2011 Annual RELIABILITY and MAINTAINABILITY Symposium

An Introduction to Probability Models

in Reliability and Maintainability

C. Richard Cassady, Ph. D.

C. Richard Cassady, Ph.D.

Department of Industrial Engineering
University of Arkansas
4207 Bell Engineering Center
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 USA
e-mail: cassady@uark.edu

Tutorial Notes © 2011 AR&MS

 SUMMARY & PURPOSE
The purpose of this tutorial is to provide attendees with basic coverage of the traditional, fundamental probability models
used to describe, improve, and optimize system reliability and maintainability. This coverage requires the discussion of some
basic concepts from probability and distribution theory. No specific models are endorsed. Instead, emphasis is placed on
identifying the key assumptions associated with each model.

C. Richard Cassady, Ph.D.

Richard Cassady is a Professor in the Department of Industrial Engineering and the Director of the Freshman Engineering
Program at the University of Arkansas. Prior to joining the faculty at UofA, he was on the faculty at Mississippi State
University. He received his Ph.D., M.S. and B.S. all in industrial and systems engineering from Virginia Tech. His primary
reliability research interests are in repairable systems modeling. This work includes the analysis and development of equipment
maintenance policies including preventive maintenance, selective maintenance and cannibalization. He is a Senior Member of
IIE, and a member of ASEE, INFORMS and SRE. He is also a member of the RAMS Management Committee.

Table of Contents

1. Reliability Models ................................................................................................................................................................1

2. Repairable Systems ..............................................................................................................................................................1
3. Renewal Models ...................................................................................................................................................................2
4. Minimal Repair Models........................................................................................................................................................3
5. Imperfect Maintenance .........................................................................................................................................................4
6. Advanced Topics ..................................................................................................................................................................6
7. Conclusions ..........................................................................................................................................................................6
8. References ............................................................................................................................................................................6
9. Tutorial Visuals…………………………………………………………………………………….. ...................................8

