Analysis of a stochastic model with rework system

Ganga Negi1, Mangey Ram1, Anuj Kumar2

1
Department of Mathematics, Graphic Era Deemed to be University, Dehradun, India
2
Department of Mathematics, University of Petroleum & Energy Studies, Dehradun, India
Corresponding author: gnegiji@gmail.com

ABSTRACT
In the present global industrial systems, the challenge of meeting the growing consumer capacities
and requirements constantly demands the need to improve different parameters involved in the
working of engineering systems related to communication, manufacturing goods, nuclear and hydro
power plants, automobiles and many others. This demand is being constantly satisfied to a great
extent by the researchers in terms of the analysis and improvement in the reliability and availability
of different complex and multistate systems. This paper presents a three-unit system consisting of
the unit A with two subunits in parallel and other units B and C connected in series with A. The
authors have investigated and analysed different reliability measures like availability, MTTF, MTBF
and sensitivity taking into account the human failure and rework system. The technique used are
Markov process, Laplace transformation and supplementary variable technique.

Key words: Multi state model, Markov process, Reliability, Availability, MTTF and Sensitivity analysis.

I. INTRODUCTION
For a system to perform effectively as expected over a period of time reliability and availability play
significant role. In order to account for high investments and at the same time justify the time and
other resources involved different strategies are being employed by the researchers for multi-
component systems. Lakhoua (2013) [1] and Ram (2013) [2]. Among them are k out of n: F, k-out-of-
(n-r): g, k-out-of-(n-r): F, redundant systems with active and standby modes and others. A k-out-of-
n: F system was proposed by Nupur et al. (2017) [3] to evaluate different reliability measures. They
also carried out the sensitivity analysis of the model using Markov process. Many other researchers
have worked on modified k out of n systems. Like Pham (1992) [4] formulated reliability function of a
two-component shared load system incorporating perfect coverage. Also, Pham [5] estimated the
reliability of k-out-of-n systems with independent and identical sub units exponentially distributed
lifetimes. Li and Zuo (2008a) [6] investigated the optimization of a weighted k out of n system using
genetic algorithm. On the other hand the cost optimization of a k-out-of-n systems was done by
Ebrahimipur et al. (2009) [7] using fuzzy model (k + 1)-out of-n system. In these, k-out of-n systems,
tools used for measuring the reliability and other parameters are Markov process, supplementary
variable technique and Laplace transformation. Ram and Kumar [2014) [17] presented a 2-out-of-3:
F system incorporated with human error. They have evaluated reliability, MTTF and also analysed
the sensitivity of the system.

Human error is defined as unsuitable or inappropriate human decisions which can adversely affect
the safety, efficiency and overall performance of a system. In the absence of proper identification of
the human error in the system the entire system can breakdown completely. Factors responsible for
human error are incomplete information regarding the components operation, low quality system
design, lack of training of the technicians and helpers hired, inappropriate and insufficient procedure
of the entire system, unsuitable tools, uncontrolled level of noise, improper lighting system in the
areas of the action. In the state of the error undetected some of the components may remain in low
quality state and make the system risky in terms of safety. So, it is utmost important to construct
reliability models with the incorporation of human error to identify the human performance and
lead to better guide procedure for the reliability evaluation.

Many researches incorporating human errors [11-15] have been carried out to identify improve the
reliability of simple and multi-state systems. Dhillon and Yang (1992) [10] stochastically analysed the
effect of common cause and human failures on the reliability of a standby system. They Dhillon and
Yang (1993) [16] also estimated the availability of a man-machine system incorporating critical and
non-critical errors. Giuntini (2000) [9] proposed a mathematical symbolisation of human reliability
for an operation involving multi- tasking. Dhillon and Liu (2006) [8] gave a detailed review of the
human errors with the factors responsible and the risks involved and some measures to correct
them. El-Damcese and Temraz (2012) [18] estimated various reliability measures and in a parallel
system with different failure modes. Gupta and Bansal (1991) [19] analysed the cost of a three -unit
stand by system. They analysed the effectiveness of the system at suitable instants. Yi-Kuei Lin
(2010) [20] identified a specified pair of minimal paths in a stochastic-flow network (SFN) which can
transmit given amount of data under both time and budget constraints. A spare routing is also
established to the corresponding reliability. Lastly a convenient method is proposed to establish the
best spare path with higher reliability. Ibrahim and Abdullahi (2020) [21] investigated firstly the
characteristics of an age replacement model with least repair. Secondly the authors proposed that
with the optimal replacement time of the standard age replacement model can be raised above the
optimal replacement time of the standard age replacement model with least repair under suitable
modifications. Ram et al. (2013) [22] presented a stochastic analysis of a two-unit cold standby
system incorporating failure due to waiting time to repair. The authors estimated the reliability
measures like availability and MTTF of the system with cost analysis. Ram and Singh (2010) [23]
analysed a complex system with common cause failure and two types of repair facilities. The authors
estimated the various transition state probabilities, availability expected by employing
supplementary variable method, Laplace transformation and Gumbel-Hougaard family of copula.
Singh et al (2011) [24] gave an interesting three-component system in which one unit is controlled
by a controller whereas the other two units are independent. The two repairmen employed include
the foreman (or the head) and the assistant (or the apprentice).

