1.3655 1.3763 1.3989 1.4193 1.4386
2.6 1.3144 1.3293 1.3414 1.3506 1.3700 1.3873 1.4038 1.4369 1.4714
2.8 1.2970 1.3099 1.3204 1.3285 1.3453 1.3603 1.3745 1.4027 1.4318 1.4631 1.4963
3.0 1.2816 1.2930 1.3023 1.3094 1.3243 1.3375 1.3499 1.3744 I . 3993 1.4257 1.4534 1.4831
3.2 1.268 1.278 I. 2865 1.2931 1.3064 1.3180 1.3290 1.3505 1.3722 1.3949 1.4184 1.4435
3.4 1.256 1.265 1.2728 1.2790 1.2911 1.3010 1.3109 1.3303 1.3493 1.3691 1.3895 1.4110
3.6 1.245 1.254 1.2612 1.2664 1.2771 1.2871 1.2957 1.3125 1.3299 1.3474 1.3653 1.3839
3.8 1.236 1.244 1.2505 1.2551 1.2649 1.2742 1.2823 1.2976 1.3131 1.3288 1.3447 1.3612
4.0 1.227 1.235 1.2407 1.2452 1.2546 1.2625 1.2703 1.2848 1.2941 1.3124 1.3268 1.3416
4.2 1.220 1.227 1.2327 1.2370 1.2455 1.2526 1.2598 1.2734 I . 2858 1.2983 1.3115 1.3249
4.4 1.213 1.220 1.2250 1.2290 1.2375 1.2447 1.2510 1.2629 1.2745 1.2862 1.2981 I. 3102
4.6 1.207 1.213 1.2180 1.2217 1.2295 1.2367 1.2426 1.2534 1.2642 1.2751 1.2864 I. 2976
4.8 1.201 1.207 I .2120 1.2158 1.2232 1.2289 1.2344 I . 2455 1.2560 1.2660 1.2759 I. 2858
5.0 1.196 1.202 1.2063 1.2095 1.2164 1.2228 1.2281 1.2380 1.2477 1.2569 1.2662 1.2755
5.2 1.191 1.197 1.2013 1.2045 1.2112 1.2169 1.2221 1.2316 1.2404 1.2488 1.2575 1.2661
5.4 1.187 1.192 1.1963 1.1996 1.2061 1.2110 1.2161 I . 2251 1.2334 1.2418 I . 2498 1.2578
5.6 1.i83 1.188 1.1923 1.2060 1.2106 1.2191 1.2274 1.2357 I . 2431 1.2505
5.8 1.179 1.184 1.1883 1.2021 1.2062 1.2141 1.2221 1.2297 1.2371 1.2442
6.0 1.176 1.180 1.1843 1.1972 1.2016 I . 2097 1.2167 1.2237 1.2311 1.2378
6.2 1.172 1.177 1.1806 1.1941 1.1983 I. 2052 1.2117 1.2187 1.2253 1.2318
6.4 1.169 1.174 1.1776 1.1902 1.1942 1.2012 1.2078 1.2146 1.2206 I. 2269
-
6.6 1.167 1.171 1.1746 1.1862 1.1902
-
I. 1973 1.2035 I. 2096
-
1.2156 1.2215
'Prepared hy Flr. Raul Krivoy. Based on "Table o f percentage points of Pearson curves, for given 6,and B 2 ,
expressed in standard measure," Compiled by N. L. Johnson, Eric Nixon and D. E. Amos. w i t h an introduction by
E. S . I'earson. Bioaetrika. V o l . SO, Nos. 3 and 4, pp. 459-498, 1963.
PERCENIACE POINTS OF PEAISON CURVES
I
Upper 10% p o i n t s of t h e standardized d e v i a t e ( x - V)/CI; ( a =0 . 9 0 ) *
~
0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.80
r
3.0 1.5170
3.2 1.4715 1.5003 1.5344
3.4 1.4346 1.4588 1.4867
3.6 1.4042 1.42.48 I . 4482 1.4718 1.49J4
3.8 1.3788 1.3967 1.4166 1.4367 1.4598
4.0 I . 3572 1.3730 -
1 3903 1.4078 1.4273 1.4470 1.4695
4.2 1.3388 1.3528 1.3680 1.3834 1.4003 1.4174 1.4364
4.4 1.3227 1.3354 1.3490 1.3626 1.3775 1.3924 1.4089 1.4258 1.4441
4.6 1.3088 1.3203 1.3324 1.3446 1.3578 1.3712 1.3856 1.4004 1.4162
4.8 1.2960 1.3066 1.3179 1.3290 1.3409 I . 3528 1.3656 1.3787 1.3927 1.4076 1.4226
5.0 1.2850 1.2948 1.305 1.3152 1.3260 1.3368 1.3483 1.3600 1.3724 1.3855 1.3987
5.2 1.2751 I . 2844 1.294 1.3033 1.3129 1.3227 1.3331 1.3438 1.3548 1.3665 1.3783
5.4 1.2661 1.2749 1.284 1.2925 1.3013 1.3103 1.3198 I . 3294 1.3395 1.3500 1.3606
5.6 1.2582 1.2659 1.274 1.2824 1.2911 1.2994 1.3080 1.3167 1.3259 1.3354 1.3450
5.8 1.2513 1.2585 1.266 1.2735 I . 2812 1.2890 1.2972 1.3054 1.3138 1.3225 1.3313
6.0 1 - 2443 1.2515 1.259 1.2661 1.2733 1.2805 1.2880 1.2954 1.3030 1.3110 1.3190
6.2 1.2383 1.2451 1.252 1.2581 1.2652 1.2750 1.2844 1.2910 1.2958 1.3006 1.3076
6.4 1.2334 1.2391 1.245 1.2515 1.2583 1.2648 1.2714 1,2779 1.2845 1.2913 1.2982
6.6 1.2274 1.2337 1.240 1.2457 1.2514 1.2573 1.2635 1.2697 1.2761 1.2826 1.2892
"I'repared by Mr. Raul Krivoy, Based on "Table o f percentage points of Peerson c u r v e s , for given 6,and
8 2 , expressed in standard measure," Compiled by N . L. Johnson, Eric Nixon and D.E. Amos, with an
introduction by E. S. Pearson. Biometrika, Vol. 5 0 , Nos. 3 and 4 , pp. 459-498, 1963.
I ' I
I I ! I
n
I ' I
.I - I 1
650
e"
0
E
0
II I
6 6
I
I '
I
c:
U
6
,3 1 I
651
652 DlSTRTB UTIONAL T E S T A N D R E P A I R T I M E S
TABLE 15.8
P E R C W A G E POINTS OF P U R S O S CURVES
Lower 5% poinu of the rt.ndmiircd devhte It. -
d/8, (a 0.05). Note that for pxitive rkeunma,
k .H > 0. the d e v r t a in thL table are ncytive.
-
\
61
7
0.00 I I 0.01 0.03 I I 0.05 0.10 I 0.15 I 0.20 I 0.30 I I 1
0.40 0.50 0.60 10.70
1 I I I I 1 I I I I I
1.2 1.1547
1.4 1.3191
1.6 1.4639
1.0899
1.2450
1.3899
1.m.5 0.9954
1.lm 1.1368
1.3270 1.2794
1.04i7 0.9Z’l 0.9170
1.1839 1.1055 1.0380 0.9254 0 8331
j
1.8 1.55% 1.4936 1.4364 1.3880 1.30i8 1.2312 1.1614 10389 0.936 0.849i 0 3 4 6
2.0 1.6108 1.5156 1.5097 1.4746 1 . W 7 1.3342 1.2710 I 1316 1 ot33 0.9133 0 ~ ( 0 . 7 9 3 4
2.2 1.6361
2.4 1. M i
1.5893
1.6064
1.5513 1.5226
1.5743 1.5504
I 4 6 2 2 1.40i4 1.3544 1.2494 1 1463 1.0485 0.9393 0 8806
1.5006 1.4559 1 4124 1 3247 1.2342 1.1427 1.0534 ! O . 9699
I
2.6 1.6495 1.6141 1.5664 1.5659 1.5241 l.4S70 1.4511 1 3iR6 I30?5 1.2213 I 1397’1.05i6
2.8 1.5463 1.6165 1.5921 1.5742 1 . W 2 1 jo67 I 4766 1.4162 I.U?61.2845 1.212111.1367
3.0 1.6449 1.8160 1 . W 1.5781 I 5464 1.5192 1.4933 1.44?? I 3887 1.3313 1 269311.2030
3.2 1.5264 1.5043 1 460? 1 4145 1.36.5.3 1 3 1 3 0 j l . w 8
3.4 1 I;?: I 4331 1.3912 1,3460 1.2969
3.6 I 4466 1.4100 1.3i09 1.3283
3.8 1 4241 1.3900 1.3528
4.0 I I 1 . 4 W 1.3716
4.2 , I , l 386?
I I l i I I I I I I I I
- -
1
0.80 0.90 1.00
-1.10 1.20 1.30
-
1.W
=P-
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3.0
3.2
0.8107
0.8944
0.9792
1.060s
1.1337
1,1947
0.74M
0.8267
0.9068
0.9672
1.0632
1.1304
0.7659 1 71WJ
o m i 2 I . 7820
0.9179 J n w i
0.OoJR I . 927;
1.DbM 5.m3
I 7252 0,6188
1 i966 0. i440
1 . w 3 0.8100
1 9362 0 8769
1
0 6956
0.im
0 82??
0 gsOg
0 7110
0 7716
I 66i2 I
1.1251 0 M20,0 M I 9
I
3.4 1.213i 1.1668 1.1m1.0653 1.0036 0.9433 OW63 om? 1.7836 0 7380 ! 0 6957
3.6 1.2824 1.2326 1.1m 1.1232 1.W? 10069 0 9496 0 8946 1.8427 0 i946 10 7498
3.8 1.3127 1.2692 1.pP 1.1720 I 1192 1 M 4 6 1 0093 0 9546 1.9017 0 Bil4 I 0 8046
4.0 1.3363 ,39821.2569 1.2124 1.1550 1.1151 0634 I 0 1 0 9 J.958i 0 9013 10 8591
4.2 1.3sso ,32121.ZM 1.- 12031 11581 1108 1 0617 1.0117 0 9618 I 0 0129
1.1064 I .om 1 0120 0 9e42
4.4
4.6
1.3688 ,3200 1.3072 1.2122
.35u 1.3254 1.-
12346 11943
1 . 2 m 1.2244
1514
.I857 1.1448 1.1018 1 0572 1 0117 I
4.a 1.5103 1.3121 1.2819 1.2494 ,2145 1.1775 1.1363 10971 1 O W
b.0 1.3268 1.299: 1.2701 ,2387 1.2052 1.1695 1 1318 1 0924
b.2 1.3142 1.287e ,2591 1.22% i . i m i 1 18181 I 1255
5.4 1.302: .2762 1.2484 1.218I 1 18751 1 . 1 a
5.6 l . m 1.2653 1.W I 20921 1.1700
b.8 1.3030 1.2791 I.%$ 122Sj,12045
6.0
6.2
1.2920 1.2691 12448 1 2 1 0 0
I .a11 12589 l a 1 I
6.4 1 2111’ 12490
I 1 2612
--- -
6.6
- .
1 -
HOW TO APPLY 653
TABLE 15.9
\01
0.00 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.15 0 3 0 . 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70
I.? 1.1547 1.2036 1.2326 1.2458 1.2579

1 4 1.3191 1.331 1.4106 1.4271 1.4438 1.4436 1.4348 1 . W
1.6 1 4638 1.5219 1.5619 1.5832 1.6125 1.6249 1.62% 1,Wl 1.5604
1.8 15586 1 6151 1.6517 1.6731 1.7138 1.7390 1.7556 1.7667 1.7546 1.7153 16593 1 . W 5
2.0 1.6108 1.6602 1.6941 1.7168 1.7576 1.7631 1.8129 1.- 1.8i?l 1.8748 1.8539 1807E
2.? 1.6361 1 6793 1.7100 1.7310 1.770? 1.8011 1.8279 1.8741 1 . 9 1 5 1.9426 19606 19809
2.4 1.6467 1 6&9 1.7126 1.7318 1.7682 1.7977 1.8238 1.8709 1.9136 9535 1 9888 2 0174
9100 1 9799 2 0181
9193 19574 1 8 9 8 3
9949 1 931; 1 9690
8724 1 fKX4 I 9410
8517 1 8830 1 9148
:I
4.2
I !
8330 1 8618 1 8911
1 816011 6429 18698
' 1 8258 1 8508
I 18338
- --
- .oo
- 1 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40
I
1.50 1.60
-
1.70
-
1.80
?O
? ?
1 7453 1 0 8 0 3
1 9377 1 8596 18221 1 1532
I
24
2 6
? 0 3 3 ?a%? 0119
2 o m 2 0 9 2 ? 100;
1.9614 1.9924 1.8210
?.loz? 2 . 0 i 9 2 ?.02W
I
1.9s30' 1.8847
29 ?CUM 2 0 7 4 3 2.1100 ?.I402 1.1602 2.1632 ?.I415 2.0910 2,0197 1 9451
3 0 2 m 3 ?oMI ? 0859 2.1249 2.1619 2.1935 2.2152 2.poO ?.1997 2 1499 2.o n ?
3.2 1 976i ? 0136 2.0519 2.091? ?.1314 2.1715 2.2096 2.2429 2.2665 ? 1;3? 2 254'
3 4 1 9476 1 9816 2.0170 ?.a510 ? 0926 2 1325 2.1736 2.2147 ? 2543 2 1 9 3 ? 3146
3.6 1 9111 1 9523 l . W i 2 0 1 8 5 2 0541 2 0913 2.1304 2.1711 2 '2130 ? 25% 2 2965
3.8 1 8 9 7 3 19259 1.9535 1 . 9 W 2.0187 2.052e 2.0881 2.1261 2 . l W ? 3 i 3 2 3503
4.0 1 8 7 6 3 1 W26 1 9 2 9 6 1.957'7 1.9871 2 0179 2.0503 2 0846 2.1207 ? 1589 2 1993
4.2 1 B5i3 I BBli I W6i 1.9324 1.95Y? 1.9872 2 0186 2 . M i 5 2.0801 2 114f 2 1511
4.4 1 &07 1 M31 1.8861 1.9100 1.9%5 1 . m 1 1.9868 2.0148 ?.M43 2 07s 2 la?
4.6 1 8879 1.8899 1.9126 1.9361 1.m 1 . w 1 2 0 1 s ? 046 2 0704
4.8 1.8517 1.8722 1.8932 1.9148 1.9374 1.0608 1 9852 2 Oloi 2.0374
so 18562 1.8758 1.8859 1.91661 1.0383 1 9607 1 W C 2.0084
5.2 1.6602 1.87sc 1.8983 l.OI& 19389 19606 19828
5.1
6.6
5.11
6.0
I I 1.8817 1.9003 1.9191 1 939t
1.8670 1.m 1.9023 1 *
1.8531, 1.8699 1.6367 1 OM[
! 1.8561 1,8725 1888;
1 .wM
1 we
1.9217
19054
6.2 1 8741 1.8906
6.4 1WZ 1 .an1
6.6 1 m 7
-
654 DISTRTBUTIONAL TEST AND REPAIR TIMES
TABLE 15.10
' 0.W 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.30 0.10 0.50 0.60 0.70
1.2 1.1547 1.0899 1.0355 0.9954

1.4 1.3223 1.2461 1.1853 1.1371 1 .mi7 0 . 9 Z 1 0.9170
1.6 1.4955 1.4115 1.3409 1.2886 1.1870 l . l W 1.0391 0.9154 0 8331
1.8 1.645) 1.5815 1.4906 1.1372 1.3304 1.2426 1.1685 1.W46 0.9365 0.819;
2.0 l.i.567 1.6765 1.6129 1.5631 1.1613 ,3744 1.2962 1.1595 1.0448 0 . W 3 0 86.56 0.7934
2.2 1.8332 1.7625 1.703; 1.85593 1.5877 4 8 i Y I 4139 1.2782 1 1572 l.QSl4 0 Woo 0,81106
2.4 1.Wi 1.8210 l . 7 W 1.7295 1.6488 ,5779 1.5114 1.3852 1.2685 1.158s 1 0 5 8 1 0.9710
2.6 1.9197 1.86lC 1.8149 1.7801 1.7080 . W 1.567s 1 4746 1.3645 1.2579 1.1371 1 . W
,6883 1.6464 1.5463 1.4471 1.3482 1 . 2 5 0 1.1573
,7374 1.6914 1.W: 1 5 1 4 3 1.424s 1 . 3 3 4 1.2445
.76i4 1.7260 1.6469 1 . W L 4 W 1 Wi 1.32??
1.6SlS 1.6112 1.5394 1.4653 1.3890
1.6416 1.3811 1.5144 1.4452
i l l
1.6132 1.5548 1.4922
1 5883 1 5 3 1 3
1.5840
4.2
I 1 I I I I I , I 1 1
--1.10 I .20
-
1.80
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3.0
3.2
3.4
0.8107
n
17484
) S2G D i W
894.1
0 9811 1 9 0 i 2 0 8412
I MOO 39903 n 9189
1.1373 I . O i l 7 D 9 9 8 3
I 2386 I 1 5 6 8 1 0786
1.3112 I ,2329 1 1 m
0.7loY
0 7820
0.0545
0. m 2
1 ,0055
tzsz
D 6788
7966 0 7440 0 6956
8666 0 8100 0 7 5 M
,9383 0 87i6 0 8222
.OlI5 0 9467 0 8874
1.0815
TT
I7110
I7716
I8332
0 6672
0 7251 0 6620 0.6419
0 7&36 0 i380 0 695i
0 8433 0 7946 0.7491)
3.6 1.33.9 1.3009 1.2252 1.1% .083i 1 0 1 6 6 0 9540 18982
3.8 1 4272 1.3600 1 2911 1.2213 1524 1 0851 1 0207 ) 9602 0 WO 0 8524 n ma
4.0 1.4722 1.4106 1.3470 1.2818 2158 1 1 5 0 1 l o s s 0240 09655 0 9 1 0 9 0.8603
4.2 1.5100 1 453: 1.3952 1.3348 2720 1 2100 1 1474 loss 10264 09699 0.9169
4.4 1.5420 1.4900 14366 .3231 1 2 8 4 0 1 2 M l
1 .ssoci ilU3 10853 l m s l 0.9736
4.0 I . 4721 ,3611 1 3 1 1 8 1 2%
1.42oc I 1982 I 1 4 M 1 W U 1.0293
4.8 1.- 1.4549,105s 1 3 5 4 1 1 3 0 1 2 I 2470 1 1922 1 1372 1 .m
5.0 1.a7 .43a 1 SWS 1.3417 I2908 1.238f 1 1 8 8 1 1.1333
5.2 ,487619 1.1235 1 3773 I3297 12808 1- 1.1800
6.4 1 4519 1 (089 I3643 13183 1 ?il( 1 . 2 2 2 i
5.6 I 4366 13648 1351: 1307: 1.2612
5.8 1.4611 14220 13814 1339: 1.2959
6.0 14460 1 1 0 7 0 1 w I ,3177
6.2 1 4315 1394: 1.3559
0.4
6.6
- - I l1 417'
1.3812
1.4041
-
HOW TO APPLY 655
TABLE 15.11
PEICEKTAGE POINTS O F P U R S O N CURVES
Uppar 2.5% poiDu d the sundudiied v u k u (z. L)/., (0 -
0.875). -
a03 om 0.10 0.1s 0.20 0.30 0 . ~ 0 as0 0.60 0.70
1.2 1.1547 1.2056 l.P)6 1.2458 1.2579