ii – Cassady 2011 AR&MS Tutorial Notes

 1. RELIABILITY MODELS
1.1 Probability Primer
Reliability is defined as the probability that a component
(or an entire system) performs its intended function for a
specified period of time when operated in its design
environment. If we assume that the component is used for its
intended function in its design environment, then reliability
can be defined as the probability of proper function. For this
reason, any treatment of basic reliability begins with coverage
of key concepts from basic probability.
The basic building block of probability theory is the
random experiment. A random experiment is an occurrence
that has an unpredictable outcome. The sample space for a
random experiment (denoted by Ω) is the set of all possible
outcomes for the random experiment. Events (denoted by
italicized capital letters) are meaningful subsets of the sample
space. Note that examples intended to emphasize the
definitions and reinforce the concepts presented throughout
this tutorial are included in the tutorial visuals in Section 3.
Probabilities (as will be explored later) are defined on
events, but it is often interesting to combine events using three
common operators. The union (denoted by ∪) of a collection
of events is the event corresponding to the case in which at
least one of the events in the collection occurs. The
intersection (denoted by ∩) of a collection of events is the
event corresponding to the case in which all of the events in
the collection occur. The complement (denoted by ′) of an
event is the event corresponding to the case in which the event
does not occur.
Applying event operators leads to additional definitions.
If two events having no outcomes in common, then the
intersection of the two events is the null event (denoted by φ).
In this case, the two events are said to be mutually exclusive
or disjoint. A collection of events is said to be disjoint if there
is no intersection among any of the events in the collection.
The branch of mathematics known as probability is based
on three axioms (Note that Pr(A) denotes the probability of an
event A).
Axiom 1: For any event A, 0 ≤ Pr(A) ≤ 1.
Axiom 2: Pr(Ω) = 1
Axiom 3: If A and B are mutually exclusive events, then
Pr(A ∪ B) = Pr(A) + Pr(B).
These axioms can be used to derive all of the most
commonly-used probability rules. Two such rules are
Pr(A′) = 1 − Pr(A)
and
Pr(A ∪ B) = Pr(A) + Pr(B)
where A and B are events.
In some cases, knowledge of the occurrence of one event
may alter one’s belief regarding the probability of some other
event. In such cases, conditional probability is used to update
the probability of interest. Let Pr(A|B) denote the conditional
probability of event A given the occurrence of event B where
Pr
Pr |
Pr
If a collection of events is such that knowledge of the
occurrence of one event in the collection has no impact on
2011 Annual RELIABILITY and MAINTAINABILITY Symposium
one’s beliefs regarding the probabilities of the other events in
the collection, then the collection is a collection of
independent events. If A and B are independent events, then
Pr(A|B) = Pr(A). If {A1, A2, … , An} is a collection of
independent events, then
Pr Pr
1.2 Static Reliability Models
2. REPAIRABLE SYSTEMS
A good definition of a repairable system can be obtained
by modifying the one provided by Ascher and Feingold [9]. A
repairable system (RS) is a system which, after failure, can be
restored to a functioning condition by some maintenance
action other than replacement of the entire system. Note that
replacing the entire system may be an option, but it is not the
only option.
Maintenance actions performed on a RS can be
categorized into two groups: corrective maintenance (CM)
actions and preventive maintenance (PM) actions. CM actions
are performed in response to system failures, and they could
correspond to either repair or replacement activities. PM
actions are not performed in response to RS failure, but they
are intended to delay or prevent system failures. Note that PM
actions may or may not be cheaper and/or faster than CM
actions. As with CM actions, PM actions can correspond to
either repair or replacement activities. Finally, operational
maintenance actions, e.g. putting gas in a vehicle, are not
considered to be PM actions.
PM actions can be divided into two sub-categories.
Scheduled maintenance (SM) actions are planned based on
some measure of elapsed time. Condition-based maintenance
(CBM) actions are initiated based on data obtained from
sensors applied to the RS. Vibration data and chemical
analysis data are two examples of the type of data used in
CBM. While it is still a developing science, CBM provides the
potential for just-in-time, cost-effective maintenance.
However, scheduled maintenance is the only type of PM
considered further in this tutorial.
Repairable systems modeling refers to the application of
operations research techniques (e.g., probability modeling,
optimization, simulation) to problems related to equipment
maintenance. Repairable system models are typically used to
evaluate the performance of one or more repairable systems
and/or design maintenance policies for one or more repairable
systems.
In our discussions, we assume that a RS is always in one
of two states: functioning (up) or down. Note that a system
may be down for CM or down for PM.
The performance of a RS can be measured in several
ways. We consider three categories of RS performance
measures: (1) number of failures, (2) availability measures, (3)
cost measures. Let N(t) denote the number of RS failures in
the first t time units of system operation. Because of the
stochastic (random) nature of RS behavior, N(t) is a random
variable. Thus, we may focus our attention on the expected
value, variance and probability distribution of N(t).
Cassady – 1
 Availability can be loosely defined as the proportion of cp cost (per time unit) of PM
time that a RS is in a functioning condition. However, there ca cost of RS replacement
are four specific measures of availability found in the RS Consider a RS that: (1) is modeled as a single component
literature [10]. All these measures are based on the RS status or a “black box”; (2) is intended to function 24 hours per day,
function: 7 days per week; (3) has self-announcing (obvious) failures;
⎧1 if system is functionin g at time t (4) is binary-state – as in equation (1); (5) is “as good as new”
X (t ) = ⎨ (1) at time t = 0; (6) is subjected to either SM or no PM. We
⎩0 if system is down at time t utilize our own taxonomy to capture the essential elements of
See Fig. 1 for a graphical portrayal of X(t). the models of such repairable systems. This taxonomy has six
parts and can be summarized by 1/2/3/4/5/6 where 1 describes
X(t)
initiation of a the probabilistic characteristics of the time to first failure of
maintenance action the RS, 2 describes the duration of CM, 3 describes the impact
of CM on the age of the RS, 4 describes the type of PM policy
1 (if any), 5 describes the duration of PM, and 6 describes the
impact of PM on the age of the RS.
3.RENEWAL MODELS
The first class of RS models that we address is based on
concepts and results from renewal theory.
0 3.1 A Generic Case – The G/G/P Model
0 completion of the
t We first consider a RS having the six characteristics
maintenance action
related to our taxonomy. In the description G/G/P, the first G
Figure 1. Graphical Portrayal of X(t) implies that the time to first failure of the RS is some type of
random variable. The second G implies that the duration of
The first of these availability measures is the availability CM is some type of random variable. The P implies that CM
function, A(t). is perfect, i.e. CM restores the RS to an “as good as new”
A(t ) = Pr[X (t ) = 1] (2) condition. Note that the “as good as new” assumption is the
Note that A(t) is typically difficult to obtain and rarely used in key assumption and often the subject of criticism of the
practice. The second measure is limiting availability, A. corresponding models (except when CM corresponds to RS
A = lim A(t ) (3) replacement). The absence of the last three elements of the
t →∞
taxonomy implies that no PM is performed.
By far the most commonly-used availability measure, limiting Let Ti denote the duration of the ith interval of RS
availability is often easy to obtain mathematically. However, function. Because of the “as good as new” assumption, {T1,
there are some cases in which limiting availability does not T2, … } is a sequence of independent and identically
exist. The third availability measure is the average availability distributed (iid) random variables. Let Di denote the duration
function, Aavg(T). of the ith CM action, and note that {D1, D2, … } are assumed
1T to be iid random variables. Therefore, each cycle (function,
Aavg (T ) = ∫ A(t ) dt (4)
T 0 CM) has identical probabilistic behavior, and the completion
Average availability corresponds to the average proportion of of a CM action is a renewal point for the stochastic process
“uptime” over the first T time units of system operation. Since {X(t), t ≥ 0}.
it is based on A(t), average availability is typically difficult to Regardless of the probability distributions governing Ti
obtain and rarely used in practice. However, because it and Di, the limiting availability is easy to obtain [10].
captures availability behavior over a finite period of time, it is E (Ti ) MTTF
A= = (6)
a valuable measure of RS performance. The final availability E (Ti ) + E (Di ) MTTF + MTTR
measure is limiting average availability, Aavg. Suppose Ti is a Weibull random variable having shape
Aavg = lim
t →∞
Aavg (t ) (5) parameter β = 2 and scale parameter η = 1000 hours. Then
When it exists, limiting average availability is almost always ⎡ ⎛ t ⎞β ⎤
equivalent to limiting availability. To our knowledge, limiting R (t ) = Pr (Ti > t ) = exp ⎢− ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎥ (7)
average availability is almost never used in practice. ⎣⎢ ⎝ η ⎠ ⎦⎥
Cost functions are often used to evaluate the performance ⎛ 1⎞
of a RS. The form of this function depends on the reliability MTTF = η Γ⎜⎜1 + ⎟⎟ = 886.2 hours (8)
and maintainability characteristics of the RS of interest. ⎝ β⎠
However, these functions typically include a subset of the Suppose Di is a normal random variable having a mean
following cost parameters. (MTTR) of 25 hours. Thus,
cf cost of a failure 886.2
cost per time unit of “downtime”
A= = 0.9726 (9)
cd 886.2 + 25
cr cost (per time unit) of CM For this example, availability and average availability values