The present paper presents a series-parallel combination incorporating. human failure. Section II
comprises of the mathematical model characterisation. It consists of nomenclature associated with
the model, transition state diagram with transition states, assumptions and finally shows the
formulation of the model along with the solution to the model. Section III investigates the particular
cases and illustrates the availability, reliability, MTTF, the analysis of the sensitivity of the model and
lastly the expected profit. Section IV illustrates the conclusions of the proposed inspection. The
transition state diagram of the model is shown in Fig.1
II. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE MATHEMATICAL MODEL
Nomenclature

Time scale.
t
Laplace transformation variable
S
Transition state for i=¿ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Si
i
Probability that the system is in Si state at an
P (t) epoch “t” for i=¿ 0 to 7

Laplace transformation of P(t)

P (s) Probability density function that the system is
i
P (x , t) in the state Si , where i=2 to 7 at an epoch t
and has an elapsed repair time of x

Failure rates for the sub-units. i=1A, 2A, B, C

λi ¿ λh
Repair rates for the states for Si where for
η( x ) i=¿ 2 to 7
Expected profit during the interval (0, t ¿

E p (t ) Revenue and service cost per unit time,

respectively.
K1 , K 2

A. System illustration with assumptions

In the proposed paper, the system operates in three modes-good state, degraded state and
the failed state. All the units and sub-units are identical. The system fails completely if both
the subunits of A fail or if any of the units B or C fails. Also, the system may fail completely in
the case of human error. S0 is the state of good working condition. Whereas,
S1 is the degraded state. S2 , S 3 , S4 , S5 , S 6 , S7 are failed states.

State State Illustration

S0 All the units are in good working condition
S1 The system works with sub-unit 2A of A has failed
S2 The system fails due to failure of sub-unit 1 A of A
S3 The system fails due to the failure of the sub-unit 2A and then unit B.
S4 The system fails due to the failure of the sub-unit 2A and then unit C.
S5 The system fails due to the failure of unit B.
S6 The system fails due to the failure of unit C.
 S7 The system fails due to human failure.
Table 1

The following conditions are assumed for the operation of the model.

(1) Initially all the components are working at time t = 0.

(2) All the failure rates and repair rates are constant.
(3) The repaired system works as the new one.
(4) In case of the complete failure the system goes for repair.
 Figure 1. Transition state diagram

A. Conceptualization and solution of the Mathematical model

Using Markov process, Laplace transformation and supplementary variable technique following set
of differential equation representing the model are obtained.
∞ ∞ ∞
P211 ( t + ∆ t )=(1−2 λ A )(1− λB ∆t )(1−λ C ∆ t)(1−λ h ∆ t) P211 (t ) +∫ P011 ( x ,t ) η( x) ∆ tdx +∫ P101 ( x ,t ) η ( x ) ∆ tdx +∫
0 0 2 3

0 0 0
(1)
0 1 0
P211 ( t+ ∆ t )=(1−λ A ∆ t)(1− λB ∆ t )( 1−λ C ∆t )(1−λ h ∆ t) P111 ( t ) + P211 ( t ) 2 λ A ∆ t (2)

P2011 ( x +∆ x ,t +∆ t )=(1−η ( x ) ∆ t) P2011 ( x , t ) (3)

3 0
P101 ( x +∆ x ,t +∆ t )=(1−η ( x ) ∆ t )P211 ( x , t ) (4)
4 0
P110 ( x +∆ x ,t +∆ t )=(1−η ( x ) ∆ t )P110 ( x , t ) (5)