1.4 1.3223 1.3823 1.4144 l.uo3 1.4453 1.4440 1.4346 1.4042
1.6 1.4955 l.s(u1 1.8012 1.6214 1.6439 1.8472 1.63Qi 1 . W 1.-
1.8 1.6454 1.7148 1.7567 1.1809 1.8146 1.8295 1.8330 1.8151 1,7746 1.7195 1.6399 1 6 0 0 3
2.0 1.7567 1.9233 1.8657 1.8Sl8 1.8331 19581 1.9735 1.9833 1.9691 1.9330 1.8155 1.5131
2.2 1.8331 1.8953 1.W I . W I 2.0011 2.0377 2 0803 2 0902 2.1014 2 . M 2 0723 2.0179
2.4 1.6847 1.94'" 1.W11 2.0066 2.0316 2.0812 2.1106 2.1511 2.1193 ?.I959 2.1997 2.1881
2.6 1.9191 I.9i27 2 OW 2 0313 2.0778 2.1108 2.1363 2.1834 2.219i 2.2- 2 2693 2.2813
2.8 1.9454 1.9923 2.41;3 2.050: 2 0930 ?.l* 2 152'3 2.IuCJ5 2.2YYL 2.2735 2.W2 2.3277
3.0 1 . W 2.006(1 2.U36i 2.0609 2.1016 2.1330 2.1600 2.206?2.24662.2832 2.316i 2.3471
3.2
3.4
3S.8
.6 I I
-
0.80 0.90 Im 1.10
-
1.20 1.30 1.40 1.50 I 1.60
2
2
2
2
2
3
0
2
4
t
s
0
1.7455 1 m -3
I @M4 1 UHI'J 1.8??3
2.1596 2 109s ?MI1
2.2813 2 2667 2 2344
2.3156 23551 23532
2 3141 2.3966 2.413n
1 7532
1.m;
2 18-9
2.33%
2.4212
I
2
1
2
8 9 3 I . 8211-1
1115 2 03366 1.9584
;)LEA 2.2496 2 , l i 9 5
4l%? 2.- 2.3W
-tT
1 864;
20998 2 m 1
2 3113 2 2402
1 9151
2 1% 2 0187
3 2 2.3829 2 4115 2.43i1 2.4506 2 4743 2.4519 2.4763 2 M a 2 4245 2 36ns 2 2975
3 4 2.3814 2.4121 2.4421 2 W 2 4047 2.5158 2.5311 2 5 3 8 3 2s345 2 5161 ? 4799
3 6 2.3145 2 -061 2.4371 2.46i2 2 4983 2.5236 2.5483 2569? 25813 2 5915 2 5871
3 8 2.3653 2.;LW ? . a 3 2 Cs60 2 4 w 2.5111 2 , a w 2 5 i 4 0 2 548; 2 6195 ? 6347
4 0 2.3548 2 3851 2.4153 2 4436 2 1i39 2.3061 2 . w 25857 2 w 2 a218 2 6(gi
4.2 2 . 3 4 1 2.3734 2.40!27 ?.&I21 2 4610 2 4YI4 2.5214 2 5514 2 5814 2 6111 2 MW
4 4 2.3336 2.3617 2.3900 2.1183 2 4468 2 4137 2 5030 25343 2 w 2 5915 2 6244
4 6 2.3776 2.4%; 2 4323 2.4800 2.4862 2 5168 2 5 4 6 0 2 5735 260s
4.8 2.365; 2.3918 2 4182 2 4448 2,4720 2 4 w 2 sne 2 w 1 2WI
5.0 2.3791 2 40050 2 4304 2,456.5 24829 2 w 2 5311 2 5651
5.2 2 3925 2.4170 2.4418 2 M i 3 24928 2 5100 2 5(58
5 4 2.4043 2 . 4 1 1 2 4523 2 4769 2 5019 2.5275
5 6 2 4152 2 43a5 2 4621 2 48.59 2.5100
5.8 2.4033 2luB144a2 2 4711 2 4M1
6 0 2 4136 2 4352 2 45i3 2 4795
6 2 2 (232 24444 246.59
6.4 2 43u 2 4s30
6.6 2 4410
- - 1
656 DISTMBUTIONAL TEST AND REPAIR TIMES
TABLE 15.12
PERCENTAGE POINTS OF PEARSOP4 CURVES
Larcr 1% pobU of Ihc BC.adudkd &U k -
. #)/el (8 .I0.01). SOU: II LI > 0, the & v k h
h rbL table .rc ne+auve.
0.00 I Io m I
0.01 0.0s I I I os I I I
0.10 a15 0.30 0.w 0.50 0.w I 0.70
I I I I I I I I I I i i
I.? 1.1S47 1.0899 l.W 0.9954

1.1 1.3229 1.2468 1.1833 1.1371 1 . W i 0.9771 0.9170
1.6 1.5079 1.4192 1 . M 1.2912 1.1856 1.1084 1.0361 0 . 9 2 2 0.8331
1.8 1.6974 1.3996 I.Sl?t 1.4569 1.3393 1.2462 1.16% 1.0396 0.9365 O.&9i
2.0 1.868; 1.7685 1.Wl 1.6219 1.4963 1.3246 1.3070 1.161i 1.0151 0.9453 0.8656 0 i934
2.2 2.009; 1.9121 1.8304 1.7680 1.6450 15413 1.4494 1.2915 1.1609 l.OS21 0.9600 0 8808
2.4 2.12oi ?.a279 1.9505 1.8928 1.7753 1.6731 I SWI 1.4226 1.2925 1.1621 l.OJ(H 0.9712
2.6 2.2067 2.1193 2 . W : 1.9936 1 . W 2 1 . i W 1.7BI:: 1 . W l.%’ 1.2i66 1 1 a 1.M:
2.8 2.273; 2.1915 2.1244 2.W15 1.9i34 1.8666 1.8065 1.6576 I 5 1 9 0 1.3UUl 1.2722 I 1665
3.0 2.3263 2.2488 2.1861 2.1397 2.04Gl 1 . m 1 . 8 9 3 1 . i U 1.6223 14968 1.3763 1 . a
3.2 2 . M I 4 1.9631 1.63.v) 1 i1?4 1.39& 1 . 4 i S 2 1.3661
3.4 1.9037 LiMn 1.6763 1 368r, 1 4 G l f
3.6 1 6562 1.7522 I 6492 1.5170
3.8 1.6159 1.7196 1 6232
4.0 1.i809 1.6999
4.2 1 . i49S
- - 1.w I
- 0.80 1 0.90 I .30
--
1.40 1.jO 1.70 1.so
2 2
2.1
2.6
2.8
3.0
3.2
3.4
0.8107 0 7464
0.8944 0.826i
0.9816 0.9072
1.0731 0.9912
1.1w 1 . o i w
1.2648 1.1699
1.3586 1.2612
0.i659
D.8412
0.9189
0.9998
1.0842
1.1700
0.7109
0.782U
0.8545
0.9295
1.0075
1.0885
0.7?$2
0.i966
0.8666
0.9391
1.0113
0.7440
0.8100
0,8776
0.9477
0 6956
U 7.564
1
i l l 0 0 . 6672
0.3222 1.7716 0.7251 0 6820 0 6419
D.81176 ,8332 0 7836 0.7380 0 695:
3.6 1.4467 1.3497 1.2574 1.1713 1.0921 1.020- 0,9532 18966 0 &33 0.7916 0 i498
3.8 1.5274 1.4329 1.3411 1.2531 1.1710 1.0018 1 u252 19619 0 . W 6 0.8524 0 6046
4.0 1.5997 1.5092 1.4199 1.3327 1.2492 1.1703 1.0969 10294 0.9678 0.9119 08606
4.2 1.WO 1.5781 1.4923 1.4074 1.3145 1.24+6 1.1690 0982 1.0329 0.9729 0 9181
4.4 1.72M 1.6394 1.- 1.4763 1.3954 1.3162 1.300 16i2 1.0989 1.0% 0.9772 .
4.6 1.6171 1 . m 1.4611 1.3838 1.3081 234: 1.1649 1 . m 1.03i6
4.8 1.- 1.5958 1.5213 1.*66 1 ,3725 ,2999 1.2296 l.l62! 1 .OM6
5.0 1.6469 1.S75i ].so34 1.43% ,3614 1.2916 1.2240 1.1591
5.2 1.6251 1.Wi 1.4879 ,4185 1.3507 1.W6 1.2183
s.4 1.6045 1.5386 4720 1.405Y 1.m 1.2751
S.6 I.a8 1.5211 1.1569 1.3930 1.3295
S.8 1.6268 1.5658 1.w 1.4424 1.3806
6.0 1 b O a 1.sn 1.- 14.282
6.2 1.5815 1.5302 1.4724
6.4 1.5m 1.5133
1.5511
-
6.6
--- -
657
HOW TO APPLY
TABLE 15.13
0.00 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 om 0.4 0.50 0.60 0.70
1.2 1 . 1 ~ 1.2056
1 1.2326 1.2458
1.4 1 . W 1.3831 1.4151 1.4308 1.4453 1.4440 1.4348
1.6 1.3019 1.5786 1.6169 1.(u58 1.6543 1- 1 8128 1 6oa3 1 . W
1.8 1.6974 1.7764 1 11208 1.8444 1.8713 1 8762 1 8686 1.8320 1.7791 1.7200 1 8598
2 0 1 Mi 1.9511 1.9999 2.0274 '2.0644 2 0794 2 0815 2 Wl1 2.0145 1.9532 1.8811 1.813;
2.2 2.0097 2 0918 3 1425 2.1126 2.2175 ? 2418 2 2.541 2.2.548 2.2304 2.1655 2 1238 2.0507
2 I 2 . 1 ~ 27 . m 2.2512 2.2826 2 33% ?.363? 2.3833 2 (030 2.4W 2 3798 2 rn 2.m~
2 6 2.2061 ?.28,',' 2.3333 2.3649 ?.ali? 2 4521 2 . 4 7 3 ? 5103 2.5253 2.5219 2 Sees 2.4183
2.8 ?.2?37 2 3469 2.39S7 2 4270 2.4803 2 5174 2 M59 ? 3672 2.6136 2.6280 2.6308 2.6215
30 2.3263 2.3963 ? U3G 2.4744 2.5278 2 5659 2 3961 ?.64?4 2.6163 2 7003 2 71% 2.7?li
3.2 2 6025 ?.6336 2 68% ?.t?ll ?.is13 2 7743 2.7911
3.4 2 5129 2 5536 2.i.375 2 8138 2.mW
3 6 2.5ii5 2.8137 ? &30 2.0i23
3.8 2 835 ?.8659 2.895;
4.0 2 8Mn 2.9122
4.2 ? ,9237
-- _I -- - -
-
0.90 1.on
- i.in
- -- --
1.40 1.30 1.60 I .30 1.80
? 0 I 7435
? ? 1 9727 1 x9.56 I R3?B
? I 2 1144 2' 1344 ? OSOP I W 1 8925
2 6 ? 4313 ? 369ll ? 293? ? MF7 I 8%
? \ 2 5991 ? 56?1 2 sin1 2' 443: 2 IA67 2 1006 2 Mot
3 0 2 ilRj ? iN7 2 6767 2'63s 2 4251 2 . &WG 2 24i6 ? 160? ? 078:
3 2 ? 80135 ? ulE1 2 794.5 2 i i 6 3 2 WJ9 2 Si16 ? 487i 2' 9369 ? w9
3 I 2 8569 ? SG3? ? A i i l 2 8i34 2 no04 ?.i631 2 iO?R 2 6?$7 2 54%
3 6 2 8937 ? DI4D ? m3 ? 939p ? 9257 ?.WR 2 8679 2 819ri ? 7577
3 8 2 9225 2 94s9 ? !M? ? 9%; 2 0040 2 BOM 28838 ? 9592 2 9??7
4 0 29409 ? 9612 2 win 3 0121 a Iws9 3 0616 3 0616 3 0513 3 0384
4 2 2 9537 2 991R 3 001; 3 0116 3 OR98 3.1032 3 1126 3 1Iil 3 1159
4 4 2 9623 ? DO12 3 0186 3 rn44 a I l l 8 3.1299 3.1453 3 lSi9 3 1661
4 6 3 0 2 2 3 0.525 3 12% 3 1468 3 1662 3 1836 3 198:'
4 a 3 ow1 3 a515 3 1334 3.1569 3 1i89 3 1993 3 2li9
so 3 0601 3 1377 3 1623 3 IA59 32084 32296
5 2 3 1400 3 . 1 W 3 1894 3 2128 32356
54 3 1138 3 1395 3 la; 3.18% 3 2138 3 2379
5 6 3 1381 3 . 1 W 3.1883 3.2131 3 2312
5 0 3 1356 3 1611 3 ledc 3.2110 3 2349
6 0 3 . 1 W 3 183( 3 mi3 3 2320
6 2 3.lfl)E 32033 3 me
6 4 3 1991 3 2231
----
6 6 3.2179
-- I_
TABLE 15.14
PERCLYTACE POINTS OF PEARSOS CURVES
0.3% poinu of the # t ~ d v d k d
d 8 V U l a (2. -
d/#,(a 0.CC-i. Sole: 11
in thh a l e are negative.
> 0. the vrrkta
y
01
0.00 0.01 om ao5 QIO 0.15 I 0.20
I
0.30
I I
1.2 1.1541 1.0899 1.0353 0.9954
1.4 1.- 1.2468 1.1635 1.1311 I.oli? 0 . 9 3 0.9110
1.6 1.51OS 1.4208 1.3459 1.2915 1.1676 1.1064 I 0381 0.9254 0.8331
1.8 1.1141 1.6113 1 . ~ i.wa
2 1 . ~ 1 11 . 2 4 1~ . 1 ~ 11.0386 u 9 3 n~MY;
2.0 1.9115 1.8057 1.7120 l . W 1 . W 5 1 . 0 1 , 1 . 1.1621 ~ I.IW.51 n.9461 0 R63C 0 7934
2.2 1.1008 l.w 1.8906 1.8190 1.6770 1.5613 1.4613 1.ZMkI I.lCI.5 LW'1 0 !Wdi 0 ~WIW
2.2s62 2.1437 2.0496 1 .9191 1.83;s 1 .71951 I .61X I 43.56 1 .?%!I 1.1632 I 11.5% n ijil?
2.4
2.6
2.8
2.3816 2.n58 2.1854 2.1116 1.9809 1.W 1.7616 1 5 E 4 I.4lbi 1 28''
2.4896 1.3851 2.m2.2348 2.l&U 1.9946 1.m1 7126 15?02 1 4036 1.27S7 I IGGi
1 I655 1 I=
3.0 2.5158 2.4158 2.5930 2.3330 2.21OS 2.1062 2.0110 1 ri?G2 1.6760 1.521: 1 395: I 2741
3.2 2.?017 '2 1120 1.9480 1.7915 I 646? I 5107 1 . S c O
3.4 2 0 4 2 2 1.11051 I 7547 I 6210 1.4947
3.6 1 9 w 1 852s I 7232 1 59N
3.8 1 oleo 1.9161 1.6952
4.0 1 SW7 1 7836
4.2 I.M34
- -
I 1.00 - - -
7
I
0.9n i
1.10 1.20 .3n
-1.311 1.60 1.70 1.80
2.2 0.8101 D 1484

2.4 0.8944 0.8267 0 76% D.1109
2.6 0.9816 0.9072 O.MI? D.18w 3.1282
2.8 1.0736 o.wn o . m 0.8545 3.1966 I 744n
3.0 1.1113 1.0790 I oooo 0 9.295 0.- I 81on 0 1110 Li 66:?
3.2 1.2735 1.1135 1.0854 1 . m i 9 D.Wl I . 8176 0 7116 0 i2Sl 0 6820 0 6419
3.4 1.3176 1.2710 1.1152 1.0901 1.01UI 1 Mi7 It ILU? (1 1976 0 7Jyn 0 6951
3.6 1.4803 1.3697 1.2682 1.1763 1.0941 I .m 0 u966 0 M33 0 1U46 0 1498
3.8 1.5183 1,4667 1.3619 1 . m 1.1168 I . o w 4 9623 09046 08524 08046
4.0 1.6700 1.w 1 . w1.3542 1.1816 I I168 0306 0 9682 0 9119 0 8606
4.2 1.1540 1.6465 1.s420 1.4416 1.3466 I ,2318 1017 I w3 1) 8134 0 9183
4.4 l.w 1.7263 1.6246 I .5W 1.4296 I.3.W . li4Y 1 1029 I 0313 0.9119
4.6 1.7014 I . a 1 1 .sow I. 4 I W ,2491 1 1132 I 1034 1 0397
4.8 1 .nn I . a 4 1.5848 I 4 9 4 1 .313n 1 2449 I 1110 I lo34
5.0 1.1153 1 . W 1.5661 3953 I 3 1 5 0 12391 11-
S.2 1 .m
1.6336 ,4648 1 W 2 I3070 12338
5.4 1.6964 ,531: 1 4509 1 3731 I 2987
1
5.6 5935 I 5144 I 4313 1 3624
5.8 1.6SIS 1 5146 1 49% 1 4238
6.0 l.iO61 16309 15563 14827
6.2 IWG 16IOh 15385
6.4 1 66IU 1.5912
1 6408
6.6
-- -
HOW TO APPLY 659
TABLE 15.15
I .2
1.4
1.6
1 8
2 0
1.2326 1 . 2 4 s
1.4151 1.4306
l . m z 1.6388
I . M I 1.-
2.0594 2.0870
1.4453 1.4440 1.1358
1.6561 1.6543 1.6433 l.w 1.m
i . u m 1.- Isne
I I I i
1.0330 1.7796 1.7m1.U98
2.1197 2.1118 2.1219 2.0644 2.0258 1.9569 1.8847 1.8137
2 2 2 . m 2 2.2818 2.3242 2.- 2.345t 2.3250 2.2784 2.2133 2.1366 2 &%ti
24 2.1081 2.4426 2.4928 2.5193 2.5322 2.5319 2.- 2.45i7 2.3922 2.3145
2 6 2 . 5 3 0 3.5119 2.6273 2.6603 2.681C 2.6981 2 B14 2.6652 2.6212 2 5601
2 8 2.6389 2.6753 2.7340 2.7715 2.797@ 2.8280 2 . m 2.8304 2.8072 2.1687
3 0 2.1217 2.7583 2.8188 2.85M 2.6893 2.9292 2 . W 2.9580 2.9521 2.9333
32 2.9294 2.- 3.- 3.- 3.0566 3.0636 3.6641
34 3.0712 5.1075 3.1329 3.1492 3.1570
36 3.1618 3.1928 3.2151 3.2311
3 8 3.2393 3.2680 3.2898
4 0 3.3092 3 3352
4.2 3.3711
-
I 0.90 I
-
-r
0.60 1.00 1.40
2 0
? ?
I 7455
81 9731 1 A950 1 8223
I I
2 1 2 22ib 2 13113 2 0513 1.9694 18928
2 C 216% 23996 2 3 M 2.21% 2 I222 2.W3 1.9584
2 4 2 7151 2 6466 2 5653 2.4741 2.3771 2 . W 2.1675 2. lax
3 0 2 win 2 8550 2 7950 2.7213 2.6356 2.5409 2.4415 2.3426 2.2483 2.1602
3 ? 3 Iw.% 3 0197 2 081.5 2 9300 2.8655 2.7879 2.6990 Z.WI9 2 5008 2.m 2.3Q56
3 4 3 1561 3 im 3 1258 3.00(Y 3.WP 2.Wil 2.92114 2.6484 3.7572 2 . e S w 2.5582
3 6 3 2406 3 2121 3 2360 3.2213 3.1972 3.1674 3.1163 3 0519 2.9869 2 . m 1 2.8111
36 3303.5 33156 33100 3.3173 3.3412 3.2890 3.2611 3.2pg 3.1748 3.1138 3.0406
4 0 3 3563 3 3128 3 3841 3.3902 3.3909 3.- 3.3717 3.3510 3.3108 3.- 3.2291
42 3 3962 3 4173 3 4339 3 . M 3.4346 3.4579 3 . w 3.- 3.4318 3.4093 3.3759
4.4 3 4279 3 4513 3 4121 3.4u99 3.5038 3.5137 3.5102 3.5203 3.5155 3.5051 3.4875
46 3 5031 3.5241 3.MI9 3.5564 3.3677 3.5756 3.5793 3.5782 3.5718
I
4.8 3.5510 3.5714 3.5900 3.6053 3.8183 3.6277 3.6335 3.6354
5.0 3.5721 3.5958 3.6156 3.0342 3.&512 3 . W 7 3.6760 3.6840
5.2 3.6136 3.6364 3.6669 3.61b4 3.6037 3 . 7 m 3.7206
5.4 13.5275 3.6524 3.6155 3.6909 3.7155 3.7328 3.7w
5.6 3 . m 3.7116 3.1333 3.7528 3.nm
5 8 3.7008 3.1245 3.7467 3.16881 3.7873
6.0 3.7341 3.7572 3.7796 3.8010
6.2 3 . 7 6 0 3.7885 3.8111
6,4 3.7959 a.sm
6,6 3.lll47
-