2 – Cassady 2011 AR&MS Tutorial Notes

can be estimated using simulation. of PM is random variable, and the second P indicates that PM
restores the RS to an “as good as new” condition. Note that
3.2 A Special Case – The CFR/E/− Model PM may be worthwhile if PM is cheaper and/or faster than
In the description CFR/E/−, the CFR implies that Ti is an CM, since the RS has an increasing failure rate and PM
exponential random variable having failure rate λ, and the E reduces the age of the RS. Therefore, it may be of interest to
implies that Di is an exponential random variable having derive an optimal PM policy for the RS. Specifically, we can
repair rate μ. Since the RS has a constant failure rate (CFR), modify our existing probability models to identify the value of
RS aging and the impact of CM are irrelevant. Note that the τ that maximizes the limiting availability of the RS.
CFR/E/− model is a special case of the G/G/P model. For this Let T denote the duration of an interval of RS function.
RS [10]: Let f(t) denote the probability density function (pdf) of T, and
μ λ let F(t) denote the cumulative distribution function (cdf) of T.
A(t ) = + e −(λ + μ )t (10) Let DPM denote the duration of a PM action, and let DCM
λ+μ λ+μ denote the duration of a CM action.
μ Fig. 4 contains a graphical portrayal of RS behavior under
A= (11)
λ+μ such a PM policy.
λ [1 − e − (λ + μ )T ] + μ (λ + μ )T
Aavg (T ) = (12)
(λ + μ )2 T Function
For example, suppose λ = 0.001 failures per hour (MTTF
= 1000 hours) and μ = 0.025 repairs per hour (MTTR = 40 τ if T > τ T if T ≤ τ
hours). In this case,
0.025 1000 DPM DCM
A= = = 0.9615 (13)
0.001 + 0.025 1000 + 40
A plot of A(t) can be found in Fig. 2, and a plot of Aavg(T) can
be found in Fig. 3. PM CM
1

0.99 Figure 4. RS Behavior under an Age-Based PM Policy

Because of our assumptions, the completion of any
0.98
maintenance action corresponds to a renewal point, and
E (uptime )
A= (14)
E (uptime ) + E (downtime )
0.97

We can derive E(uptime) and E(downtime) by conditioning on

100 200 300 400 500 the value of T.
τ

Figure 2. Example Availability Function – A(t) vs. t E (uptime ) = ∫ tf (t )dt + τ [1 − F (τ )] (15)