P5201 ( x +∆ x ,t +∆ t )=(1−η ( x ) ∆ t )P5201 ( x , t ) (6)

P6210 ( x +∆ x ,t +∆ t )=(1−η ( x ) ∆ t) P 6210 ( x , t ) (7)

7 7
Pc ( x+ ∆ x , t+ ∆ t )=(1−η ( x ) ∆ t) Pc ( x , t ) (8)

Boundary conditions,
2 1
P011 ( 0 , t )=P111 ( t ) λ A (9)
 3 1
P101 ( 0 , t )=P111 ( t ) λ B (10)
4 1
P110 ( 0 , t )=P111 ( t ) λ C (11)

P5201 ( 0 , t )=P0211 ( t ) λ B (12)

6 0
P210 ( 0 , t )=P211 ( t ) λ A (13)

P7c ( 0 , t )=P 0211 ( t ) λh +¿ P1111 ( t ) λ h (14)

Simplifying equation 1
0 2 2 0
P211 ( t + ∆ t )=¿ (1-2 λ A λ B ∆ t −2 λ A ∆ t− λB ∆ t ¿(1− λC ∆ t−λ h ∆t + λC λ h ∆ t ) P211 ( t )+ ¿
∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞

∫ P2011 ( x , t ) η( x ) ∆ tdx +∫ P3101 ( x , t ) η ( x ) ∆ tdx +∫ P4110 ( x , t ) η (x) ∆ tdx +∫ P5201 ( x ,t ) η(x) ∆ tdx+∫ P6210 ( x , t ) η(x )∆
0 0 0 0 0

0 ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞
∂
+2 λ A + λB + λC + λ h)P ( t ) =∫ P 011 ( x , t ) η(x )∆ tdx +∫ P101 ( x , t ) η ( x ) ∆ tdx+∫ P110 ( x ,t ) η( x)∆ tdx +∫ P201 ( x ,
2 3 4 5
(
∂t 211 0 0 0 0

(15)

Simplifying equation 2 to 8
1
∂
( +2 λ A + λB + λC + λ h)P ( t ) =P 0211 ( t ) 2 λ A (16)
∂t 111

{ }
2
∂ ∂
+ +η ( x ) P ( t )=0 (17)
∂t ∂ x 011

(3)

{∂∂t + ∂∂x +η ( x ) }P ( x ,t )=0

3
101 (18)

{∂∂t + ∂∂x +η ( x ) }P ( x ,t )=0

4
110 (19)

{∂∂t + ∂∂x +η ( x ) }P ( x ,t )=0

5
210 (20)

{∂∂t + ∂∂x +η ( x ) }P ( x ,t )=0

6
210 (21)

{∂∂t + ∂∂x +η ( x ) }P ( x , t )=0

7
h (22)

Taking Laplace Transformation of equations 15 to 22 and 9 to 14 LT of f ( x )=f (s)−f (0)

∞ ∞ ∞ ∞

( s+2 λ A + λ B + λC + λh ) P ( s )=1+∫ P ( x , s )η (x)dx+∫ P (x , s) η ( x ) dx +∫ P ( x , s)η( x )dx+∫ P201 ( x , s)η (

0 2 3 4 5
211 011 101 110
0 0 0 0
(23)
 1 0
( s+ λ A + λ B + λ C + λh ) P111 ( x , s )=P211 . 2 λ A (24)

{s + ∂∂x + η ( x ) }P (x , s)=0 2
011 (25)

{s + ∂∂x + η ( x ) }P ( x , s )=0
3
101 (26)

{s + ∂∂x + η ( x ) }P ( x , s )=0
4
110 (27)

{s + ∂∂x + η ( x ) }P ( x , s )=0
5
201 (28)

{s + ∂∂x + η ( x ) }P ( x , s )=0
6
210 (29)

{s + ∂∂x + η ( x ) }P ( x , s) =0
7
c (30)

From Boundary conditions 9 to 14 applying L. T

2 1
P011 ( 0 , s )=¿ P111 ( s ) . λ A (31)

P3101 ( 0 , s )=P1111 ( s ) . λ B (32)

4 1
P110 ( 0 , s )=P 111 ( s ) . λC (33)

P5101 ( 0 , s )=P0211 ( s ) . λ B (34)

6 0
P210 ( 0 , s )=P 211 ( s ) . λC (35)