Do the following:
1. Prepare following table using linear interpolation:
PI &(n-1) = 0.10 A(n) = 0.20 Pl(n+l) = 0.30 Pl(n+2) = 0.40

, P2
3.4 1.2911 1.3109 1.3303 1.3493
& = 3.49 = 1.2848 Z; = 1.3041 z;+~ = 1.3223 Z;+Z = 1.3406
3.6 1.2771 1.2957 1.3125 1.3299
2. Now that we have four values of z corresponding to /?: = 3.49, we
have to interpolate for /3; = 0.27, as follows:
From the previous table
I
1,z, = 1.2848,
z; = 1.3041, (6; = -O.OOll),
= 1.3223, (6;+1 = -O.OOOl),
and
I
= 1.3406.
%+2
Using these values, find
6; = 1.3223 - 2 (1.3041)+ 1.2848 = -0.0011,
6:+, = 1.3406 - 2 (1.3223)+ 1.3041 = 0.0001.
These values are used to calculate
0 = [Pi - P1(.,] 10,
e = “0.27) - (0.20)l 10 = (0.07) 10,
or
e = 0.7.
Substitution of these values into Eq. (15.17)yields
1
z* = (1 - e) %
,: + e . z+;l - -4 e (1 - e) (62. + . z;+l) ,
= (1 - 0.7) (1.3041)+ (0.7)(1.3223)
1
--(0.7)(1 - 0.7)[(-0.0011)(1.3041)
4
+
(0.0001)(1.3223)],
= 0.39123 + 0.92561 - (0.0525)[(-0.0014345) (0.0001322)], +
= 1.31684 - (0.0525)(-0.0013023),
+
= 1.31684 0.000068,
HOW TO APPLY 66 1
or
Z* = 1.316908.
The value of z', z* = 1.3169, corresponds to p; = 3.49, p; = 0.27,
and a = 0.90.
EXAMPLE 15-2
Given p; = 4.92, 3/; = 0.76, and cr = 0.10 find the lower 10%
percentage point, Q = 0.10, z value.
Do the following:
Prepare the following table using linear interpolation:
P2
4.80 1.1593 1.1535 1.1467 1.1391
/3; = 4.92 z L - ~= 1.1573 Z; = 1.1519 z ; + ~ = 1.1455 z ; + ~= 1.1384
5.00 1.1560 1.1508 1.1447 1.1379
and
I
~,+2 = 1.1384.
Using these values, find
6; = 1.1455 - 2 (1.1519) + 1.1573 = -0.001,
6:+1 = 1.1384 - 2 (1.1455) + 1.1519 = -0.0007,
6' = [(0.76)- (0.7)] 10,
and
9 = 0.6.
662 DISTRIBUTIONAL T E S T A N D REPAIR TIMES
Substitution of these values into Eq. (15.17) yields

Z* +
= (1 - 0.6)(1.1519) (0.6)(1.1455)
1
--(0.6)(1- 0.6)[(-0.001)(1.1519)
4
+ (-0.0007)(1.1455)],
or
Central Limit Method of

Theorem, Moments,
- hr hr
t0.90 59.1 59.3
-
A
20.95 61.2 62.0

10.99 65.2 67.4
15.1.5 METHOD 3 - MONTE CARL0 SIMULATION

This method is another one for obtaining information about system
performance from component data. It consists of “building” many
systems by computer calculations and evaluating the performance of
such synthesized systems. In the case of the test-and-repair time distri-
bution determination and the determination of the various percentiles
thereof, the following Monte Carlo Simulation procedure may be used:
HOW TO APPLY 663
1. Determine the function relating the independent variables t o the

dependent variable, or relating the inputs to the output, or
y = f(tl,22,"',tn),
or
2. Determine the distribution of each independent variable, or in-

put, or
or the pdf's of the test-and-repair times at each one of the six

stations, as given in Fig. 15.1 and Table 15.1.
3. Determine the cumulative distribution function of each variable,
or input, as shown in Fig. 15.2.
4. Generate a random number, uniformly distributed between zero
and one, for each random variable. Uniformly distributed ran-
dom numbers having values between 0 and 1 , or U ( 0 , l),are il-
lustrated in Fig. 15.3. The uniform, or rectangular, distribution
function is given by
1
p1-p0 Po L 2 I Pl,
elsewhere,
or in this case
f ( R N ;P o = 0,Pl = 1) = {1 ()
0 < R ~ < 1 ,
elsewhere.
5 . Obtain a set of randomly chosen values for each random variable

from
RN-U-ti, = f(2;) dt,

-CO or 7
where
i = 1,2, - .,6 = random variables involved,
and
j = 1 , 2 , ~ * ~ , 1 0 , 0 0 0number
, ~ ~ ~ =of trials, or sets of random
numbers generated,
or do as shown in Fig. 15.4.
tl ‘1. 1
Fig. 15.2a - Procediire for determining the cumulative Fig. 15.2b - Determine the cumulative distribution
distribution function of variable tl. function of variable t 2 .
I
Fig. 1 5 . 2 ~- Determine the cumulative distribution Fig. 15.2d - Determine the cumulative distribution
function of variable 13. function of variable t6.
0 I
RN
Fig. 15.3 - Uniformly distributed random numbers having

values between 0 and 1.
Q,
Q,
-1
4, 1 (1
Fig. 15.4a - Procedure for finding a randomly selected Fig. 15.4b - Procedure for finding a randomly selected
value of variable 11. value of variable &3.
668
HOW TO APPLY 669
6. Repeat many times, j = 10,000 or more preferably, as shown in

Fig. 15.5.
7. Substitute the values of each set; i.e., t l , l ; t z , l ; . . . ; t 6 , 1 , into the
output function, and determine a random value of the output, or
Yl = f(tl,l;t2,1;"';tn,l),
or
where
N = 10,000or more, preferably.
For example, one set of such random values for each variable
could be
Station number 1 2 3 4 5 6
Random value,
t i , hr 11.3 17.5 1.9 6.3 0.3 9.2
Then, a randomly determined value of the total test-and-repair

time, t l , would be
6
ti = C t i = 11.3 + 17.5 + 1.9 + 6.3 + 0.3 + 9.2,
i=l
or
t1 = 46.5 hr.
8. Arrange these Y, or t , values in ascending value, or order, or

Y1 5 Y2 5 ys 5 ' * ' <Y N .
9. Find the a-percentile value desired from the
a (n:+ I),
ranked observation, where N is the total number of observations.

In this example the 90th percentile for N = 100 is obtained from
0.90 (100 + 1) = 90.9th,
ranked observation in 100 simulations. If the 90th observation
was 58.8 hr and the 91st was 59.4 hr, the estimate of the 90th
percentile would be
58.8 + (90.9 - 90)(59.4 - 58.8) = 59.3 hr.
Similarly, the 95th percentile would be 61.0 hr, and the 99th
percentile would be 70.3 hr. These compare closely with those of
the previous two methods, as shown in the following table:
10. Calculate the four moments from the Monte Carlo values of the
output, or o f t , and use these in a Pearson distribution approxi-
mation; namely, /?I and /?2, or obtain an empirical fit to the his-
togram constructed from the Monte Carlo values and find the ap-
proximations t o the desired percentiles. The moments calculated
from the Monte Carlo values are very close to those obtained by
the moments method, consequently, similar approximations are
obtained.
11. Fit several distributions which are chosen to be potentially ac-

ceptable (empirically and/or phenomenologically) using one or
more of the following techniques:
1. Probability plotting.
2. Maximum likelihood estimators.
3. Matching moments.
4. Least squares.
5. Parameters calculation.
Apply goodness-of-fit tests and criteria, together with the co-
efficients of skewness and kurtosis values and phenomenological
HOW TO APPLY 671
Fig. 15.6 - T h e calculation of the Q percentile of t , or t,,

using Eq.(15.18).
considerations to decide on the best distribution to use. The

a-percentile can then be calculated from
Q = It'
-=,0,7
f(t) dt = M ( t a ) , (15.18)
as shown in Fig. 15.6. The histogram of the generated simulated

t values is shown in Fig. 15.7.
To
-
1
60.0 65.0 70.0
39.9 44-949.9 54.9 59.9 64.9 69.9 74.9
Total hours
Fig. 15.7 - Checkout times for 100 simulations.

GENERATION OF RANDOM VALUES 673
15.2 GENERATION OF RANDOM VALUES FOR

VARIOUS DISTRIBUTIONS
The successful implementation of Monte Carlo simulation techniques
requires the efficient generation of random values from the various
distributions frequently used in Reliability and Maintainability Engi-
neering. Table 15.16 provides algorithms whereby random values may
be generated for eight different continuous and two different discrete
distributions. The following references give additional algorithms for
generating random values from well known distributions:
1. “Handbook of Mathematical Functions,” Edited by Milton
Abramowitz and Irene A. Stegun, Dover Publications, Inc., 180
Varvic St., New York 10014,1046 pp., pp. 952-953,1970.
2. “Simulation Modeling and Analysis,” Averill M. Law and W.
David Kelton, Mc Graw-Hill Book Co., 1221 Avenue of the Amer-
icas, New York 10020,400 pp., pp. 253-271,1982.
3. “A Note on The Generation of Random Normal Deviates,” G.E.P.
Box and Mervin E. Miller, Annals of Mathematical Statistics,
Vol. 29,pp. 610-611,1958.
15.3 ERROR BOUNDS AND NUMBER OF MONTE

CARL0 TRIALS
Monte Carlo estimates have associated error bounds. The larger the
number of trials the more precise the final answer is. Given the error
with which the answer is t o be determined the required number of
trials can be determined.
If we want to know the confidence interval about the maintainabil-
ity for a test-and-repair time of 60 hr, we can determine it by using the
number of trials involved and binomial distribution confidence bounds.
For example if 94 trials out of 100 gave a total test-and-repair time of
60 hr or less, then,
. 94
p = - = 0.94.
100
If we desire to know the 95% confidence interval about p , then we use
the 95% confidence interval tables for the binomial pdf. Enter Fig.
15.S with j3 = 0.94, go to the sample size 100 curves and read off the
05% confidence limits. In this case
TABLE 15.16 - Generation of random values from various distributions given
- random standard
normal, R N , and random standard uniform, R ~ Jvalues.
be simulated Procedure to obtain raildoin value y'