P7C ( 0 , s )=P0211 ( s ) .+ P1111 ( s ) . λ h (36)

From equation 25 to 30 Integrating 0 → x

x

P
2
011 ( x , s )=P 2
011 ( 0 , s )exp[−sx−∫ η( x ) dx] (37)
0
(37)
x
P
3
101 ( x , s ) =P ( 0 , s ) exp [−sx−∫ η( x)dx ]
3
101 (38)
0

x
P
4
110 ( x , s )=P ( 0 , s ) exp[−sx −∫ η( x )dx ]
1
110 (39)
0

x
P101 ( x , s ) =P101 ( 0 , s ) exp [−sx−∫ η( x)dx ]
5 5
(40)
0
 x
P 6
210 ( x , s )=P ( 0 , s ) exp[−sx −∫ η( x )dx ]
6
210 (41)
0
(41)
x
PC ( x , s )=Pc ( 0 , s ) exp[−sx −∫ η( x )dx ]
7 7
(42)
0

Using equations 37 to 42 in equation 23

∞ x ∞ x

( s+2 λ A + λ B + λC + λh ) P ( s )=1+∫ P ( 0 , s ) η( x)exp [−sx−∫ η ( x ) dx ]dx+∫ P (0 , s) η ( x ) exp [−sx−∫ η(x) d

0 2 3
211 011 101
0 0 0 0

Let,

2 λ A + λ B+ λC + λ h=c 1

λ A + λ B + λ C + λh=c2

[ ]
∞ x
⏟
∫ exp −sx −∫ η ( x ) ¿ η(x )dx ¿ dx=¿ ¿ S(s)
0 0 ∞

( s+ c1 ) P211 ( s )=1+[P 011 ( 0 , s )+ P 101 ( 0 , s )+ P110 ( 0 , s )+ P201 ( 0 , s ) + P210 ( 0 , s )+ P c ( 0 , s ) ] S⏟

0 2 3 4 5 6 7
( s)
∞

Using Boundary conditions equations 31 to 36 and equation 23

0
P (s )
[
( s ) s+c 1−S⏟
( s ) ( λ B + λ C + λh ) =1+ S⏟
]
0
P 211 ( s ) c 2 211 2 λ A (43)
s+ c2
∞ ∞

0 1
P211 ( s )=

[ s+ c1 −S⏟
( s ) { ( λ B + λC + λh ) +
∞
c2 2 λA
s+ c2 ]
Using equation 24
0
2 λ A P211 ( s )
P1111 ( s )= (44)
s+ c2

Integrating equations 37 to 42

2 λ A λ A (1−S⏟
( s) )
2
P011 ( s ) = ∞ (45)
s ¿¿

2 λ A λ B (1−S⏟
( s) )
3
P 101 ( s)= ∞ (46)
s¿¿

2 λ A λC (1−S⏟
( s ))
4
P 011 ( s)= ∞ (47)
s¿¿
 ⏟
λ B (1−S ( s) )
P5201 ( s ) = ∞ (48)
s¿¿

2 λ A λC (1−S⏟
( s ))
6
P 210 ( s)= ∞ (49)
s¿¿

7
⏟
[ s +c 2 +2 λ A ](1−S (s ))
P ( s )=
C ∞ (50)
s¿¿
Uptime
0 1
Pup ( s )=P211 ( s ) + P111 ( s ) (51)

Downtime

Pdown ( s )=¿ P2011 ( s ) + P3101 + P 4011 ( s ) + P5201 ( s ) + P6210 ( s ) + P7C ( s )

(1−S⏟
( s) )
0 ∞ (52)
P211 ( s ) ¿
s
Now,

1
Pup ( s ) + Pdown (s)=¿ (53)
s

III. PARTICULAR CASES

(i) Availability analysis.

In general, availability is a measure of the performance of maintained equipments. The steady-state

availability is defined as the proportion of time during which a system is available for use.

Pup ( t )
Availability=
P up ( t )+ P down (t)
In the given model taking the different values of failure rates and varying times starting from t=0,
using inverse Laplace transformation we get the following table showcasing the decreasing values of
availability with increment in time.

Time Availability ( Pup ( s ))

0 1.0000
1 0.9363
2 0.9070
3 0.8854
4 0.8634
5 0.8388
 6 0.8115
7 0.7817
8 0.7499
9 0.7168
10 0.6827
Table 2

1.05

1.00
.
0.95

0.90
Availability Pup(t)

0.85

0.80

0.75

0.70

0.65
0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (t)

Figure 2. Variation of Availability with time.