L
Exponential y' = -+ log,(l - Rc/) y.+
Garnnra y' = -1r l c loge(1 - &).
.
B
*=I
(integral values
of S )
Chi-square
Lognorin al
Jolirrsoll Sq
,
Johnsou Su
I
~~~ ~~~
Distribution to
be simulated Probability density function Procedure to obtain random value d
Beta
(integral
values of and 7)
Weibull f(y) = 5 $--le-(:)@, 05y5 00.
-
Poisson f(y)=A
Y
%,
-a
y=0,1,2,..-. y‘ = k , where k is the lowest
integer such that
Binomial
i = 1,2,---,n.
RN is a random vi ie from the normal distribution with fi = 0 anc r = l . & i s a
random value from the uniform distribution over interval (1,O). When more than
one value is required, a typical value is designated as R N o
~r Rui. All values are
taken independently of one another [I, pp. 242-2431.
Fig. 15.8 - 95% binomial confidence limits for p = 2 and

various sample sizes n [5].
ERROR BOUNDS 677
and
pu2 = 0.975.
Therefore,
P[0.875 5 M ( t = 60 hr) 5 0.9751 = 0.95,
whereas for N = 100 trials
M^(t = 60 hr) = 0.94.
To increase the accuracy; i.e., to narrow the confidence bounds about
M ( t ) , the number of Monte Carlo trials, N , should be increased. For
example for N = 1,000 the confidence limits for a CL = 0.95 become
p,52 = 0.925,
and
pu2 = 0.955,
if 940 of the trials gave t 5 60 hr, where now
-
p=--
940 - 0.940.
1,000
Then,
P[0.925< M ( 1 = 60 hr) < 0.9551 = 0.95,
or a significantly narrower interval within which the actual maintain-
ability lies, with 1,000 Monte Carlo trials.
The process may also be used to determine the number of Monte
Carlo trials which provide the maximum allowable error, E , in esti-
mating M ( t ) . To accomplish this specify E , CL, and p', an initial
estimate of p , or of M ( t ) . For example, I want to be 95% sure that my
M ( t ) estimate will not differ by more than f0.05 from the final esti-
mated value. Assume an initial estimate of p' = 0.80. If 1,000 Monte
Carlo trials are conducted and 800, or 80%, have values t 5 60 hr, the
resulting 95% confidence interval for M ( t ) is
P[0.775 _< M ( t = 60 hr) 5 0.8251 = 0.95,
from Fig. 15.8. Similarly, for N = 400
P[0.755 5 M ( t = 60 hr) _< 0.8401 = 0.95,
and for N = 200

PI0.735 5 M ( t = 60 hr) 0.8521 = 0.95.
Because we wish to estimate M ( t ) within f 0 . 0 5 with 95% confidence,
or within 0.750 and 0.850, somewhat more than 200 trials are required.
As we require often more than 1,000 trials and such binomial charts
may not be available, one may estimate the needed N , given E and p'
from the normal pdf approximation of the binomial pdf as follows:
E =fq-q Qp', (15.19)
where
(15.20)
and substitution of Eq. (15.20) into Eq. (15.19) yields
Solving for N yields
(15.21)
"1-9 is the (1 - a/2) 100 percentile point of the standardized normal

p d f . For
Q
CL = 0.95 = 1 - a; Q = 0.05; - = 0.025,
2
21-0.025 = 20.975 = 1.960,
and for
CL = 0.99 = 1 - (Y; (Y = 0.001; -a2 = 0.005,
21-0.005 = 20.995 = 2.576.
In this case, for a CL = 0.95,
ERROR BOUNDS 679
or
N 2 246.
This approximation is usually adequate for N p' or N (1 - p') equal t o
or greater than 5. If a one-sided bound is needed, instead of two-sided
bounds, then only the difference of the upper (or lower) curve from
the diagonal line of Fig. 15.8 is used to find N. In the equation for N
use instead of . z ~ - 2Q , or 1.282 for 90% CL, 1.645 for 95% C L and
2.326for 99% CL. It must be noted that in finding N, an estimate of p,
or of M ( t ) , was required, which is the very quantity t o be determined
by the Monte Carlo study. This is because the size of the confidence
interval is a function of p, or M ( t ) , as can be seen from examining
Fig. 15.8 and Eq. (15.21)for N. The largest sample size, however, is
required when p = 0.5. Therefore, if p is not known ahead of time, use
p' = 0.5 to get the most conservative sample size. Or conduct some
Monte Carlo trials, get an estimate of p', and use this to obtain N and
the additional trials t o get the desired accuracy or error bounds.
To find N for a desired error, E, in estimating the mean of the
output, or i, with a desired CL = 1 - a,the estimate of the standard
deviation, & is needed. Then,
(15.22)
Conversely, after the Monte Carlo simulation trials are completed, N

is known, f and r5t can be calculated, CL = 1 - a chosen, and the
confidence limits about 7 determined from
wherefrom the error on i is
15.4 CONCLUDING REMARKS

Overall, the system moments method used in conjunction with the
Pearson or Johnson distribution approximation, appears t o be the most
economical approach, and provides an adequate approximation under
most conditions. It also allows us to analyze the relative importance
of each component variable by examining the magnitude of its par-

tial derivative. As a result it might be desirable t o set more stringent
tolerances on those components that contribute most heavily to the
system's variance. This method does not require a knowledge of the
component distributions, but only estimates of the moments. If the
system is very complex and the moments method cannot be used coii-
veniently, use Monte Carlo simulation.
EXAMPLE 15-3
A truck repair-and-checkout facility consists of three stations where
each incoming truck gets served by going successively through Stations
1 through 3. The total repair-and-checkout time, 1, of this facility is
given by
3
t = Ct;,
;=I
where the t; are the respective repair-and-checkout times in each sta-

tion. The repair-and-checkout-timesdistributions for each one of the
three stations are the following:
1. Station 1
where
p = 2.0, q = 3.0 hr and 7 = 0.5 hr.
2. Station 2
where
-
t' = 0.5 log, hr and up = 1.0 log, hr.
3. Station 3
where
p = 6 and q = 4 hr.
ERROR BOUNDS 681
Do the following:
1. Find the time to repair-and-checkout for the maintainabilities of
90%, 95% and 99%, using the Monte Carlo Simulation method,
with 100, 1,000 and 5,000 t values.
2. Discuss the simulation results.

Twelve separate, independent simulations were conducted. The
results are given in Table 15.17, for N = 100, 1,000 and 5,000 simula-
tions, and for the 90th, 95th and 99th percentiles, respectively.
A substantial variation among the Monte Carlo simulation results
may be seen. These may come from the following sources:
1. The statistical nature of the random number generator; i.e.,
choice of seed, uniformity and independence.
2. Bad algorithm for random sampling.
3. Errors in numerical calculations.
4. The limited number of simulations used.
The mean, range and variance of the results in Table 15.17 are
given in Table 15.18 and plotted in Figs. 15.9, 15.10 and 15.11. It
may be seen that the simulation results converge as the number of
simulations, N , increases; i.e., for a particular value of the percentile,
p , the range and standard deviation values decrease as N increases.
Also, the variation in the simulated percentiles strongly depends on
the value of p ; i.e., for the same number of simulations, on the average,
the variation increases as the percentile increases. For example, for the
case of N = 100, the variance for the 99th sample percentile is larger
than that of the 95th and 90th percentiles. This may be explained as
follows:
Consider that the variation of the simulation results is only caused
by the limited number of simulations. Let F ( t ) and f ( t ) be the cdf
-.
and pdf of the test-and-repair times, t , and let the t i ( i = 1,2, - ,M )
be a sample from t of size M , obtained by simulations. Arrange the
ek
t;(i = 1,2, - . -,Ad) in increasing value, and denote this set by (MI(k =
1 , 2 , . . . , M ). Then tiM’is the order statistic of t . The (iM)’s are
random variables with the following cdf [l,pp. 124-1281
M
@kAt(z) = p(<iM’5 z) = [F(z)ln[1- p(z)]’-n,
n=k
TABLE 15.17 - Summary of the Monte Carlo simulation

results for Example 15-3.
-
j 90th
v=100
95th 99th
1 9.856 12.651 21.351
2 8.517 * 11.251 * 36.933 **
3 11.780 15.140 22.030
4 10.699 12.500 19.892
5 12.900 ** 15.980 ** 19.400
6 10.880 15.070 33.200
7 11.766 15.147 22.029
8 9.203 11.611 29.127
9 12.610 15.220 29.660
10 11.600 14.000 22.600
11 12.123 13.400 18.097 *
-
-
12 10.319 14.288
' = 1.Ooo
- I
31.090
j 90th 95th I 99th

1 11.497 15.122 ** I 23.862 **
2 9.659 * 13.614 22.251
3 10.990 14.200 20.800
4 10.963 12.676 * 19.500
5 10.890 13.140 19.830
6 10.640 12.820 21.500
7 10.987 14.203 20.800
8 10.727 13.222 18.619 *
9 11.070 13.910 20.190
10 11.100 13.400 21.000
11 11.511 ** 14.494 23.310
-
12 10.802 13.482 I 21.375
-.
= 5.OOOt I
99th
90th 95th
11.272 ** 14.085 ** 22.023
9.165 * 11.999 * 21.542
11.250 13.790 21.659
10.560 12.960 20.250
10.557 12.417 20.435
~ 10 11 .loo 13.710 22.080
10.511 13.159 20.088 *
11.250 13.940 21.890
11.044 13.577 21.783
11.209 13.701 23.032 **
11.122 13.577 21.462
ie minimum lue in the col m.
7
** The maximum value in the column.

t One simulation missed this case.
ERROR BOUNDS 683
TABLE 15.18 - Statistical comparison of the simulation

results of the 90th, 95th and 99th per-
centiles for Example 15-3.
90th percentile
Number of simulations
N=100 N=1,000 N = 5,ooO
Mean, hr 11.011 10.903 10.822** lO.WOOt
Range, hr 4.473 1.852 2.107 0.7620
0.224 0.392
13.850 13.690 13.354

Range, hr 4.729 2.446
0.519 0.431
5.243 2.944
* For the case of N = 5,000 there were only 11 simulation results.

** Among the 11 sets of Simulations there was an extreme value
for the 90th percentile, the results listed in this column include
this extreme value.
t Without the extreme value.
N = 100 N = 1,000 N = 5,000
RMge = 4 . 4 7 5
\ Range = 2.107
.Standard
deviation 0 0.626
p a n 9 10.822
I
90th p e r c e n t i l e s
Fig. 15.9 - The plot of the simuiation results for the 90th
percentile, in terms of the mean, range and stan-
dard deviation for Example 15-3.
ERROR BOUNDS 685
N = 100 N = 1,000 N = 5,000
-- z b n g e = 2 .086
Stvldard
deviation = 0.657
deviation=O.720
9 5 t h percentiles
Fig. 15.10 - The plot of the simulation results for the 95th
686 DISTHBUTIONAL TEST AND REPAIR TIMES
N = 100 N 1.000 N 5,000
Standard
deviation, - Y
16.27
i
30 - I
X
_tz
M.an.?S .J5 1
9 9 t h percentiles.
Fig. 15.11 -The plot of the simulation results for the 99th
PROBLEMS 687
and with pdf
Let k = [ A l p ] , 0 5 p 5 1, where k is the largest integer less than or

equal to M p . tiM) is the sample percentile. Let F ( a p )= p , where op
is the percentile of the population. Assume that the pdf o f t exists and
is differentiable at a p . It is shown in Appendix 15A that the sample
percentile tiM) is asymptotically normally distributed with mean ap
-
and standard deviation [ l / f ( a , ) ] J p ( 1 - p ) / M , i.e.,
(15.23)
where a p is the corresponding percentile of the population. Therefore

the following conclusions may be drawn:
1. The errors are not deterministic.
2. For given significance level, a, the maximum error, ~ m 4 z , ahas
the same order of magnitude as 1/a.
3. The maximum error is given by
i.e., cm4z,a depends on the value of p and f f ( a ) at cyp.
4. The larger deviation of the 99th sample percentiles is due to

the larger value of JO.99 (1 - 0.99]/ f ( a o . g g ) , because f ( a o . 9 9 ) is
smaller.
PROBLEMS
15-1. A truck repair-and-checkout facility consists of four stations where

each incoming truck gets serviced by going successively through
Stations 1 through 4. The total repair-and-checkout time, T , of
this facility is given by
4
T =Ctj,
i=l
where ti is the respective repair-and-checkout time in each sta-
tion. The repair-and-checkout-time distributions for each one of
the four stations are the following:
1. Station 1
g E ( t 1 ) = pe-M *I
where
p = 2 repairs/hr.
2. Station 2
where
p = 2.5, 7 = 3.0 hr, and 7 = 0.5 hr.
3. Station 3
where
-
t'3 = 0.6 log, hr, and ul; = 1.0 log, hr.
4. Station 4
where
= 8, and 77 = 5 hr-'.
Do the following:
1. Find the time t o repair-and-checkout for the maintainabili-
ties of 90%, 95% and 99%, using the Central Limit Theorem
method.
2. Same as in Case 1, but using the Monte Carlo Simulation
method, with 100 and also with 5,000 simulated T values.
3. Discuss comparatively the results of Cases 1 and 2.
4. What is the required number of Monte Carlo Simulations t o
determine the 90% maintainability with error of fO.01 and
90% confidence?
5. What is the required number of Monte Carlo trials to deter-
mine the mean time to repair-and-checkout the trucks with
an error on the mean time of &lo% and 90% confidence?
In all cases above write out all equations used and give the step-
by-step procedures used to get your results in addition to the
computer programs used.
PROBLEMS 689

1. Summarize the results obtained by each student for each
case of Problem 15-1.
2. Comparatively discuss the summarized results for each case.
3. List as many recommendations as you can for the following:
3.1 Which method should be used toevaluate M ( T ) = 90%,
95% and 99%, and why?
3.2 What method in addition to those already submitted
for Problem 15.1 by the class would you recommend
and why?
3.3 Which Monte Carlo Simulation methodology would you
recommend as the best?
3.4 Is the number of Monte Carlo simulations prescribed by
the method used in Case 5 realistic?
3.5 What is the reason for this unrealistic sample size of
Monte Carlo simulations for previous Case 3.4?
3.6 Recommend statistical and mathematical methods of
arriving at more realistic numbers of Monte Carlo sim-
ulations.
15-3. A truck repair-and-checkout facility consists of four stations where
each incoming truck gets serviced by going successively through
Stations 1 through 4. The total repair-and-checkout time, T,of
this facility is given by
4
where ti is the respective repair-and-checkout time in each sta-

tion. The repair-and-checkout-time distributions for each one of
the four stations are are the following:
where
p = 2 repairs/hr.
2. Station 2
where
/3 = 2.5, 71 = 3.0 hr, and 7 = 0.5 hr.
3. Station 3
where
-
t’3 = 0.1 log, hr, and ot; = 0.2 log, hr.
4. Station 4
where
P = 8, and q = 5 hr-*.
Do the following:
1. Find the time to repair-and-checkout for the maintainabili-
ties of 90%, 95% and 99%, using the Central Limit Theorem
method.
2. Same as in Case 1, but using the Monte Carlo Simulation
method, with 100 and also with 5,000 simulated T values.
3. Discuss comparatively the results of Cases 1 and 2.
4. What is the required number of Monte Carlo Simulations to
determine the 90% maintainability with error of f O . O 1 and
90% confidence?
5. What is the required number of Monte Carlo trials to deter-
mine the mean time to repair-and-checkout the trucks with
an error on the mean time of &2% and 90% confidence?
In all cases above write out all equations used and give the step-
by-step procedures used to get your results in addition to the
computer programs used.
15-4. Using the simulated total times to repair-and-checkout trucks of
Problem 15-3, do the following:
1. Calculate the four moments two ways:
1.1 Fit the normal, lognormal, Weibull and the extreme-
value-of-the-maxima distributions t o the first 100 simu-
lated total times to repair-and-checkout the trucks, i.e.,
find thir parameters. Any good method is acceptable!
Then calculate all four moments using these parame-
ters.
REFERENCES 691
1.2 Repeat Case 1.1 using 1,000 or more simulated total

times.
1.3 Use the first 100 simulated total times to repair-and-
checkout the trucks and calculate all four moments di-
rectly.
1.4 Repeat Case 1.3 using the 1,000or more simulated total
times.
2. Calculate PI and p2, and using the Pearson pdf approxima-
tion find the time to repair-and-checkout for the maintain-
abilities of 90%, 95% and 99% using the first 100 simulated
total times.
3. Repeat Case 2 using the 1,000or more simulated total times.
4. Use the discussion in Chapter 6 of the Hahn and Shapiro
book and decide which distributions may represent the data
best, using the PI and P 2 values found in Cases 2 and 3.
In all cases above write out all equations and give the step-by-step
procedures used to get your results, in addition to the computer
programs used.
REFERENCES
1. Hahn, G. T. and Shapiro S. Samuel, Statistical Models in Engi-
neering, John Wiley & Sons, New York, N Y, 355 pp., 1967.
2. Lindgren, B. W., Statistical Theory, The MacMillan Company,
Collier-MacMillan, London, 521 pp., 1968.
3. Cramer, H. Mathematical Methods of Statistics, Princeton Uni-
versity Press, Princeton, 575 pp., 1951.
4. Krivoy Raul, based on Table of Percentage points of Pearson
Curves for Given f i and p2, Expressed in Standard Measure,
Compiled by Johnson, N. L., Eric Nixon and Amos, D. E. with
an introduction by Pearson, E. S., Biometrika, Vol. 1, Table 41,
1954.
5 . Pearson, E. S., and Hartley, H. O., Biometrika, Tables for Statis-
titians, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, Vol.
1, Table 41, 1954.
6 . Kececioglu, D., and Jiang, J., Proceedings - Institute of Environ-
mental Science, Error Bound Estimation O n Monte Carlo Sim-
ulations, pp. 124-128,April 23-27,1990.
692 APPENDIX 15A
APPENDIX 16A
PROOF OF EQ. (16.23) [2, p. 3671
Consider a sample of size M from a continuous distribution, with
cdf F ( z ) and pdf f(z). Let ap denote the percentile of order p of the
distribution, i.e., the root of the equation F ( a p )= p , where 0 < p < 1.
We assume that, in some neighborhood of x = a p , the p d f , f(z) is
continuous and has a continuous derivative f ' ( x ) .
Let tLM)(k = 1 , 2 , . . . , M ) be the ordered statistic of size M in

ascending order of magnitude, i.e.,
Define (i:) to be the corresponding percentile of the sample, where

1 = [pM],is the maximum integer less than p M , provided that p M is
not an integer. If p M is an integer, it is indeterminate case, and the
corresponding percentile may be any value in interval ( ( 1 , 6 + 1 ) . This
is similar to the case of the sample median when the sample size is an
even number. To avoid trivial complications, it is assumed herein that
p M is not an integer.
Let 4(z) denote the pdf of the random variable (1'+".The proba-
bility +(z) d x , that); /( +
is situated in a small interval (z,z d z ) is
equal to the probability that, among M sample values, 1 are less than
+
z, one falls between z and z +dz, and remaining A4 - (I 1)are greater
+
than 2 d x .
1. The probability that among M sample values 1 are less than 2 is
where F ( z ) is the population cdf.

2. The probability that among the remaining M - 1 sample values
+
there is one in the interval ( x , z d z ) is
( M - 1) f ( ~ d)x .
3. The probability that the rest of M - ( I + 1) sample values are

greater than x t d z , is
[l - F(z + dz)l'-('+').
APPENDIX 15A 693
Therefore,
4(z) dx = (7) (it4 - I)[F(x)j"l - F(x t dz)lM-('+') f (4dx.

For small dx, F ( z + dx) + F ( z ) , hence
dx = (7) ( M - W w r [ 1 - F(4lM - ( I + l )
fW dx,
or
+(x) dx = (?)(A4 - I)[F(z)]'[l- F ( z ) ] ~ - ( ' + 'f(x).

) 15A.1
Now consider a random variable
15A.2
then
15A.3
The pdf of Y can be expressed as
where
and 4(-) is defined by Eq. (15A.l). Substitution of Eq. (15A.1)

into Eq. (15A.4) yields
694 APPENDIX 15A
or
.-,J) = -
f (.PI
,/T(y) ( M - I),
. [ F ( z ) ] ' [-~F ( z ) ] ~ - ( ' +f' (z),

)
where
Then,
or
Let M 4 00, then,
Using the asymptotic property of the binomial distribution then,

A1 + /T Ml(:pP) d2?F 1 - e
I%&+[
-3
M P (1-p)
2
since (1 - M p ) / J M p (1 - p ) + 0 , then
APPENDIX 15A 695
and
M-(l+l)
If F ( a p )= p and F'(ap) = f ( a p )expanding

, F ( t ) near y = 0,
yields
or
Substituting this into A3 yields
or
A3 = I * II,
As M + 00, p M --.t 1, M - ( Z t 1)-+M-1 4 ( 1 - p ) M = n.
Let
and
then,
696 APPENDIX 15A
= e [-b v2+0(*)] 9
or Y is asymptotically stanclaru normally distributed.

Comparing this result with Eqs. (15A.2)and (15A.3) shows that
I
:
(
!
, is asymptotically normally distributed with mean ap and
-
standard deviation [1/j(ap)] Jp (1 - p ) / M .
REFERENCES
1. Lindgren, B. W., Statistical Theory, The MacMillan Company,
Collier-MacMillan Limited, London, 521 pp., 1968.
2. Cramer, H., Mathenatica! Methods of Statistics,Princeton Uni-
versity Press, Princeton, 575 pp., 1951.
Chapter 16
THE WEIBULL PROCESS OF

REPAIRABLE UNITS
16.1 THE WEIBULL PROCESS AND ITS

CHARACTERISTICS
The Weibull process is a non-homogeneous Poisson process with a fail-
ure rate function
(16.1)
Consider a repairable equipment that operates from age zero, fails at

age TI,gets repaired immediately, operates again, fails later at age
TZ, gets repaired again, operates again and the process gets repeated.
If the repair time is negligible, or the repair time is excluded from
the calendar time ellapsed and only the actual time of operation is
considered, a sequence of cumulative operating times-to-failure data
are thus obtained; i.e.,
TI < Tz < ... < TN.
Consider a fixed time interval [0, t ] , during which the number of fail-
ures, denoted by N ( 0 , t ) , or N ( t ) for short, is a random variable. Then
N ( t ) is a Weibull process, if it satisfies the following two properties:
-+
Let N ( t , t A t ) denote the number of failures in the time interval
+
( t , t A t ) , then
Condition 1 is
P [ N ( t ,t + A t ) = 01 = 1- A ( t ) At + o(A t) , (16.2)
697
698 THE WEIBULL PROCESS OF REPAIRABLE UNITS
P[N(t,t + A t ) = 11 = A ( t ) At + .(At), (16.3)

and
P[N(t, t + A t ) > 11 = o(At), (16.4)
where o(At) denotes a function tending to zero more rapidly than At,
or the higher order terms in At, such as the probability of two failures
in At given by [ A ( t ) AtI2,and A ( t ) is the failure rate function defined
by Eq.( 16.1).
Condition 2 is
N ( t , t+At), completely independent of the failures that occurred in
the interval [0, t ] ,meaning that the repair action restores the equip-
ment to its original age condition as just before the failure. Conse-
quently, as illustrated in Fig. 16.1, the failure rate of the equipment
is restored to the value it had just before failure through the repairs
performed after failure. It is to be understood that the failure is due
to the surfacing of a latent which the repair action is now removing
thus resulting in the continuing decrease of the failure rate.
+
Condition 1 says that in a small time interval ( t , t A t ) , a failure
occurs at most once, and the probability of the failure is in proportion
to A ( t ) and it is time dependent. Condition 2 says that the failures
after time t are independent of the failures that occur before time t.
It has been proven that T I ,the times to the first failure, are Weibull
distributed with pdf
(16.6)
The conditional reliability of Trythe time to the rth failure, given
the times of the first ( T - 1) failures, can be found from
R(Tr1 TI = tl,Tz = t 2 , * * .,Tr-l = t r - 1 ) = R(Tr( TT-1 = tr-l), (16.7)
by Condition 2; i.e., the distribution of Tr,given the times of the first
(T - 1) failures only depends on the time of the ( T - 1) failure. Then,
the conditional reliability of surviving by Tr,given it got repaired after
the failure at t r - 1 , or for T r , and given that Tr-1 = t r - 1 , Eq. (16.6)
becomes
(16.8)
T H E w m u L L PROCESS AND ITS CHARACTERISTICS 699
X - failure point
o - endofrepair
,.
0
Accumulated operating and repair times
Fig. 16.1 - The behavior of the equipment's failure rate with

repairs, whereby the designed-in, or inherent,
failure rate is restored to the value it had just
before failure through the repairs after failure.
tr-l 5 Tr < 00.

The conditional probability density function is
f(T,I TI = tl,T2 = t 2 , * . . , T r - 1 = t r - 1 )
(16.9)
tr,l 5 Tr < 00.

Consequently, the mean time between the ( T - 1)th and the rth failure,
given the times to the first ( T - 1) failures, may be obtained from
R(T,I TI = tl,T2 = t2,***,Tr-1

z t r - 1 ) dTr,
or
m, = (16.10)
Jtr-1
Rearranging Eq. (16.10) yields
where
In the second integral let x = (v)', then
dTr= 2 X Z' - 1
dx.
D
THE ESTIMATION OF A WEIBULL PROCESS 701
When T, = y, x = 0, and when T, = t f - l , = (tr-1-T )P , then

r)
(tr-\-
'> p
;
1
p] , (16.13)
where
~ ( xn); = 1e-t tn-1 dt
is the incomplete gamma function, and r(n) is the gamma function.

Therefore, from Eqs. (16.11), (16.12) and (16.13) the mean time be-
tween the ( T - 1) and the rth failure, given the times to the first ( T - 1)
failures, becomes
or
7 e(W)'{r(;)
m, = -
P
; ;I}. (16.14)
The values of the gamma function, r ( n ) , and of the incomplete gamma

function I ( z ; n )in Eq. (16.14), may be found in mathematics hand-
books, and usually double linear interpolation has to be used. If a
numerical integration subroutine is available, then a more accurate
result can be obtained by integrating Eq. (16.10) directly.
16.2 THE ESTIMATION OF A WEIBULL

PROCESS
16.2.1 GRAPHICAL ESTIMATES
16.2.1.1 - GRAPHICAL METHOD 1
Here two ways of graphical estimation are introduced. The first one
[l]is as follows:
702 THE WEIBULL PROCESSES OF REPAIRABLE UNITS
Consider the failure process of n independent systems of the Weibull

type which are working €rom time zero to time t*. The mean number
of failures in n systems, using Eq. (16.1), is given by
or
(16.15)
Logarithmic transformation of Eq. (16.15) yields the straight line
(16.16)
If it is assumed that the observed failures are independent and 7 = 0,

Eq. (16.16) provides a relationship for every observed failure number,
j , which is the E ( T ) ,and the failure time, Tj;i.e.,
or
log10 = -P loglo 7 + P log10 Tj. (16.17)
This is the basic relationship for graphical estimation. If the data

comes from a Weibull process the paired data, (Tj,j ) , will tend to
a straight line on log - log paper. The procedure for this method is
illustrated next.
EXAMPLE 16-1
The accumulated development and test times to a failure, given in
Table 16.1, were obtained for a complex, repairable electronic unit.
1. Determine the parameters of this Weibull process.
2. Use the result in Case 1to determine the reliability for a mission
of 10 hr after the 15th repair at time 2,400 hr.
3. Determine the mean time between the 15th and the 1Gth failure,
given that the 15th failure occurred at time 2,400 hr.
4. If such a repairable electronic unit will be used from age zero,
determine the reliability for a mission of 10 hr and the mean time
to the first failure.
THE ESTIMATION O F A WEIBULL PROCESS 703
TABLE 16.1 - The accumulated development and test

times to a failure for the complex re-
pairable electronic unit of Example 16-1.
Failure Accumulated development and Cumulative

number, test time to a failure, failure rate,
j Tj, hr Aj = &, fr/103 hr
1 8.5 117.65
2 56.4 35.46
3 86.8 34.56
4 195.3 20.48
5 242.6 20.61
6 267.2 22.46
7 451.9 15.49
8 458.5 17.45
9 757.0 11.89
10 797.0 12.55
11 968.0 11.36
12 1,201.0 9.99
13 1,618.0 8.03
14 1,806.0 7.75
15 2,400.0 6.25

1. The data given in Table 16.1 are obtained from one unit; there-
fore, in this case n = 1. The paired data given in Columns 1 and 2 of
Table 16.1 have been plotted in Fig. 16.2 on log-log paper. It may be
seen that the data comes from a Weibull process, because the points
fall acceptably well on a straight line with 7 = 0. From Eq. (16.17),
the value of the parameter q is just the value of Tj when j = n.
Then (j/n)= 1. Therefore, from Fig. 16.2, entering the ordinate with
j / n = 1 yields q = 9.7 hr.
Since from Eq. (16.17) the value of p is the slope of the straight
line, to find p pick any two points on the line, then,
(16.18)
In this case, using the values j l / n = 1 with Tj, = 9.7, and j2/n = 10
with Tj, = 900, yields
Therefore, the failure rate function is
A(T) = -
or
X(T) = 0.1605 T-0.4917.
2. From Eq. (16.7) the conditional reliability for 2'1, = 2,400 hr
and t = 10 hr is
h![T16= (2,400 + 10) I Ti = t i , * * *, Ti5 = 2,4001
=e
-16.5007 + 16.4659
or
R[T16 = (2,400 + 10) I 2'15 = 2,4001 = 0.9658.
8
Q)
0
c.)
bcu
oiE
c=
705
3. J3om Eq.(16.14)the mean time between the 15th and the 16th
failure is
m16 =- *’
0.5083 0.5083
where
and
1’0.5083
= I(16.4659 ; 1.9673) = 0.9866114.
Therefore,
m16 = (2.70208 x 108)(0.9866126 - 0.9866114) = 326.50 hr.
4. The reliability for a mission of 10 hr starting at age zero, from
Eq. (16.6),is
R(T1 = 10) = e -(%)’ = e-(3)0*5083
- - 0.3622,
e-1.0156
and the mean time to the first failure, from Eq. (16.11),is
rnl = -p17 r (l) = -r

9.7
0 5083
(-)
1
0.5083
= (19.0828)r(i.9673),
or
rnl = (19.0828)(0.9866126) = 18.83 hr.
The results of m16 = 326.50 hr, rnl = 18.83 hr, R[T16 = (2,400t
10) I Ti5 = 2,4001 = 0.9658 and R(T1 = 10) = 0.3622 tell us that
the reliability of this complex electronic unit has improved greatly
after 2,400 hr of operation during which the defects were detected and
corrected.
16.2.1.2 GRAPHICAL METHOD 2

The second method to estimate the parameters of a Weibull process is
as follows:
From Eq. (16.15)and for the case of n = 1, the average number of
failures in time interval [7, T ] is
(16.19)
and the average cumulative failure rate starting from 7 up to T can be

defined as
Logarithmic transformation of Eq. (16.20) yields the straight line

~ 0 g 1 0 [ ~=( ~(P~-1 1) %lO(T - 7 )- P 10g10(7))* (16.21)
Based on Eq. (16.21) the paired data [(Tj-?), X(Tj)] should tend to a
straight line on log - log paper, and its slope would be (P - 1). Then,
parameter P can be obtained from
(16.22)
and 7 from Eq. (16.20) by substituting this p in it and solving for 7.

EXAMPLE 16-2
Use Graphical Method 2 to estimate the parameters of the Weibull
process represented by the data given in Table 16.1.
The average cumulative failure rates listed in Column 3 of Table
16.1, are calculated from
where
j = number of cumulative failures up to the accumulated test
time, Tj.
The paired data, (Tj, Xj), are plotted as in Fig. 16.3 yielding an
acceptable straight line, hence 7 = 0. Pick two points on the straight
line, as indicated in Fig. 16.3, and use Eq. (16.22) t o determine pa-
rameter p from
10g1,(0.0034) - lOg10(0.033)
P= log,,( 10,000) - log,,( 100)
+ 1 = 0.5065.
Using Eq. (16.20) the parameter 7 is obtained from
1
(T;?.-)P-' B
'= [ I(Ti) ] *
(16.23)
N
$
s!
.-
0
T:
0
.CI
R
708
In this case, for T = 10,000 hr and x(T = 10,000 hr) = 0.0034 fr/hr,
'= ( 0.0034
= 9.47 hr.
The results are close t o those obtained in Example 16 - 1 using Graph-

ical Method 1.
16.2.2 THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATES OF THE

PARAMETERS OF THE WEIBULL PROCESS
From Eq. (16.9) the conditional pdf of the rth failure, given the times
of the first ( T - 1) failures, is given by
p Tr-7 P-l - ( F ) P + ( m ) @
=-(7)
77
e q .
-
The joint density function of the total of T* times to failure, (2'1, - ., Tr*),
which occur during the test period [0, t ] ,is the product of the individ-
ual conditional density functions [2], or
r*
L = n f ( T r 1 T 1 = t l , T 2 = t 2 , . * . T r - 1~ t r - 1 ) ~
r=l
or
(16.24)
Taking the logarithm of Eq. (16.24) yields
(1G.25)
Assuming that 7 is a constant, differentiating Eq. (16.25)with respect

to P and q, respectively, and setting the results equal t o zero yields
(16.26)
and
(16.27)
From Eq. (16.27)

(V) P = T*,
(16.28)
Substituting Eq. (16.28)into Eq. (16.26)yields
T*
-
P
- T* log, (V)+ r*
Clog,
r=l
(U
17 )0,
=
or
v*
(16.29)
and from Eq. (16.28)
(16.30)
p
But, the estimates of and 7j given by Eqs. (16.29) and (16.30) are
biased. An unbiased estimate of p is given by [3]
(16.31)
and a less biased estimate of q is given by
qt = (Tr* - 7) (16.32)
T.8
WHEN TESTING MORE THAN ONE UNIT 711
EXAMPLE 16-3
Find the maximum likelihood estimates of the parameters of the
Weibull process represented by the data given in Table 16.1.
From Eqs. (16.29) and (16.31)
fi= 15 =-
15 = 0.5441,
27.569
r=l
and
Pt = p (T* - 1) - 0.5441(15 - 1) = 0.5078.
f* 15
From Eq. (16.32)
$=--2,400
I - 11.59 hr.
15o.sols
The results are close to those of Examples 16-1 and 16-2.
16.3 WHEN TESTING MORE THAN ONE UNIT

Sometimes, two or more identical equipment are tested simultaneously.
Then, two or more sets of test results are available. In these cases,
the three Weibull process parameters estimation methods, namely, the
Graphical Method 1, the Graphical Method 2 and the maximum like-
lihood methods are still valid, but they need some adjustments. The
following example illustrates how to apply them to the case of two
identical equipment being tested.
EXAMPLE 16-4
Two prototypes of an electronic system are tested simultaneously,
with the incorporation of repairs, and the cumulative times t o failure
are recorded separately for each system. The cumulative test time
at each failure for each system is given in Table 16.2. Assume that
after each failure a repair is performed immediately, and the repaired
system is tested again, or the time t o the next failure is the actual
operating time after the previous repair, excluding the repair time.
Assume that the repair time is negligible and this test-fix-test process
follows a Weibull process based on the test times of each individual
system. Do the following:
TABLE 16.2 - The cumulative times to failure of the two

electronic systems of Example 16-4.
syst n l
Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative
number of test number of test times
failures, times, failures, t o failure,
j Tj,hr j Tj,hr
1 1.30
2 3.50
1 5.75
2 8.50
3 10.70
3 14.55
4 16.65
4 28.25
5 31.55
5 35.30
6 36.50
7 38.85
6 46.95
8 47.75
7 49.05
9 50.55
10 66.00
8 71.10
11 73.85
12 74.50
13 83.60
9 95.35
10 96.50
11 99.35
14 125.95
15 141.25
12 143.05
W H E N TESTING MORE THAN ONE UNIT 713
1. Determine the parameters of this Weibull process using the two

graphical methods.
2. Determine the parameters of this Weibull process using their
maximum likelihood estimates.
3. Predict the value of the failure rate of this system at the total
test time of 500 hr, using the results of Case 1.
4. Same as in Case 3, but using the results of Case 2.

1. The data given in Table 16.2 are obtained from two systems,
therefore, in this case n = 2.
Graphical Method 1
The pooled and ranked data, given in Columns 2 and 3 of Table
16.3, are plotted on Fig. 16.4. It must be pointed out that in Table
16.3 the Column 2 values are j / n , but in this case n = 2. Therefore,
j / 2 is used based on Eq. (16.17). In Column 3 the pooled clock hours
of the times to failure of both systems are used.
From Eq. (16.17), the value of the parameter 77 is the value of Tj
when j = n. Then j / n = 212 = 1. In this case, for j / n = 1,
4 = 3.0 hr.
Using Eq. (16.18) and the values j1 = 1 with Tj, = 3.0, and j 2 = 10
with T,,= 78, yields
or
,8 = 0.7067.
Then, the failure rate function is
0.7067 T 0*7067-1
X(T) = -
3.0 (G) ’
or
X(T) = 0.2356 (&) -0.2933,
where the test time, T , is the accumulated test time to failure for each
system.
714 THE WElBULL PROCESS OF REPAIRABLE UNITS
TABLE 18.3 - The data to plot the Weibull

process of Example 18 - 4.
Test times Cumulative

Failure jln [or Systems %lure rate,
number, or 1 and 2, Xj = i j + y
j j/2
7
Tj,hr fr/103 hr
1 0.5 1.30 * 384.615
2 1.o 3.50 * 285.714
3 1.5 5.75 260.870
4 2.0 8.50 235.294
5 2.5 10.70 * 233.645
6 3.0 14.55 206.186
7 3.5 16.65 * 210.210
8 4.O 28.25 141.593
9 4.5 31.55 * 142.631
10 5.0 35.30 141.643
11 5.5 36.50 150.685
12 6.0 38.85 154.440
13 6.5 46.95 * 138.445
14 7.0 47.75 146.597
15 7.5 49.05 * 152.905
16 8.0 50.55 158.259
17 8.5 66.00 128.788
18 9.0 71.10 * 126.582
19 9.5 73.85 128.639
20 10.0 74.50 134.228
21 10.5 83.60 125.598
22 11.0 95.35 * 115.364
23 11.5 96.50 * 119.171
24 12.0 99.35 * 120.785
25 12.5 125.95 99.246
26 13.0 141.25 92.03:
27 -
13.5 143.05 * 94.37:
* The asteriskt times are fc System 1.
715
Graphical Method 2
Fkom Eq. (16.15) the average number of failures of n systems in
time interval [y, T ]is
(,>",
=n T-7
and the average cumulative failure rate, starting from y up to time T ,

is
(16.33)
where
n = number of systems in test,
and
n(T-7) = unit-hours of test time accumulated by n systems in
time interval [7,TI.
Taking the logarithm of Eq. (16.33) yields
It may be seen that loglo[X(T)]is a linear function of loglo(T-rl. Pick

any two points from this linear equation, say [TI, TI)] and [Tz,X(T2)],
and solve for the parameters; i.e.,
= (P
log10[~(~1)1 - 1) log,o(T1 - 7) - P 1og1077,
= (P
log,0[~(~2)l - 1) log,o(T2 - 7) - P log,oq,
and
(16.34)
Solving Eq. (16.33)for f j yields
(16.35)
The average cumulative failure rates are calculated from
(16.36)
WHEN TESTING MORE THAN ONE UNIT 717
where
j = total number of failures up to time Tj,
and
n(Tj - 7) = unit-hours of test time accumulated by n sys-
tems in time interval [y, Tj].
Here 7 is an unknown parameter. However, 7 may be assumed to be
zero for the initial plot. If the J;(Tj)versus Tj points fall acceptably
well on a straight line, then the assumption 9 = 0 is confirmed. If
the X(Tj) versus Tj points do not fall on a straight line, then there are
two possibilities. The first possibility is that the test-analyze-fix-test
process is not a Weibull process, and the second possibility is that 7 is
not equal to zero. These will be discussed later.
In this example, when 7 = 0, the cumulative failure rates, using
Eq. (16.36), are calculated from
These failure rates are-listed in Column 4 of Table 16.3.

The paired data, [X(Tj),Tj],are plotted in Fig. 16.5. F’rom Fig.
16.5, it may be seen that the X(Tj) versus Tj points fall acceptably
well on a straight line; consequently, y = 0. Then, pick two points (500
fr/103 hr, (0.5 fr/hr); 0.6 hr] and [lo0 fr/103 hr, (0.1 fr/hr); 158 hr]
and use Eq. (16.34) to find p; i.e.,
and Eq. (16.35) to find fi; i.e.,
Then, the failure rate function is

0.7112
A ( T ) =- -(
T )0*7112-1,
3.261 3.261
or
T
X(T)= 0.2181 (-)3.261 -0.2888
,
-
0
718
W H E N TESTING MORE T H A N ONE UNIT 719
where the test time, T , is also for an individual system.

If the X(Tj) versus Tjs do not fall on a straight line and they appear
to be concave or convex curves, then 7 # 0. In the concave upward
case, y should take a negative value, and for the convex upward case,
2 should take a positive value, then use Eq. (16.36) to calculate the
X(Tj)'S and replot A(Tj - 7) versus Tj. The value of y has to be found
by trial and error. If the X(Tj) versus the Tj points appear to fall
on a broken line, as shown in Fig. 16.6, then the test-analyze-fix-
test process may be described by a composite Weibull process. The
composite Weibull process is discussed in Section 16.4.
2. The maximum likelihood estimates of parameters p and q can
be obtained from Eqs.(16.29) and (16.30); i.e.,
and
For System 1, r* = 12, Trm = 143.5 hr, and

r*-1
r-1
log, (4) = 18.714,
or
P I = = = l2 0.6412,
and
el=--1143.05
2 m
- 2.968.
For System 2, T* = 15, Tr* = 141.25 hr, and
5 (g)=
r*-1
r-1
log, 18.7252,
or
15
= 0.8011,
jZ= 18.7252
and
The unbiased estimates of ,f3 and q for System 1 are,
Pi = (121i
"(0.6412) = 0.5878,
and
+-- 143.05
- 2.0870.
1 2 h
For System 2
Pi = (151i
1)(0.8011) = 0.7477,
and
141.25
&--
150.7477
- 3.7761.
Then, better estimates of p and q may be obtained by averaging them,
or from
- pit Pi
pt=-= 0.5878 t 0.7477 = 0.6678,
2 2
and
-
qt=-=7; t q! 2*0870 3'7761 = 2.9316 hr.
2 2
Therefore,
X(T)= -
0.6678 (-
T )0mw78-1,
2.9316 2.9316
or
T
X(T) = 0.2278 (E) -0.3322
.
3. The predicted value of the failure rate of this system at 500 hr,
using the results in Case 1, for Graphical Method 1, is
X(T = 500 hr) = 0.2356

THE COMPOSITE WEIBULL PROCESS 721
or
X(T = 500 hr) = 0.05254 fr/hr = 52.54 fr/103 hr,
and for Graphical Method 2 is
-0.2888
X(T = 500 hr) = 0.2181
or
X(T = 500 hr) = 0.05099 fr/hr = 50.99 fr/103 hr.
4. The predicted value of the failure rate of the system at 500 hr,
using the results in Case 2, or the MLE’s, is
-0.3322
X(T = 500 hr) = 0.2278 -
(2.E6) ’
or
X(T = 500 hr) = 0.04132 fr/hr = 41.32 fr/103 hr.
16.4 THE COMPOSITE WEIBULL PROCESS

In some cases the plots of the failure number per system, j / n , versus
the failure time, Tj, do not tend t o a straight line on log - log paper,
as in Fig. 16.6. The reason may be that the failure modes of the
repaired units are different during different operating periods. For
example, during the early life period the device would exhibit infant
mortality failures, which after some time of testing are precipitated
and fixed. Then, the failure rate of the unit decreases during the early
life period; consequently, the reliability of the unit increases. After
a long period of operation most components of the unit age and the
unit fails more frequently; consequently, its failure rate increases and
its reliability decreases. Therefore, the data presented in Fig. 16.6
imply that there are more than one failure mode in the process. For
the sake of simplicity, a composite of two Weibull processes may be
used to represent these data.
From the property of the Weibull process, it may be seen that the
failures after time T are independent of the failures in the time interval
[0, TI.So, the data given in Fig. 16.6 can be split into two segments;
i.e., the first for Mode 1 and the second for Mode 2. Hence, the process
can be thought to be a composite of two independent Weibull processes;
i.e., in the time interval [O, TI] the failures follow a Weibull process
with the failure rate function
722