(ii) Reliability
While availability is concerned with the status of the equipment, reliability places emphasis on
failure-free operation up to time t. It depends upon the number of failures as well as duration of the
failure period. The graph given in figure 3. showcases the behaviour of the reliability with increase in
time. The values of reliability at different times shows a steep decrease.

Time Reliability
0 1.0000
1 0.9023
2 0.8099
3 0.7233
4 0.6427
5 0.5684
6 0.5004
7 0.4384
8 0.3822
 9 0.3317
10 0.2865

Table 3

1.1

1.0

0.9

0.8
Reliability Rl(t)

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2
0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (t)

Figure 3

(iii) MTTF

MTTF means the average of the sum duration of the time to failure of different components in a
system a system completely. In the present model, MTTF analysis shows that with the increase in
the values of the parameter that is the failure rated with the variation of time, the values of MTTF
decreases gradually for units B and C while for A it reduces drastically and becomes the least. The
graph shows a curvilinear behaviour of the MTTF for unit A.

Failure rates λA λB λC λh
0.01 29.5454 18.7500 17.5000 17.0454
0.02 16.6667 18.0556 17.0454 16.6667
0.03 12.1795 17.5000 16.6667 16.3461
0.04 9.8214 17.0454 16.3461 16.0714
0.05 8.3334 16.6667 16.0714 15.8333
0.06 7.2917 16.3461 15.8333 15.6250
0.07 6.5126 16.0714 15.6250 15.4412
0.08 5.9028 15.8333 15.4412 15.2778
 0.09 5.4093 15.6250 15.2778 15.1316

Table 4

30

25

B C h
20
MTTF

15

10

5 A

0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10

Failure rate

Figure 4

(iv) Expected Profit

A system requires service cost for the service facility provided [25, 26] and to increase the expected
profit during the interval (0, t) which is given by
t
Eup ( t ) =K 1∫ Pup ( t ) dt−K 2 t .
0

Here K 1 is the revenue cost and the K 2 is the service cost. For fixed value of K 1 and varying K 2
from 0.1 to 0.5 the values of expected profit are computed in the given table 5. It is clearly illustrated
by the table that as the time increase, with fixed the revenue cost of 1 and varying service cost of
0.1, 0.2 upto 0.5 which is due to the requirement of the maintenance, gradually increases the
expected. The graph shows a very interesting pattern of the curves.

Time K2=0.1 K2=0.2 K2=0.3 K2=0.4 K2=0.5

0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
1 0.8632 0.7632 0.6632 0.5632 0.4632
2 1.6836 1.4836 1.2836 1.0836 0.8836
3 2.4796 2.1796 1.8796 1.5796 1.2796
4 3.2542 2.8542 2.4542 2.0542 1.6542
5 4.0055 3.5055 3.0055 2.5055 2.0055
6 4.7309 4.1309 3.5309 2.9309 2.3309
7 5.4277 4.7277 4.0277 3.3277 2.6277
8 6.0937 5.2937 4.4937 3.6937 2.8937
 9 6.7272 5.8272 4.9272 4.0272 3.1272
10 7.3270 6.3270 5.3270 4.3270 3.3270
Table 5.

8
K2=0.1
7

K2=0.2
6
K2=0.3
Expected Profit Ep(t)

5
K2=0.4
4

K2=0.5
3

0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (t)

Figure 5.
(v) Sensitivity Analysis.

Sensitivity is a parameter which checks the efficiency of the system to the fullest. The sensitivity
analysis helps the researchers to work upon the reliability measures and quality enhancement
technologies. The sensitivity of system is computed by varying the failure rates as
λ=0.01 , 0.02, 0.03 , … … 0.09of the units with time t = 0, 1, 2, 3….. 9
Sensitivity of Availability As the time increases the component A becomes least sensitive to
availability as compared to other units. Also, the table clearly signifies that with respect to the failure
of the units B and C and also for the human failure case, the sensitivity of the system is unexpectedly
exactly equal. The graph shows a sharp decline in the curve for unit A.

Time λA λB λC λh
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
1 -0.1832 -0.6019 -0.6019 -0.6019
2 -0.7168 -0.8326 -0.8326 -0.8326
3 -1.5471 -0.9680 -0.9680 -0.9680
4 -2.6094 -1.0841 -1.0841 -1.0841
5 -3.8421 -1.1979 -1.1979 -1.1979
6 -5.1903 -1.3100 -1.3100 -1.3100
7 -6.6060 -1.4174 -1.4174 -1.4174
 8 -8.0483 -1.5164 -1.5164 -1.5164
9 -9.4824 -1.6042 -1.6042 -1.6042
10 -10.8794 -1.6787 -1.6787 -1.6787
Table 6.

0
B, C & h

-2
Sensitivity of Availability

-4 A

-6

-8

-10

-12
0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (t)

Figure 6
Sensitivity of Reliability

As the time increases, the system becomes less and less sensitive to reliability. Unit A remains most
sensitive to reliability as compared to other units as well as the human error, though decreases
sharply with time.

Time λA λB λC λh
0 28.4362 4.2128 4.2128 4.2128
1 25.5025 2.8813 2.8813 2.8813
2 22.4841 1.7295 1.7295 1.7295
3 19.4968 0.7525 0.7525 0.7525
4 16.6245 -0.0587 -0.0587 -0.0587
5 13.9258 -0.7163 -0.7163 -0.7163
6 11.4387 -1.2346 -1.2346 -1.2346
7 9.1852 -1.6283 -1.6283 -1.6283
8 7.1747 -1.9129 -1.9129 -1.9129
 9 5.4072 -2.1031 -2.1031 -2.1031
10 3.8755 -2.2131 -2.2131 -2.2131
Table 7.

The graph is very illustrative and in the beginning the gap of sensitivity of the unit A and that of units
B and C together is much higher but decreases gradually.

30

25
Sensitivity of Reliability

20

15

10 A

0 B, C & h

-5
0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (t)

Figur
e7
Sensitivity of MTTF

In general, the sensitivity of the MTTF of the system increases with the increase in the failure rates.

Failure rates λA λB λC λh
0.01 -2541.3223 -78.1250 -50.0000 -41.3223
0.02 -659.7222 -61.7284 -41.3223 -34.7222
0.03 -307.3636 -50.0000 -34.7222 -29.5858
0.04 -181.7602 -41.3223 -29.5858 -25.5102
0.05 -122.2222 -34.7222 -25.5102 -22.2222
0.06 -88.9757 -29.5858 -22.2222 -19.5312
0.07 -68.3214 -25.5102 -19.5312 -17.3010
0.08 -54.4946 -22.2222 -17.3010 -15.4321
0.09 -44.7146 -19.5312 -15.4321 -13.8504
Table 8
 B h

C
-500
A
MTTF Sensitivity

-1000

-1500

-2000

-2500
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10
Failure rate

Figure 8
IV. CONCLUSION
The proposed system presents the behaviour of a system under the influence of human error
together with the unit failure with the increase in time. Also, it presents a detailed variation in the
different reliability measures like reliability, availability, MTTF and system sensitivity to these
reliability measures with variation in the failure rates of the units.

(i) Table 2, 3 and 4 as well as figures 2, 3 and 4 clearly show the availability, reliability and
MTTF show a downfall with the passage of time. In fact, reliability is becomes lower than
availability.
(ii) MTTF is highest and least for the unit A only. The graph clearly highlights the values of
MTTF. The behaviour of the MTTF of unit A is slightly different than the others. Also, for
some value of the failure rate the MTTF values of the two units B and C are same.
(iii) Expected profit shows a hike in the table 5 and graph 5 though for the maintenance the
service cost increases.
(iv) Sensitivity analysis shows that unit A is least sensitive to system availability and
reliability as compared to units B and C or even to human failure. In fact, sensitivity of
availability with respect to unit A decreases sharply.
(v) With respect to unit A sensitivity of MTTF of the system is the highest and also increases
sharply as compared to that of B and C as also that of Human failure sensitivity.

The scope of such a system in future lies in the fact that the researches can be done to control
the sensitivity as is required in case of sensitivity of MTTF to increase the reliability measures
and hence the profit. This proposed model can be a starting point to develop some systems with
the better achievable reliability measures and expected profit controlling g the failure rate
 increase pattern as well as the human interactions factor as well as other failures can be
incorporated.