THE COMPOSITE WELBULL PROCESS 723
and after time TI the failures follow a Weibull process with the failure
rate function
The parameters of these two Weibull processes can be estimated di-

rectly from the plot in Fig. 16.6. First two straight lines are drawn to
fit the data. Then, the intersection of these two straight lines, corre-
sponding to time 2'1 = 2,400 hr, is the watershed of the time domains
of the two Weibull processes. Now consider the two processes sepa-
rately, and use the method of Section 16.2.1 to obtain the parameters
as follows:
For the first process, pick two points, say, (TI = 10, j l / n = 0.1)
and (T2 = 1,650, j2/n = 0.7). Then, from Eq. (16.18),
or
log10 0.7 - log,, 0.1
= 0.3811,
= log,, 1,650 - log,, 10
and for the second process, pick two points, say, (T3 = 2,65O,j3/n = 1)
and (2'4 = 6,000, j4/n = 6.8). Then,
log10 6.8 - log,, 1
= 2.3457.
P2 = log,, 6,000 - log,, 2,650
The parameters and Q may be found from the plot directly, for
j / n = 1, yielding
q1 = 4,000 hr,
and
772 = 2,650 hr.
Thus, the composite Weibull process is determined. Its failure rate
function then becomes
0.3811 ( T )o*sll-l,
X(T) = - -
4,000 4,000
or
A(T) = 9.5275 X 10'' , for 0 ,< T ,< 2,400,
and
2.3457 ( T )2*u57-1 ,
X(T) = - -
2,650 2,650
or
X(T) = 8 8 . 5 1 7 ~ , for T > 2,400.
PROBLEMS
16-1. A repairable mechanical equipment operates starting at age zero.

After each failure it is repaired and is put back into operation.
The successive times to failure which follow a Weibull process are
given in Table 16.4. Assume that the repair times are negligible.
Do the following:
(1) Determine the parameters of this Weibull process using the
two graphical methods.
(2) Determine the parameters of this Weibull process using their
(3) Use the results in Case 1 and determine the mean time
between the 10th and the 11th failure, given that the 10th
failure occurred at 1,010 hr, and the mean time to the first
failure.
(4) Same as in Case 3, but using the results in Case 2.
(5) Find the reliability for a mission of 10 hr after the 10th
repair at time 1,010 hr, and find the reliability for a mission
of 10 hr starting from age zero, using the results in Case 1.
(6) Same as in Case 5 , but using the results in Case 2.

Do the following:
failure occurred at 1,130 hr, and the mean time to the first
failure.
PROBLEMS 725
TABLE 16.4 - The accumulated development and test

pairable electronic unit of Problem 16-1.
Failure Accumulated development and

number, test time to a failure,
j Tj, hr
1 130
2 300
3 380
4 450
5 500
6 780
7 850
8 900
9 930
10 1,010
11 1,100
12 1,210
13 1,300
14 1,410
15 1,520
TABLE 16.5 - The accumulated development a n d test

times to a failure for t h e complex re-

number, test time to a failure,
j Tj,hr
1 140
2 220
3 480
4 530
5 640
6 730
7 780
8 930
9 980
10 1,130
11 1,210
12 1,320

( 5 ) Find the reliability for a mission of 10 hr after the 10th
(6) Same as in Case 5 , but using the results in Case 2.

Do the following:
PROBLEMS 727
TABLE 16.6 - T h e accumulated development and test


number, test time t o a failure,
j Tj, hr
1 260
2 380
3 870
4 950
5 1,130
6 1,270
7 1,350
8 1,630
9 1,690
10 1,960
11 2,080
12 2,280
failure occurred a t 1,960 hr, and the mean time t o the first
failure.
(5) Find the reliability for a mission of 10 hr after the 10th
16-4. Two prototypes of an electronic system are tested simultaneously

and the cumulative times t o failure are recorded separately for
each system with the incorporation of repairs. The cumulative
test time a t each failure for each system is given in Table 16.7.
Assume that after each failure a repair is performed immediately,
and the repaired system is tested again. Assume that the repair
time is negligible and this test-fix-test process follows a Weibull
process based on the test times of each individual system. Do
the following:

electronic systems of Problem 16-4.

number of test times number of test times
failures, to failure, failures, to failure,
j Tj,hr j Tj,hr
1 11.5
2 30.0
1 57.5
2 84.6
3 111.7
3 137.5
4 173.5
4 229.0
5 282.0
5 305.2
6 327.5
7 370.6
6 419.5
8 422.4
7 475.0
9 551.5
10 660.0
8 701.5
11 742.1
12 748.5
13 834.0
9 923.4
10 950.2
11 1,005.5
14 1,150.2
15 1,381.7
12 1,392.5
PROBLEMS 729

(3) Predict the value of the failure rate of this system at a total
(4) Same as in Case 3, but using the results of Case 2.
and the cumulative times to failure are recorded separately for
test time at each failure for each system is given in Table 16.8.
the following:

the following:
test time of 1,500 hr, using the results of Case 1.

Sysl n l System 2
i Tj,hr j Tj,hr
1 140
1 200
2 300
2 380
3 590
3 670
4 720
4 740
5 800
5 880
6 1,020
6 1,070
7 1,130
7 1,270
8 1,280,
8 1,340
9 1,410
9 1,540
10 1,670
10 1,800
PROBLEMS 731

System 2
Tj,hr j Tj, hr
1 180
1 260
2 380
2 490
3 790
3 870
4 950
4 950
5 1,040
5 1,130
6 1,270
6 1,330
7 1,350
7 1,470
8 1,630
8 1,650
9 1,690
9 1,830
10 1,960
11 2,080
10 2,160
12 2,280

the following:

and the cumulative times t o failure are recorded separately for
the following:


PROBLEMS 733

Syst n l Svstem 2
j Tj, hr j Tj,hr
1 100
1 140
2 220
2 270
3 420
3 480
4 510
4 530
5 570
5 640
6 730
6 730
7 780
7 810
8 910
8 930
9 980
9 1,010
10 1,130
10 1,190
11 1,210
12 1,320

System 1
j Tj,hr j Tj,hr
1 260
1 310
2 460
2 620
3 680
4 750
5 860
3 1,060
6 1,140
4 1,160
5 1,370
6 1,550
7 1,640
7 1,860
8 1,970
9 2,050
8 2,120
10 2,370
9 2,420
11 2,520
10 2,600
12 2,750
11 3,340
PROBLEMS 735

m l
SYS Svstem 2
j Tj,hr j T,, hr
1 190
1 230
2 340
2 450
3 500
4 560
5 640
3 770
4 850
6 860
5 1,000
6 1,140
7 1,210
7 1,360
8 1,450
9 1,510
8 1,560
10 1,750
9 1,770
11 1,860
10 1,910
12 2,040
11 2,440
12 2,540
the following:
16-10. Two prototypes of an electronic system are tested simultane-
ously and the cumulative times to failure are recorded separately
for each system with the incorporation of repairs. The cumulative
the following:
PROBLEMS 737

REFERENCES
1. Gisela, Hartler, “Graphical Weibull Analysis of Repairable Systems,”
Qualify and Reliabilify Engineering Iniemational, Vol. 1, pp. 23-26,
1985.
2. Crow, L.H.,“Confidence Interval Procedures for Reliability Growth
Analysis,” Army Material systems Analysis Activity Technical Report
197, ADA044788, Defense Technical Information Center, Alexandria,
VA, 1977.
3. Tsun Ming, T. Lin, “A New Method for Estimating Duane Growth
ei
Mode Parameters,” Proceedings Annual Reliabiliiy and Maintainability
Symposium, pp. 389-393, 1985.
Chapter 17
RELIABILITY OF COMPONENTS
WITH A POLICY OF
REPLACING THOSE THAT FAIL
BY A PRESCRIBED OPERATING
TIME
17.1 WHEN AND HOW IT IS APPLIED

Consider the case of identical components operating in different equip-
ment subjected to the same application and operation stresses. Let us
find how many of these components will fail, on the average, if they
operate a prescribed n1 cycles from age zero. Those that are found
to have failed after n1 cycles of operation are replaced by fresh ones,
and the replaced and non-replaced components operate n additional
cycles. The reliability of No such components for nl cycles of operation
is R(n1) and the number that will fail by nl cycles of operation is
These are replaced by fresh ones and they operate n cycles thereafter.
The number of these components that will fail after n additional cycles
of operation, using Eq. (li’.l),would be
739
740 RELIABILITY OF COMPONENTS
The number of those that do not fail by nl and have to function an

additional n cycles is
Ns(n1) = NOR(%). (17.3)
The number of these that will fail while operating n additional cycles,
using Eq. (17.3), would be
NF-NR(nl,n)= Ns(n1) [ I - R(n1,n)l,
or
(17.4)
Consequently, the total number of such components that will fail by

( n l + n ) cycles of operation under the condition that those that fail by
n1 are replaced, is given by the sum of Eqs. (17.1), (17.2) and (17.4),
or
N F - T ( n l + n) = No [ I - R(n1)1+ No [I - R(n1)] [l - R(n)]
(17.5)
Rearrangement of Eq. (17.5) yields
NF-T(nl + n) = No { [ I - R(n1)1[2 - R(n)l

+"%) -1" +.}I). (17.6)
Simplification of Eq. (17.6) yields
NF-T(n1 + n ) = No [2 - R(n1)- R ( n )
+R(n1) R(n)- R(n1 + n)]. (17.7)
Equation (17.7) gives the average number of spares that should be pro-
vided for No such components with the replacement policy considered.
Let us now find the total combined reliabizity of such components.
Of those that fail by n1 cycles of operation and are replaced, the num-
ber that will survive after an additional n cycles of operation is
Ns-R(n) = N F - R ( n l ) R(n) = N o [I - R(n1)1R(n). (17.8)
Of those that do not fail by n1 cycles of operation and operate an
additional n cycles, the number surviving is
NS-NR(n1 + n ) = NoR(n1) R(nl,n),
(17.9)
WITH A POLICY OF REPLACEMENT 74 1
or
Ns-NR(ni + n) = N o R(ni + n). (1 7.10)
Out of the N o that started out, the number of those that survive, after
replacement of those that failed by nl, is given by the sum of Eqs.
(17.8) and (17.10), or
+ n) = No {[I - R(nl)]R(n)+ R(n1 + n)}.
Ns-R(~I (17.11)
Therefore, the total combined reliability of such components, under
the replacement policy considered, is
(17.12)
Substitution of Eq. (17.11) into Eq. (17.12), and simplification, yields

RT-R(% + ). +
= [I - R(n1)] R(n) R(n1+ n). (1 7.13)
A study of Eq. (17.13) reveals that the total combined reliability of such
components, under the replacement policy considered, is given by the
probability that either the components fail by n1 cycles, are replaced,
and function successfully for n cycles thereafter, or they do not fail by
n1 cycles and thus function successfully the full (nl+ n) cycles.
In Eqs. (17.7), (17.8) and (17.10) the quantities R(nl), R(n)and
R(n1 + n) need to be calculated.
If it has been established that the times-to-failure distribution of
such components is Weibullian, then
-(
R(n1) = e 1 , (17.14)
(17.16)
and
or
(1 7.17)
EXAMPLE 17-1
Identical aluminum spindles are operating at an alternating stress
level of 25,000 psi. Their cycles t o failure distribution is lognormally
distributed with parameters ii' = 5.827 and crn1 = 0.124.These param-
eters are determined using the logarithms t o the base 10.
1. If 1,000 such fresh spindles are operating, how many will survive
after 500,000 cycles of operation and how many will fail?
2. If the failed spindles are replaced by new ones and all of them
operate for n = 330,000 cycles thereafter, how many of the fresh
ones will fail?
3. Of those that survived n1 cycles, how many will fail during the
additional n cycles?
4. What is the total number of spindles that will fail by (nl -t n )
cycles given that 1,000 started at age zero, and that those that
fail by n1 cycles are replaced?
5. What is the total number of components surviving after (n1+ n )
cycles when we follow the policy of replacing the failed ones by
nl cycles?
6. What is the total combined reliability of the components under
this replacement policy?
7. What is the reliability for (nl + n) cycles without a replacement
policy? Compare the answer with that of Case 6.
1. To determiae the number of spindles that will fail after 500,000

cycles of operation, first take the logarithm of n1, or
n1 = 500,000 cycles,
I
n1 = loglonl,
= log,, 500,000,
or
ni = 5.69897.
Solving for z(nl,),
nl, - fi' 5.69897 - 5.827
z (n i ) = -= = -1.03250,
Qnl 0.124
WITH A POLICY OF REPLACEMENT 743
then,
R(n1 = 500,000 cycles) =

.(TI;
/m
)=-1.03250
4 ( z ) d z = 0.849081.
From Eq. (17.3)the number of spindles that will survive is

Ns(n1 = 500,000 cycles) = No R(n1) = 1,000(0.849081), say 849.
From Eq. (17.1)the number of spindles that will fail after 500,000
cycles of operation is
N F - R ( ~=~ N) o [l - R(nl)]= 1,000(1- 0.849091) = 0.150919,
N F - R ( ~=~500,000 cycles) = 1,000(0.150919), say 151.
2. The number of fresh spindles, used to replace those that failed,
that will fail after 330,000 cycles can be determined using Eq.
(17.2),then
" d n ) = N o [I- R(n1)1 [l - R(n)],
where
M
R(n)= J 9wdz,
4.')
and
log10 330,000- ii'
t ( n ' )= 3
Un.1
or
5.518514 - 5.827
z(n') = = -2.48779,
0.124
and
R(n = 330,000 cycles) = 7

z( n')=-2.48779
+(z) dz = 0.993573.
Then,
b'F-R(n = 330,000 Cycles) = 1, ooo( 1 - 0.849081)( 1 - 0.993573),
or
N~-~(330,000 cycles ) = 1,000(0.150919)(0.006427) = 0.97, say 1.
Therefore, one spindle out of the 151 fresh, replaced ones will
fail.
3. Of the spindles that survived nl cycles, the number failing during

the additional n cycles can be found from Eq. (17.4), or
I , = NF-NR(~OO,
N F - N R ( ~ n) 000 cycles; 330,000 cycles),
log10 (n1 t n) - 3'

z(n1 t n)' = 9
on'
or
- 5.827
~ ( 5 0 0 , 0 0 0cycles + 330,000 cycles)' = log10 830,000
0.124 7
= 0.742565.
Therefore,
R(500,OOO cycles + 330,000 cycles) = 7

0.742565
+( z ) ds = 0.228872.
and from Eq. (17.4)
N ~ - ~ ( 5 0 0 , 0 0cycles;
0 330,000 cycles) = 849 (1 - ::z3 '
= 849(0.730447),
or
N ~ , ~ ( 5 0 0 , 0 0 cycles;
0 330,000 cycles) = 620.15, say 620.
Consequently, out of 849 spindles 620 will fail.

4. The total number of spindles that will fail by (nl + n ) cycles

given that 1,000 started at age zero and that those that fail by
n1 cycles are replaced, can be determined using Eq. (17.7), or
NF-T(nl + n ) = No [2 - R(n1)- R(n)

+R(m) R ( n )- R(n1 + 7-41,
N ~ - ~ ( 8 3 0 , 0 0cycles)
0 = 1,000[2 - 0.849081 - 0.993573
+(0.849081)(0.993573) - 0.2288721,
or
N ~ - ~ ( 8 3 0 , 0 0cycles)
0 = 1,000(0.772098) = 772.098, say 772.
Consequently, 772 spindles will fail by n1 4-n = 830,000 cycles
of operation.
The same answer can also be obtained by adding the results
obtained in Cases 1, 2 and 3. Then,
N ~ - ~ ( 8 3 0 , 0 0cycles)
0 +
= N ~ - ~ ( 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 )N ~ , ~ ( 3 3 0 , 0 0 0 )
-t NF-j~R(500,ooo;330, ooo),
or
N ~ - ~ ( 8 3 0 , 0 0cycles)
0 +
= 151 t 1 620 = 772 spindles.
5. The total number of components surviving after (nl n ) cycles +
when we follow the policy of replacing the failed ones by nl cycles
is found from Eq. (17.13), or
NS-R(nl +
n) = No{[1- R(nl)]R(n) R(nl 4-n ) } ,
, cycles) = 1,000{[1- 0.849081](0.993573)
A T s _ ~ ( 8 3 0000
+
(0.228872)},
N s - ~ ( 8 3 0 , 0 0 0cycles) = 1,000[(0.150919)(0.993573)
t (0.228872)],
or
N s - ~ ( 8 3 0 , 0 0 0cycles) = 1,000(0.37882) = 378.82, say 379.
Therefore, a total of 379 spindles will survive.
The same answer can also be obtained from
+
Ars-~(830,OOOcycles) = No N F - R ( ~-~ NF-T(S~O,OOO>,
)
= 1,000 151 - 772, +
or
A r ~ - ~ ( 8 3 0 , 0 0cycles)
0 = 379.
6. The total combined reliability of the components, under this re-

placement policy, using Eq. (17.13), is given by
RT-R(W + n) = [ I - R(ni)]R(n) + R(n1 + n),
R ~ - ~ ( 8 3 0 , 0 0cycles)
0 = (1 - 0.849081)(0.993573) + 0.228872,
R ~ - ~ ( 8 3 0 , 0 0cycles)
0 = (0.150919)(0.993573) + 0.228872,
or
R ~ - ~ ( 8 3 0 , 0 0cycles)
0 = 0.37882.
Then, the total combined reliability may be found from Eq.
(1'7.12),or from
Using the result in Case 5

378.82
R ~ , ~ ( 8 3 0 , 0 0 cycles)
0 = -
1,000
- 0.37882.
Therefore the combined reliability is 37.9%.
+
7. The reliability for (nl n) cycles without a replacement policy is
determined by
R(n1 + n ) = 7
z(n1 +n)'
4(z)dz,
log10 830,000 - 5.827

~ ( 8 3 0 , 0 0 0cycles)' = 9
0.124
-- 5.91908 - 5.827
0.124 '
or
~ ( 8 3 0 , 0 0 0cycles)' = 0.742565.
Then,
R(830,OOO cycles) = 7
J
0.742565
4 ( z ) dz = 0.228872, or 22.9%.
Consequently,
R(830,OOO cycles) < R(830,OOO cycles)

WITHOUT WITH
REPLACEMENT REPLACEMENT
since
22.9% < 37.9%,
or R(830,OOO cycles) with replacement is 65% larger than with-
out replacement!
EXAMPLE 17-2
Identical types of bearings have a Weibull times-to-failure distribu-
tion with the following parameters:
/3 = 2, 7 = 2,000 hr, 7 = 0 hr.
1. If 100 of such bearings are operating in identical equipment at
the same application and operation stress level, how many will
survive if each one operates 2'1 = 1,300 hr at 675 rpm, and how
many will fail?
operate for T = 700 hr thereafter, how many of the fresh ones
will fail?
3. Of those that survived 2'1 hr, how many will fail during the ad-
ditional T hr of operation?
4. What is the total number of bearings that will fail by (TI+ T ) hr
of operation, given that 100 started at age zero, and that those
that fail by TIhr are replaced?
5 . What is the total number of bearings surviving after (TI t T )
hr of operation when we follow the policy of replacing the failed
ones by TI hr?
6. What is the total combined reliability of the components under
the replacement policy?
+
7. What is the reliability for (TI T ) hr of operation without a
replacement policy? Compare the answer with that of Case 6.
748 RELIABILITY OF COAfPONENTS
1. If 100 of such bearings are operating in identical equipment at the

same application and operation stress level, the number which
will survive, if each one operates 2'1 = 1,300hr at 675 rpm, may
be found by using Eq. (17.14), or
1300 2
R( 1,300 hr) = ,-(*I = 0.522046.
The number of bearings that will survive is
Ns(T1) = No R(?'I) = 100(0.522046), say 52.

The number of bearings that will fail after TI = 1,300 hr of
operation is
or
N F - R ( T ~= 1,300 hr) = lOO(1- 0.522046), say 48.
operate for T = 700 hr thereafter, the number of fresh ones which
will fail can be determined using Eq. (17.2),or
NF-R(T) = No - W 1 ) 1 [ 1 - R(T)J,
where
R(T = 700 hr) = e-($)' = e-(*)' = 0.884706.
Then,
NF-R(T = 700 hr) = lOO(1- 0.522046)(1- 0.884706),
NF-R(T = 700 hr) = 100(0.477954)(0.115294) = 5.51, say 6.

Therefore, 6 bearings out of the 48 fresh bearings will fail while
operating 700 hr after replacement.
3. Of those that survived 2'1 hr, the number that will fail during
the additional T hr of operation, from Eq. (17.4), is
From Case 1,
Ns(T1) = No R(T1)= lOO(0.522046) = 52.2046, say 52.
and
R(T1 + T ) = e-(*)
T +T $ 1300 700 2
= e'( '2120 = 0.367879.
N F - N R (1,300 hr; 700 hr) = 52 1 -

or
( ::;:;:::) = 52(0.295313),
N F - . ~ R1,300
( hr; 700 hr) = 15.36, say 15.
Therefore, 15 bearings out of the 52 will fail during the additional
T = 700 hr of operation.
4. The total number of bearings that will fail by (Tlt T) hr of
operation, given that 100 started at age zero, and that those
that fail by 2'1 hr are replaced, is obtained from Eq. (17.7), or
+
NF-T(TI T )= N0[2 - R(T1) - R ( T )
tR(Tl)R(T) - R(T1 t T ) ] ,
N F - T ( 1,300 hr + 700 hr) = 100[2 - 0.522046 - 0.884706

+(0.522046)(0.884706) - 0.3678791,
NF=(1,300 hr t 700 hr) = lOO(0.687226) = 68.72, say 69.
Consequently, 69 bearings will fail by TI t T = 2,000 hr. The
same answer can be reached by
, hr) = N F - R ( ~ ,300) t N ~ - ~ ( 7 0 0 )
N F - T ( ~000
tNF-NR(1,300; 700),
or
0 = 48 t 6
N ~ - ~ ( 2 , 0 0hr) + 15 = 69.
Therefore, the total number that will fail by 2,000 hr of operation
with. repla.cement of those that fail by 1,300 hr is 69.
+
5. The total number of bearings surviving after (Tl T ) hr of op-
'
eration when we follow the policy of replacing the failed ones by
1'2 hr is found from Eq. (17.11), or
NS-R(T1 + T)= No ([I - R(Tl)]R(T)+ R(T1 -k T)},

Ns-R( 1,300 hr + 700 hr) = 100{ [l - 0.522046](0.884706)
+ 0.367879},
or
+
N s - ~ ( 2 , 0 0 0hr) = 100[(0.477954)(0.884706) 0.3678791,
N s - ~ ( 2 , 0 0 0hr) = lOO(0.790728) = 79.07, say 79.

Therefore a total of 79 bearings will survive. The same answer
can be reached by
+ +
, hr) = No N F - R ( T ~ T)- NF-T(TI T ) ,
N s - R ( ~000 +
+
= 100 48 - 69 = 79.
6. The total combined reliability of the components under this re-

placement policy from Eq. (17.13) is
RT-R(Tl+ T)= [ I - R(Tl)]R(T) + R(Tl+ T ) ,
+
, hr + 700 hr) = (1 - 0.522046)(0.884706) 0.367879,
R T - R ( ~300
= 0.790728,
or
79.07
, hr
R T - R ( ~300 + 700 hr) = R T - R ( ~000)
, = -- 0.7907.
100
Therefore, the combined reliability is 79.1%.
7. The reliability for (2'1 + T ) hr of operation without a replacement

policy is
PROBLEMS 75 1
1 3 0 0 700 2
R( 1,300 hr t 700 hr) = e-( ' 2,ok ) ,
or
R(2,000 hr) = e-l = 0.367879, say 36.8%.
Consequently,
R(2,OOOhr) WITHOUT < R(2,OOOhr) WITH
REPLACEMENT REPLACEMENT
since,
36.8% < 79.1%,
or R(2,000 hr) with replacement is more than double that without
replacement.
PROBLEMS
17-1. Derive the equation for calculating the total combined reliability
if the age of the units which have been put into operation at the
beginning of the mission is not zero, or TO# 0, but 2'1.
17-2. Find the total combined reliability for the following replacement
policy: At the prescribed replacement time 2'1, those that are
found to have failed by TI are replaced by fresh ones, and p
percent of those that have not failed by 2'1 are also replaced by
fresh ones.
17-3. Find the optimal value of the p given in Problem 17-2 in terms
of cost, assuming that
C1 = replacement cost per unit,
Cz = unit cost,
C3 = salvage value of an unfailed unit at replacement
time T I ,
and
Cd = failure cost at the end of the mission.
17-4. Give an alternative derivation of Eq. (17.13).

752 PROBLEMS
17-5. Identical aluminum spindles are operating at an alternating stress

level of 25,000 psi. Each one of these spindles has completed
500,000 revolutions (cycles) successfully. Their cycles to failure
distribution is lognormally distributed with the mean ii = 500
cycles and standard deviation on = 50 cycles.
1. If 1,000 of such spindles are operating, how many will sur-

vive after 500,000 cycles of operation, starting their opera-
tion at the age of 500,000 cycles, and how many will fail?
2. If the failed spindles are replaced by new ones and all of
them operate for n = 300,000 cycles thereafter, how many
of the fresh ones will fail?
3. Of those that survived n1 cycles, how many will fail during
the additional n cycles?
4. What is the total number of spindles that will fail by (nl+n)
cycles given that 1,000 started at age zero, and that those
that fail by nl cycles are replaced?
5. What is the total number of surviving components after
+
(n1 n) cycles when we follow the policy of replacing the
failed ones by nl cycles?
6. What is the total combined reliability of the components
under this replacement policy?
7. What is the reliability for (n1-t n) cycles without a replace-
ment policy? Compare the answer with that of Case 6.
17-6. Using the replacement policy of Problem 17-2 determine the
total combined reliability of the components given in Problem
17-5, assuming that the percent, p , of those that have not failed
by nl = 500,000 cycles, but are replaced, is 30%.
17-7. Identical types of bearings have a Weibull times-to-failure dis-
tribution with the following parameters:
/3 = 2.8, q = 2,500 hr, 7 = 0 hr.
1. If 100 of such bearings are operating in identical equip-
ment at the same application and operation stress level,
how many will survive if each one operates TI = 1,500 hr
at 675 rpm, and how many will fail?
2. If the failed bearings are replaced by new ones and all of
them operate for T = 800 hr thereafter, how many of the
fresh ones will fail?
PROBLEMS 753
3. Of those that survived 2'1 hr, how many will fail during the
additional T hr of operation?
+
4. What is the total number of bearings that will fail by (2'1
T ) hr of operation, given that 100 started at age zero, and
that those that fail by TI hr are replaced?
5. What is the total number of bearings surviving after (2'1 tT)
hr of operation when we follow the policy of replacing the
failed ones by TIhr?
6. What is the total combined reliability of the components
under the replacement policy?
7 . What is the reliability for (TI
+T) hr of operation without a
replacement policy? Compare the answer with that of Case
6.
17-7 assuming that the percent, p , of those that have not failed
by TI= 1,500 hr, but are replaced, is 30%.
17-9. Identical units have a Weibull times-to-failure distribution with
the following parameters: ,B = 1.75, 7 = 3,000 hr and 7 = 0
hr. The replacement policy is as follows: Those that are found
to have failed at 1,500 hr are replaced with units which have to
have a Weibull times-to-failure distribution with the following
parameters: ,B = 2.50, 77 = 1,500 hr and y = 0 hr. Do the
following:
1. If 1,000 such units are operating in identical equipment at
the same application and operation stress level, how many
will fail if each one operates TI= 1,500 hr?
2. If the failed ones are replaced according to the given policy,
how many will fail when operating for t = 500 hr thereafter?
3. Of those that survive 2'1 = 1,500 hr, how many will fail
during the additional t = 500 hr of operation?
4. What is the total combined reliability of these components
under the replacement policy of Case 3?
17-9 assuming that the percent, p , of those that have not failed
by n1 = 500,000 cycles but are replaced, is 30%.
Chapter 18
RELIABILITY OF MAINTAINED
EQUIPMENT WHEN KEEPING
TRACK OF THE AGES OF ALL
COMPONENTS WITH
EXPONENTIAL AND
WEIBULLIAN PDF’S
18.1 RELIABILITY WHILE KEEPING TRACK

OF THE AGES OF ALL COMPONENTS
If the ages of all AT components in identical equipment which undergo
only corrective maintenance are kept track of, and d N components
are reliabilitywise in series, then the equipment’s reliability for the first
mission may be obtained from
N
RlS(T1) = n.li(Tl), (18.1)
i=l
where
(18.2)
Tl = age at the end of the first mission, which is also

equal to t , the duration of the first mission,
755
756 RELIABILITY OF MAINTAINED EQUIPMENT
Nci
- = proportion of identical components which fail due
Ni to chance causes,
-Nwi- - proportion of the same identical components

Ni which fail due to wear-out causes,
and
N ; = total number of components in the equipment, assum-
ing the components exhibit chance as well as wear-out
failures, as would be the general case.
The parameters N d , Nw;,X;,yi,qi and pi in Eq. (18.2)may be de-
termined using known techniques [ l , pp. 215-263;271-3311.
After the first mission, the reliability of this equipment for the
second mission is given by
~ 2 s ( t~) =
1 n
N
i=l
~ 2 i ( ~t )2 , ,
where T 2 is the age at the beginning of the second mission and t is the
duration of the second mission, or
(18.3)
In the general case,
Equation (18.4)applies when no component fails during the previ-

ous missions and all components are checked out before the next mis-
sion is undertaken. It should be ascertained that this next mission’s
reliability meets the equipment’s reliability goal, or that
Rjs(Tj, t ) L R G O A L ( ~ ) .
MEAN LIFE 757
If some components fail during the previous mission and are re-
placed with fresh ones, the equipment’s reliability for any mission may
be obtained from
where the T; are the ages of the respective components and a,ll parame-
ters are for these ages, and Tj is the age of the system at the beginning
of the j t h mission.
18.2 MEAN LIFE

The mean life of the equipment for the first mission may be obtained
from
(18.6)
where R l s ( T ) is given by Eq. (18.1).

The mean life of the equipment for the second mission, if no failures
have occurred during the first mission, may be obtained from
(18.7)
using Eqs. (18.3) or (18.4).

If some components fail during the first mission and are replaced by
fresh ones, then the mean life of the equipment for the second mission
may be obtained from
Afys = Lrn Rps(T;,t)d t , (18.8)
using Eq. (18.5) for j = 2, or in general from

roo
(18.9)
EXAMPLE 18-1
In a three-unit system, the units function reliabilitywise in series.
Each unit can fail due to chance as well as wear-out causes. The pa-
rameters of each unit’s times-to-failure distribution are listed in Table
18.1. Assume that only the failed unit is replaced and then the system
is readied for the next mission. Do the following:
758 RELIABILITY O F MAINTAINED EQUIPMENT
1. Find the system's reliability for the third mission of 50 hr, if the
duration of the first and second missions was 35 hr and they both
were successful.
2. If Unit 1 fails at 40 hr during the first 50-hr mission and then
Unit 3 fails at 30 hr during the second 50-hr mission, find the
system's reliability for the third 50-hr mission.
3. Determine the mean life of the system in Case 2, for the first
three missions.
4. Discuss the results in Cases 1 and 2 comparatively.
The units that fail during a mission are replaced with fresh ones at the
beginning of the next mission.
TABLE 18.1 - The parameters of the times-to-failure dis-
tribution of each unit in Example 18-1.

1. From Eq.(18.4)the conditional reliability of the system is given
by
MEAN LIFE 759
- (0.932920777) (0.954022779) (0.953549020)

0.976308439 0.992219277 0.983495062 '
or
R3s(70 hr, 50 hr) = 0.8907988.
2. From Eq.(18.5)the reliability of the system, keeping track of the
age of each unit, is given by
where t = 50 hr, TI= 30 hr, T2 = 40 t 30 = 70 hr, and T3 = 0

hr, because Unit 1 having failed during the first mission and
having been replaced with a fresh one at the beginning of the
second mission, operates for 30 hours during the second mission
at which time Unit 3 fails, and the mission is stopped. Therefore
the age of Unit 1 at the beginning of the third mission is only 30
hours. T2 and T3 are determined similarly.
Substituting the ages, the mission time, and the parameters of
each unit into Eq.(18.11)yields
0.30 e-0.000050~(30+50)+ 0.70 e-(30+t$-10)1.8
R3jS(100,50)=
0.30 e-O.~0050X30+ 0.70 e - 30-10
( w )18
'
1
- (0.969073635) (0.954022779) (0.991341088) 7

0.996371587 0.992219277 1
or
R 3 1 ~= 0.9270638.
760 RELIABILITY OF MAINTAINED EQUIPMENT
3. The system's mean life for the first mission, is given by Eq. (18.6),
or
and from Eq. (18.2)
+ Jrn{ [0.30e-0*m50 + 0.70 e - ( m )

50
T-10 1.8
The use of a numerical integration computer program yields

M I S = 368.61 hr.
For the second mission, from Eq. (18.8),
and from Eq. (18.4)

PROBLEMS 76 1
where TI = 0 hr, T2 = 40 hr and T3 = 40 hr. Substituting the

parameters and the age of each unit into Eq. (18.12), and using
a numerical integration computer program, yields
M21s = 344.56 hr.
For the third mission, from Eq. (18.9),
M31s = 1
00
R31s(Ti,t ) dt ,
and from Eq. (18.4)
where TI = 30 hr, TZ= 70 hr and T3 = 0 hr.

Substituting the parameters and the age of each unit into Eq.
(18.13), and using a numerical integration computer program,
yields
M31s = 338.32 hr
From these results, it may be seen that the system's mean life
for the first mission is the longest. This is always true, because
all units in the system are fresh for the first mission.
4. In Cases 1 and 2, the cumulative mission times are the same and
are equal to 120 hr, but the reliability values are different. The
reliability of the system in Case 2 is greater than that in Case 1;
i.e.,
[Rs(Case 1) = 89.08%] < [Rs(Case 2) = 92.71%].
The reason is that in Case 2, there are two fresh units which are
the replacements for the two units that failed during the first two
missions.
PROBLEMS
18-1. A machine consists of three units which function reliabilitywise

in series, with the useful life failure rates and wear-out pdf pa-
rameters given in Table 18.2. Do the following:
762 PROBLEMS
TABLE 18.2 - T h e parameters of t h e times-to-failure dis-

tribution of each unit for P r o b l e m 18-1.
1.o
0.7
Take = 0.1 and % = 0.9.
1. Find the mean life to the first failure of the machine, or when
each failed unit is replaced by an identical one that had op-
erated a period equal to the period of operation of the failed
unit that is being replaced by a fresh unit.
2. Find the mean time between the second and third failures if
Unit 1 fails f i s t at the age of 500 hr and is replaced with a
new identical unit, and Unit 3 fails next at the age of 7,000
hr and is replaced with a new identical unit.
3. Find the stabilized mean time between failures of this ma-
chine, when the failed units are replaced by fresh units.
4. Calculate and plot the reliabilities for the follow-
ing two cases:
4.1 Case 1.
4.2 Case 2.
18-2.In a three-unit system, the units function reliabilitywise in series.
Each unit can fail due to chance as well as wear-out causes. The
parameters of each unit’s times-to-failure distribution are listed
in Table 18.3. Assume that only the failed unit is replaced and
then the system is readied for the next mission. Do the following:
1. Find the system’s reliability for the third mission of 50 hr, if
the duration of the first and second missions was 35 hr and
both missions were successful.
system’s reliability for the third 50-hr mission.
three missions.
PROBLEMS 763

tribution of each unit in Problem 18-2.
4 . Discuss the results in Cases 1 and 2 comparatively.

The units that fail during a mission are replaced with fresh ones
at the beginning of the next mission.
18-3. In a three-unit system, the units function reliabilitywise in series.
both missions were successful.
three missions.
18-4. A machine consists of three units which function reliabilitywise
in series, with the useful life failure rates and wear-out pdf pa-
rameters given in Table 18.5. Do the following:
1. Find the mean life to the first failure of the machine, or when
764 PROBLEMS
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Number
of xi 7 Ti, 77i,
unit % % fr/106 hr hr hr
1 0.15 0.85 40 20 500 2.0

tribution of each unit for Problem 18-4.
unit fr/106 hr hr hr
1 1.5 5,000 900
1
2
3 1 0.9
0.7 I I I
7,000 500
3,000 800
Take 9 = 0.1 and 9= 0.9.

PROBLEMS 765
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Number
of A; , Yi, qi,
unit % % fr/106 hr hr hr pi
1 0.35 0.65 40 20 500 2.0
2 0.30 0.70 45 50 300 1.5
3 0.20 0.80 70 0 400 2.5
2. Find the mean time between the second and third failures if
Unit 1 fails first at the age of 600 hr and is replaced with a
new identical unit, and Unit 3 fails next at the age of 5,000
hr and is replaced with a new identical unit,
4. Calculate and plot the reliabilities for the following two cases:
4.1 Case 1.
4.2 Case 2.
18-5. Work out Problem 18-1again taking 9

= 0.2 and 9
= 0.8 and
compare the results with those obtained in Problem 18-1.
18-6. Work out Problem 18-2 with the parameters of each unit’s times-
to-failure distribution given in Table 18.6. Compare the results
with those obtained in Problem 18-2.
18-7. In a three-unit system, the units function reliabilitywise in series.
1. Find the system’s reliability for the fourth mission of 50 hr, if
the duration of the first, second and third missions was 50 hr
and all missions were successful.
2. If Unit 1fails at 30 hr during the first 50-hr mission, then Unit
3 fails at 30 hr during the second 50-hr mission, and Unit 1
fails at 40 hr during the third 50-hr mission, find the system’s
reliability for the fourth 50-hr mission.
766 PROBLEMS

tribution of each unit in Problem 18-7.
Number of x c9 Tw, OT,,

unit fr/106 hr hr hr
1 0.5 3,000 500
2 1.o 10,000 1,000
3 0.7 5,000 800
4 0.8 4,000 300
four missions.
18-8.A machine consists of four units which function reliabilitywise in

series, with the useful life failure rates and wear-out pdf param-
eters given in Table 18.8. Do the following:
1. Find the mean life t o the first failure of the machine, or when
PROBLEMS 767
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Number
of xi 9 7i9 77i,
unit % % fr/106 hr hr hr pi
1 0.20 0.80 40 10 500 2.0
2 0.20 0.80 45 40 300 1.5
3 0.20 0.80 70 20 400 2.5
2. Find the mean time between the third and fourth failures if
Unit 1 fails first at the age of 500 hr and is replaced with a
new identical unit, Unit 3 fails next at the age of 7,000 hr and
is replaced with a new identical unit, and Unit 4 fails next at
the age of 8,000 hr and is replaced with a new identical unit.
18-9. Work out Problem 18-8 again assuming that % = 0.3 and% =
0.7 for all three units and compare the results with those obtained
in Problem 18-8.
18-10. In a three-unit system, the units function reliabilitywise in se-
ries. Each unit can fail due t o chance as well as wear-out causes.
The parameters of each unit’s times-to-failure distribution are
listed in Table 18.9. Assume that only the failed unit is replaced
and then the system is readied for the next mission. Do the
following:
they both were successful.
three missions.
a t the beginning of the next mission.
REFERENCE
REFERENCE
1. Kececioglu, Dimitri B., Reliability EngineeringHandbook, DEStech

Publications, 1148 Elizabeth Ave., #2, Lancaster, PA 17601-
4359, V01.2, 568 pp., 2002.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Dr. Dimitri B. Kececioglu, P.E., a Fullbright Scholar, a Fellow
of the Society of Automotive Engineers, and a Fellow of the Ameri-
can Society for Quality, is considered to be the Deming of Reliability
Engineering. He received his B.S.M.E. from Robert College, Istanbul,
Turkey in 1942, and his M.S. in Industrial Engineering in 1948 and his
Ph.D. in Engineering Mechanics in 1953, both from Purdue Univer-
sity, Lafayette, Indiana. He is currently a Professor in the Department
of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering, The University of Arizona;
Professor-in-Charge of a unique ten-course Reliability Engineering pro-
gram leading to the Master of Science degree in the Reliability Engi-
neering Option; Director of the Annual Reliability Engineering and
Management Institute; Director of the Annual Reliability Testing In-
stitute; Director of the Applied Reliability Engineering and Product
Assurance Institute for Engineers and Managers; and a Reliability and
Maintainability Engineering consultant.
This book is based on the following extensive experience of the
author in Reliability Engineering, Maintainability Engineering, Reli-
ability & Life Testing, Mechanical Reliability, Environmental Stress
Screening, and Burn-In Testing:
1. He initiated and was the Director of the Corporate Reliability

Engineering Program at the Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Co.,
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, from 1960 to 1963.
2. He started the Reliability Engineering Instructional Program at

The University of Arizona in 1963, which now has more than ten
courses in it. A Master’s Degree with a Reliability Engineering
Option is currently being offered in the Aerospace and Mechani-
cal Engineering Department at The University of Arizona under
his leadership. He started this option in 1969.
3. He conceived and directed the first two Summer Institutes for 30

college and university faculty in Reliability Engineering ever to
be supported by the National Science Foundation. The first was
in the summer of 1965 and the second in the summer of 1966.
These faculty started teaching Reliability Engineering courses
at their respective universities and/or incorporating Reliability
Engineering concepts into their courses.
777
778 AUTHOR
4. He helped initiate The Professional Certificate Award in Reli-

ability and Quality Engineering at The University of Arizona
in 1991. This is a 15-unit program. The certificate’s require-
ments are met via videotapes of the VIDEOCAMPUS organiza-
tion through Extended University. No participant needs to be
present on the campus of The University of Arizona to get this
certificate.
5. In 1963 he conceived, initiated, and has directed since then the

now internationally famous and very successful The Annual Reli-
ability Engineering and Management Institute at The University
of Arizona, sponsored by over 15 top companies in the U.S.A.
6. In 1975 he conceived, initiated, and has directed since then the

now internationally famous and very successful The Annual Reli-
ability Testing Institute at The University of Arizona, also spon-
sored by over 15 top companies in the U S A .
7. In 1992 he conceived, initiated, and has directed since then The

Annual Applied Reliability Engineering and Product Assurance
Institute for Engineers and Managers.
8. He has lectured extensively and has conducted over 400 training

courses, short courses and seminars worldwide, and has exposed
over 12,000 reliability, maintainability, test, design, and product
assurance engineers to the concepts of this and his 7 other books.
9. He has been the Principal Investigator of mechanical reliability

research for the NASA-Lewis Research Center, the Office of Naval
Research, and the Naval Weapons Engineering Support Activity
for ten years.
10. He has been consulted extensively by over 100 industries and gov-
ernment agencies worldwide on Reliability Engineering, Reliabil-
ity & Life Testing, Maintainability Engineering, and Mechanical
Reliability matters.
11. He has been active in the Annual Reliability and Maintainability

Symposia and numerous other Conferences dealing with Relia-
bility Engineering since 1963.
AUTHOR 779
12. He founded the Tucson Chapter of the Society of Reliability En-

gineers in 1974 and was its first president. He also founded the
first and currently very active Student Chapter of the Society of
Reliability Engineers at The University of Arizona.
13. He has authored and co-authored over 152 papers and articles.
of which over 143 are in all areas of Reliability Engineering.
14. In addition to this book, he authored or contributed to the fol-
lowing books:
1- Bibliography on Plasticity - Theory and Applications, by Dr.