References
1. Lakhoua, M. N. (2013) Systemic analysis of an industrial system: case study of a grain silo.
Arabian J. Sci. Eng. 38(5), 1243–1254.
2. Ram, M. (2013) On system reliability approaches: a brief survey. Int. J. Syst. Assur. Eng.
Manag. 4(2), 101–117.
3. Nupur, G., Ram, M., Amoli S., and Suyal, A. (2016) Sensitivity analysis of a three -unit series
system under k out of n redundancy, International journal of quality and reliability
maintenance, volume no. 34, 770-784
4. Pham, H. (1992) Reliability analysis of a high voltage system with dependent failures and
imperfect coverage, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 25-28.
5. Pham, H. (2010) On the estimation of reliability of k-out-of-n systems. Int. J. Syst. Assur.
Eng. Manag. 1(1), 32–35.
6. Li, W., Zuo, M. J. (2008) Reliability evaluation of multi state weighted of a k-out-of-n
systems. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 93(1), 160–167 (2008).
7. Ebrahimipur, V., Qurayshi, S. F., Shabani, A., Maleki-Shoja, B. (2011) Reliability optimization
of multi-state weighted k-out-of-n systems by fuzzy mathematical programming and genetic
algorithm. Int. J. Syst. Assur. Eng. Manag. 2(4), 312–318.
8. Dhillon, B.S. and Liu, Y. (2006) Human errors in maintenance: a review. J. Qual. Maint. Eng.
12(1), 21–36.
9. Giuntini, R. E. (2000) Mathematical characterization of human reliability for multi-task
system operations. IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, vol. 2,
pp. 1325–1329.
10. Dhillon, B.S. and Yang, N. (1992) Stochastic analysis of standby systems with common cause
failures and human errors. Microelectron. Reliab. 32(12), 1699–1712.
11. Sutcliffe, A.G., and Gregoriades, A. (2007) Automating scenario analysis of human and
system reliability. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part A Syst. Hum. 37(2), 249–261 .
12. Dhillon, B.S.: (1989) Human errors: a review. Microelectron. Reliab. 29(3), 299–304.
13. Dhillon, B. S. and Rayapati, S. N. (1985) Reliability analysis of non-maintained parallel
systems subject to hardware failure and human error. Microelectron. Reliab. 25(1), 111–
122.
14. Dhillon, B.S., and Rayapati, S. N. (1988) Human performance reliability modelling.
Microelectron. Reliab. 28(1), 573–580.
15. Sawaragi T. (1999) Modeling and analysis of human interactions with and within complex
systems. IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, vol. 1, pp. 701–
707.
16. Dhillon, B. S., and Yang, N. (1993) Availability of a man-machine system with critical and
non-critical human error. Microelectron. Reliab. 33(10), 1511–1521. .
17. Ram, M., Kumar A (2014): Performance of a structure consisting a 2-out-of-3: F substructure
under human failure.
18. El-Damcese, M. A., and Temraz, N. S. (2012). Analysis for a parallel repairable system with
different failure modes, Journal of Reliability and Statistical Studies, 5(1), p. 95-106.
19. Gupta, R., and Bansal, S. (1991). Cost analysis of a three-unit standby system subject to
random shocks and linearly increasing failure rates, Reliability Engineering and System
Safety, 33, p. 249-263.
20. Lin, Yi-K. (2010) Spare Routing Reliability for a Stochastic Flow Network Through Two
Minimal Paths Under Budget Constraint.
21. Ibrahim, W., Y., and Abdullahi S. (2020) On planned time replacement of series-parallel
system DOI:10.7232/aotp.2017.16.1.001
22. Ram, M., Singh, S. B., and Singh, V. V. (2013). Stochastic Analysis of a Standby System with
Waiting Repair Strategy, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 43(3), p. 698-
707.
23. Ram, M., and Singh S. B. (2010) Analysis of a complex system with common cause failure
and two types of repair facilities with different distributions in failure. Int J Reliab Saf
4(4):381–392
24. Singh, S. B., Ram M., and Chaube S. (2011) Analysis of the reliability of a three-component
system with two repairmen, IJE Trans.A, Basics, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 395–402.
25. Gupta, P. P., and Agarwal S. C. (1984) Cost function analysis of a 3-state reparaible system,
Microelectron. Reliab., vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 51–53.
26. Garg, R., and Goyal, L. R. (1985) Cost analysis of a system with common cause failure and
two types of repair facilities,” Microelectron. Reliab., vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 281–284.