Dimitri B. Kececioglu, published by the American Society
of Mechanical Engineers, New York, 191 pp., 1950.
2- Manufacturing, Planning and Estimating Handbook, by Dr.
Dimitri B. Kececioglu and Lawrence Karvonen contributed
part of Chapter 19,pp. 19-1to 19-12,published by McGraw-
Hill Book Co., Inc., New York, 864 pp., 1963.
3- Introduction to Probabilistic Design for Reliability, by Dr.
Dimitri B. Kececioglu, published by the United States Army
Management Engineering Training Agency, Rock Island, Illi-
nois, contributed Chapter 7 of 109 pp., and Chapter 8 of 137
pp., May 1974.
4- Manual of Product Assurance Films on Reliability Engineer-
ing and Management, Reliability Testing, Maintainability,
and Quality Control, published by Dr. Dimitri B. Kece-
cioglu, 7340 N. La Oesta Avenue, Tucson, Arizona 85704-
3119, 178 pp., 1976.
5- Manual of Product Assurance Films and Videotapes,Dimitri
Kececioglu, published by Dr. Dimitri B. Kececioglu, 7340
N. La Oesta Avenue, Tucson, Arizona 85704-3119,327 pp.,
1980.
6- The 1992-1994 Reliability, Maintainability and Availability
Software Handbook, by Dr. Dimitri B. Kececioglu and Mr.
Pantelis Vassiliou, 7340 N. La Oesta Avenue, Tucson, Ari-
zona 85704-3119, 118 pp., November 1992.
7- Reliability Engineering Handbook, by Dr. Dimitri B. Ke-
cecioglu, DEStech Publications. 1148 Elizabeth Ave., #2.
Lancaster, PA 17601-4359,Vol. 1, 720 pp., 2002.
780 AUTHOR
8- Reliability Engineering Handbook) by Dr. Dimitri B. Ke-

cecioglu, DEStech Publications, 1148 Elizabeth Ave., #2,
9- Reliability & Life Testing Handbook, by Dr. Dimitri B. Ke-
10- Reliability & Life Testing Handbook, by Dr. Dimitri B. Ke-
11- Environmental Stress Screening - Its Quantzjcation, Opti-
mization and Management, by Dr. Dimitri B. Kececioglu
and Dr. Feng-Bin Sun, DEStech Publications, 1148 Eliza-
beth Ave., #2, Lancaster, PA 17601-4359,546 pp., 2002.
12- Maintainability, Availability and Operational Readiness En-
gineering Handbook, by Dr. Dimitri B. Kececioglu, DEStech
4359,Vol. 1, 814 pp., 2002.
13, Bum-in Testing - Its Quantification and Optimization, by
Dr. Dimitri B. Kececioglu, and Dr. Feng-Bin Sun, DEStech
4359, 650 pp., 2002.
15. He has received over 100 prestigious awards and has been rec-
ognized for his valuable contributions to the fields of Reliability
Engineering and Testing, Maintainability Engineering, B urn-In
Testing, Environmental Stress Screening, and Mechanical Relia-
bility. Among these are the following:
1- Fulbright Scholar in 1971.
2, Ralph Teetor Award of the Society of Automotive Engineers
as “Outstanding Engineering Educator” in 1977.
3, Certificate of Excellence by the Society of Reliability Engi-
neers for his “personal contributions made toward the ad-
vancement of the philosophy and principles of Reliability
Engineering” in 1978.
4- ASQ-Reliability Division, Reliability Education Advance-
ment Award for his “outstanding contributions to the d+
velopment and presentation of meritorious reliability edu-
cational programs” in 1980.
AUTHOR 78 1
5 - ASQ Allen Chop Award for his “outstanding contributions

to Reliability Science and Technology” in 1981.
6- The University of Arizona College of Engineering Anderson
Prize for “engineering the Master’s Degree program in the
Reliability Engineering Option” in 1983.
7- Designation of “Senior Extension Teacher” by Dr. Leonard
Freeman, Dean, Continuing Education and University Ex-
tension, University of California, Los Angeles in 1983.
8- Honorary Member, Golden Key National Honor Society in
1984.
9- Honorary Professor, Shanghai University of Technology in
1984.
10- Honorary Professor, Phi Kappa Phi Honor Society in 1988.
11- The American Hellenic Educational Progressive Association
(AHEPA) “Academy of Achievement Award in Education”
in 1992.
12- On the occasion of “The 30th Annual Reliability Engineering
and Management Institute,” the President of The University
of Arizona, Dr. Manuel T. Pacheco, presented him a plaque
inscribed: “Your reputation as an outstanding teacher and
advocate of Reliability and Quality Engineering is well es-
tablished in the international engineering community. In
your capacity as Director of this Institute, as well as the
Reliability Testing Institute, you have provided the forum
in which many hundreds of our nation’s engineers and stu-
dents of engineering have received training in Reliability and
Quality Engineering.
I particularly acknowledge your efforts in establishing and
developing funding for the endowment which bears your
name and which will support worthy graduate students in
the future. The ‘Dr. Dimitri Basil Kececioglu Reliability
Engineering Research Fellowships Endowment Fund’ will
help to ensure that The University of Arizona remains in the
forefront of engineering education and continues to provide
engineering graduates to support our nation’s industries. In
this highly competitive world the quality and the reliability
of American products are essential to retaining our position
782 AUTHOR
of world economic leadership. The University of Arizona is

proud to be an important part of that effort and can take
justifiable pride in your own very significant contribution.”
16. He conceived and established The Dr. Dirnitri Basal Kececioglu
Reliability Engineering Research Fellowships Endowment Fund
in 1987. The cosponsors of his institutes, mentioned in Items 5
and 6, have contributed generously to this fund which has now
crossed the $335,000mark.
17. He was elected to the presigious Fellow Member grade of the Soci-
ety of Automotive Engineers International in 1996 for “his excep
tional professional distinction and important technical achieve-
ments”.
18. He was given the “Distinguished Probabilistic Methods Educator
Award” of the Society of Automotive Engineers International in
1997.
19. He was elected to the presigious Fellow Member grade of the
American Society for Quality in 1999 “for having pioneered The
University of Arizona’s ten-course Reliability Engineering Cur-
riculum and Master’s Degree Program in Reliability and Qual-
ity Engineering; exposed Reliability to over 12,000 participants
through two NSF Institutes, 39 Reliability Engineering and Man-
agement Institutes, 29 Reliability Testing Institutes, and 400
seminars for industry and government; published 152 papers and
35 research reports, published 14 books and contributed to 6
more books .”
INDEX
Index Terms Links
Accessibility, figures 55
Additional maintenance policy
multistage replacement policy 402
opportunistic replacement policy 413
optimal inspection frequency 438
maximization of profit 438
maximization of equipment
availability 441
optional replacement policy 385
preventive replacement policy for
capital equipment 433
Age replacement policy 551
with minimal repair 560
spares provisioning 551
ARINC 22
Atlas guidance system 9
Availability, defined 24
Availability maximization 615
Ball-bearing system 423

Best preventive replacement age 386
Block replacement policy 554
This page has been reformatted by Knovel to provide easier navigation.

Index Terms Links
Central limit theorem 635

repair time distribution determination 636
Composite Weibull process
see also Weibull process
Conditional reliability
in spares provisioning 544 546
Confidence level 533 543 583
for spares provisioning 533
its selection for spare prediction 543
Corrective replacement
reliability when replacing those
that fail by a given time 739
Cost and criticality of spares 625
Cost models
for age replacement with minimal repair 345
for age replacement with minimal
repairs and system idle time 351
for MPRP with constant spare
procurement lead time 340
for MBRP with inventory of spares
multi-period model 366
single-period model 362
for MBRP with reconditioned spares 372
for multiple block replacement
policy with idle time cost 378

Index Terms Links
Cost models (Cont.)

for multistage replacement policy 405
for opportunistic replacement policy 413
for optional replacement policy 388 396
for ordinary block replacement policy 359
for ordinary periodic replacement policy 335
Cost of spares 583
Cost of
repair and replace 130
preventive maintenance period for
Policy I 274
Criticality of spares 625
Decaying population 544

Design adequacy 24 28
defined 24
Distributional test 635
in a test and repair facility 635
Downtime
active repair 123
chargeable (CMDT) 172
distributions 67
nonchargeable (NCMDT) 172
Dynamic model 612
Dynamic program 477

Index Terms Links
Equipment repair time 101

Error bounds 673
of Monte Carlo simulation 673
ERT see Equipment repair time
Expected number of failures 533
Expected number of spare parts 533
Exponential distribution 93
MTTR 93
Exxon pump failures study 16
Failure Rate,
corrective for Policy I 269
Forward recurrence time (FRT) 371 379
definition 371
pdf 371
Generation of random values 671

via Monte Carlo simulation 671
Geometric mean time to repair 101
Global policy 446
Golden Section Method 436

Index Terms Links
Government Specifications 147

MIL-STD-470 148
MIL-STD-471 148 150
test methods on 150
Group replacement policy 557
Integrated Logis tic Support Factors 148

lntrinsic availability, defined 24
Inventory costs consideration 609
Kettelle algorithm 598

for optimum spares kit determination 598
Kit 583
optimum number of spares 583
Local replacement policy 446

Lognormal distribution 106
Maintainability
A posteriori determination 115
A priori determination 115
comprehensive definition 30
defined 24 91

Index Terms Links
Maintainability Engineering
benefits derived from 8
functions 77
objectives and benefits 4
Maintainability Program Plan
see also MIL-STD-470
Maintained equipment,
reliability when tracking ages
of all components 755
mean life 757
Maintenance
corrective maintenance 40
corrective 138
defined 37
maintenance personnel factors 44
maintenance personnel safety factors 45
maintenance support facilities and
equipment 46
operating time and
down-time categories 41
preventive 37 138 243
age replacement – Policy I 244
block replacement – Policy II 275
concepts 243
group of parts replacement 284
single exponential unit 253

Index Terms Links
Man-Hours, mean
maintenance to repair and replace 130
maintenance to replace 129
tests 163 178
Marginal assurance analysis 585
for optimum spare kit determination 583
Maximum maintenance time 102
MBRP see Modified block replacement policy
Mean active corrective and
preventive maintenance time 100
Mean active corrective
maintenance time 99
Mean active preventive maintenance time 100
Mean time to repair 93 97
MIL-STDs see Government Specifications
Military aircraft study 14
Minuteman missile 9
Mission reliability, defined 24
Modified block replacement policy
(MBRP)
multiple block replacement
with idle time cost 378
with inventory of spares 362
multi-period model, cost of 366
multi-period model, description of 366
single-period model, cost of 362
single-period model, description of 362

Index Terms Links
Modified block replacement policy

(MBRP) (Cont.)
with reconditioned spares use 370
cost model 371
description 370
spares prediction with reconditioned spares 564
with inventory of spares 625
Modified periodic replacement
policy (MPRP)
age replacement policy with
minimal repair 345
cost model 345
description 345
age replacement with
minimal repairs and system
idle time 351
cost model 351
description 351
with constant spares procurement
lead time 339
cost model 340
description 339
Monte Carlo simulation
error bounds 673
number of trials 673

Index Terms Links
MPRP see Modified periodic replacement policy

MTBF of a renewable device or system 475
Multiple block replacement
policy with idle time cost 378
cost model 378
description 378
Multistage replacement policy
conditions 411
cost model 405
introduction 402
principle 404
spares requirement model 412
system’s reliability model 413
Operational Readiness 24 27
defined 24
Opportunistic replacement policy 413
application 423
conditions 422
cost model 413
principle 413
Optimal cost limits,
finite time horizon 501
Optimal inspection frequency,
max imization of profit 438

Index Terms Links
Optimal inspection interval 441

maximization of equipment availability 441
Optimal overhaul/repair/replace policy,
infinite time horizon 495
Optimum number of spares 583
Optimum preventive replacement age 436
Optimum replacement time 337 348 352 361
370 374
Optimum spare kit 583
Optional replacement policy
conditions 399
cost model 388
assumptions 388
entirely regular interval 396
exponential distributed interval 388
introduction 385
principle 386
reliability model 400
Ordering time 340
optimal 345
Ordinary block replacement policy (OBRP) 359
cost model 360
drawback 361

Index Terms Links
Ordinary periodic replacement policy

cost function 335
drawbacks of 338
replacement time 337
Ordinary renewal density (ORD)
definition 372
Laplace transform 372
Ordinary renewal function (ORF)
definition 359
Laplace transform 359
Overhaul
defined 463
off-schedule overhaul 463
scheduled overhaul 463
wear-out distribution,
Normal 470
Weibull 466
Overhaul policy
optimal cost limits
optimal overhaul/repair/replace policy
infinite time horizon 495
Overstock cost modeI 609

Index Terms Links
Packaging practices 57
Periodic replacement policy 335
Modified periodic replacement
policy (MPRP) 338
Ordinary periodic replacement
policy (OPRP) 335
Poisson distribution 534
for spare parts prediction 535
Preventive maintenance policies 551
Preventive maintenance
mean active preventive maintenance time 100
objectives 40
Preventive replacement policy for capital equipment 433
description 433
model 433
Random number generation 673

in Monte Carlo simulation 673
Reliability
defined 24 26
comprehensive definition 26
when replacing those units
that fail by a given time 739
when tracking the ages of
all components 755

Index Terms Links
Reliability bathtub curve (RBTC) 533

Reliability Engineering
applications 32
defined 30
reasons for 31
Reliability growth 573
Renewal reward theorem 340
Repair time distribution determination
concluding remarks 679
error bounds and number of
Monte Carlo trials 673
generation of random values
for various distributions 673
how to apply 635
application 642
central limit theorem 635
interpolation procedure for
z′α tables 645
Monte Carlo simulation 662
system moments 639
in a test and repair facility 635
Repairability, defined 25
Repairable units, Weibull process
see Weibull process
Repairs see Restorations
Replacement rate
preventive for Policy I 269

Index Terms Links
Residual life 346 351

Restoration time
consistency 125
efficiency 125
Restoration
active 123
corrective 123
Serviceability 25
Spares provisioning
at a desired confidence level 533
confidence level selection 543
for a decaying population 544
for units that fail by
a prescribed operating time 546
inventory costs consideration 609
availability maximization
per cost ratio model 615
dynamic spares provisioning approach 612
understock and overstock cost model 609
under preventive maintenance policies 551
age replacement policy 551
age replacement with minimal repair 560
block replacement policy 554
group replacement policy 557
modified block replacement policy 564

Index Terms Links
Spares provisioning (Cont.)

modified periodic replacement policy 559
optional replacement policy 568
ordinary periodic replacement policy 559
with cost consideration 583
Kettelle algorithm 598
optimum spares kit 583
optimum spares in a kit 583
theoretical considerations 591
with growth and warranty 573
Spares Requirement for Policy I 273
Steady State Mean Times 123
active repair 123
corrective restoration 123
preventive maintenance 138 243
Summary of developments
of maintenance policies 446
System Effectiveness 21
concepts of 24
definitions 24
quantification 27
System moments method 639
Tapco case study 11

Taylor series expansion 534
for Poisson pdf explanation 534

Index Terms Links
Theoretical considerations
for optimum spare kit determination 591
Time categories
active repair time 25
administrative time 25 41
down time 25
free time 25
logistics time 25 41
operating time 25
storage time 25
times associated with maintenance 43
Understock cost model

Uniform distribution 663
in Monte Carlo simulation 662
U.S. Navy case studies 10
Warranty 573
Weibull distribution 111
Weibull process
composite Weibull process 721
graphical estimates 701
maximum likelihood estimates 709
when testing more than one unit 711
WSEIAC reports 21

Kececioglu, Dimitri B. - Maintainability, Availability, &amp; Operational Readiness Engineering Handbook, Volume 1-DeStech Publications (2003)

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Kececioglu, Dimitri B. - Maintainability, Availability, &amp; Operational Readiness Engineering Handbook, Volume 1-DeStech Publications (2003)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Maintainability,

Dimitri B. Kececioglu, Ph.D., RE.

Copyright 0 2003 by Dimitri B. Kececioglu

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a

Printed in the United States of America

Main enby under title:

A DEStech Publications book

THE NEED FOR MAINTAINABILITY, AVAILABILITY AND

ity, This is achieved by MIL-STD-472 which prescribes a variety of

gineering equations and their equivalent relationships to those in re-

tion frequency with maximization of profit; and Policy XVI,optimal

ing this handbook possible; Dr. Ernest T. Smerdon, Dean, College of

Dr. Dimitri B. Kececioglu, P.E.

1.1 HANDBOOK OBJECTIVES

1. Concepts of, and defiiiitioiis for, Reliability Engineering, Main-

2. Equipment times, including the various preventive and corrective

3. hhintensnce personnel and safety factors. and support facilities

4. Fifteen key maiiitaina.bility design criteria t o improve the acces-

5 . Equipment downtime distributions, with emphasis on the lognor-

18. Reliability of maintained systems with redundancy using the

1.2 RELIABILITY AND MAINTAINABILITY

8. Study the types of failures experienced by parts, components,

20. Establish failure responsibility as to engineering, manufacturing,

33. Prepare and implement reliability and maintainability growth

44. Increase sales as a result of increased customer satisfaction and

1.3 BENEFITS DERIVED FROM THE

6. A reliability improvement program was implemented on the T-38

"High" reliability "Nominal" reliability

9. Republic Aviation Corporation conducted a reliability improve-

Standurds -A bolt, washer, and nut assembly costing $10, used

oiily 10 cents that served the same function. Savings: $495

TABLE 1.2 - Cost benefits in the TACAN reliability

AN/ARN 21-B AN/ARN 21-C

15. The case of two suppliers bidding to design, manufacture, test,

17. Military aircraft have typically been designed with performance

(a) The nose radome of the B-1A had to be completely removed

18. The AV-8B was designed t o meet quantitative maintainability

20. PATRIOT (Phased Array TRacking to Intercept Of Target) mis-

22. The reliability and maintainability of a helicopter flight control

Here is an often made statement: "Over 90% of reliability, main-

Flight safety, Mission aborts, Maintenan e action,

5 . Colletta, A., Cravero, J., and Russell, C., “Reliability in Procurement-

SYSTEM EFFECTIVENESS AND

2.1 SYSTEM EFFECTIVENESS

AFSC-TR-65-1 Final Report of Task Group 1 “Requirements

AFSC-TR-65-2 Final Report of Task Group 2 “Prediction

(AD 458-454) Vol. I.

AFSC-TR-65-3 Final Report of Task Group 3 “Data Collection

AFSC-TR-65-4 Final Report of Task Group 4 “Cost Effective-

(AD 458-595) Vol. I.

AFSC-TR-65-5 Final Report of Task Group 5 “Management

(AD 461-171) Vol. I.

AFSC-TR-65-6 Chairman’s Final Report “Integrated Summary”

Mission Operational Design

Fig. 2.1 - System Effectiveness concepts.

Table 2.1 - Definitions of System Effectiveness Con-

Table 2.1 - Continued.

2.2 A COMPREHENSIVE DEFINITION

reliability estimate = $2) =-

N=(t) = number of missions o f t duration that failed,

b(t) = 1 - 6(t)= 1- unreliability estimate, (2.5)

k ( t ) is only an estimate because of the limited, finite number of total

h ( t ) = R ( t ) = true reliability, as NT -+ 00. (2.7)

2.3 A QUANTIFICATION OF SYSTEM

Kececioglu, Dimitri B. - Maintainability, Availability, & Operational Readiness Engineering Handbook, Volume 1-DeStech Publications (2003)

Kececioglu, Dimitri B. - Maintainability, Availability, & Operational Readiness Engineering Handbook, Volume 1-DeStech Publications (2003)