0

1 E (downtime ) = E (DCM )F (τ ) + E (DPM )[1 − F (τ )] (16)

0.99
0.98
0.97
500 1000 1500 2000
Figure 3. Example Average Availability Function – A(t) vs. t
3.3 PM Optimization − The W/G/P/A/G/P Model
In the description W/G/P/A/G/P, the W indicates that the
time to first failure is a Weibull random variable with shape
parameter β (β > 1) and scale parameter η. Note that since β >
1, the RS has an increasing failure rate (IFR). The A indicates
that the RS is subjected to an age-based PM policy: If the RS
functions without failure for τ time units, a PM action is
initiated. Furthermore, the second G indicates that the duration
Note that the integral in E(uptime) typically must be evaluated
numerically. Numerical analysis can then be used to compute
limiting availability values for various values of τ.
For example, suppose T is a Weibull random variable
having β = 2 and η = 80 hours. Suppose E(DCM) = 8 hours and
E(DPM) = 2 hours. Fig. 5 contains a plot (generated by
Mathematica) of the limiting availability of the RS as a
function of the age-based PM policy, τ. The optimal PM
policy is τ* = 47.5 hours with a corresponding limiting
availability of 0.9182.
4. MINIMAL REPAIR MODELS
The second class of RS models that we address is based
on the concept of minimal repair.
4.1 The Generic Case – The G/0/M Model
In the description G/0/M, the G again implies that the
time to first failure of the RS is a random variable. The 0
implies that CM is instantaneous, and the absence of the last

2011 Annual RELIABILITY and MAINTAINABILITY Symposium Cassady – 3

three elements of the taxonomy implies that no PM is
performed. The M implies that CM is minimal, i.e. CM
restores the RS to an “as bad as old” condition. Minimal CM,
or minimal repair, implies that the RS functions after CM but
its equivalent age is the same as it was at the time of failure.
As with the “as good as new” assumption, the realism of the
“as bad as old” assumption is often questioned.
0.918
0.916
0.914
40 50 60
Furthermore, N(t+s) − N(s), the number of failures in the
interval (s,t+s], is also a Poisson random variable having mean
λt [11]. The implication of this result is that the number of
failures in a given interval depends only on the length of the
interval. Note that this is not true for an NHPP.
4.3 The W/0/M Model – The Power Law Process
Suppose T is a Weibull random variable having shape
parameter β and scale parameter η. Then,
β
z (t ) = β t β −1 (28)
η
β
⎛t⎞
Z (t ) = ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ (29)
⎝η ⎠
and {N(t), t ≥ 0} is a power law process. If β > 1 (β < 1), then
the intensity function increases (decreases) and failures tend to
occur more (less) frequently over time. Suppose β = 1.75 and
70

η = 1500 hours. Then,

E [N (1000)] = 0.4919 (30)
Figure 5. Example PM Optimization – A vs. τ
E [N (2000 ) − N (1000 )] = 1.1626 (31)
Let T denote the duration of the first interval of RS E [N (3000 ) − N (2000 )] = 1.7092 (32)
function. Let f(t) denote the pdf of T, let F(t) denote the cdf of
T, and let z(t) denote the hazard function of T. Then, {N(t), t ≥ Pr[N (1000) > 2] = 0.0138 (33)
0} is a non-homogeneous Poisson process (NHPP) having Pr[N (2000) − N (1000) > 2] = 0.1125 (34)
intensity function z(t) [11]. Since {N(t), t ≥ 0} is an NHPP Pr[N (3000 ) − N (2000 ) > 2] = 0.2452 (35)
having intensity function z(t), then N(t) is a Poisson random
variable having mean Z(t), where Z(t) is the cumulative 4.3 Optimal Replacement – The W/0/M/B/0/P Model
intensity function..
t
Consider the W/0/M model with β > 1. Suppose the RS
Z (t ) = ∫ z (u ) du (17) under consideration has an increasing intensity function. Over
0 time, failures will tend to occur more frequently, and at some
Furthermore, N(t+s) − N(s) is a Poisson random variable point, it will become economical to replace the system. Let τ
having mean Z(t+s) − Z(s) [11]. denote the replacement time. Replacement of this type would
N (t ) ∈ {0,1,K} (18) be equivalent to perfect, instantaneous PM under a Block PM
policy. The results is the W/0/M/B/0/P model. For such a RS,
E [N (t )] = Var [N (t )] = Z (t ) (19)
we can use a cost model to choose an optimal value of τ.
e − Z (t ) [Z (t )]
n

Pr [N (t ) = n ] = (20) Let cf denote the cost of a failure, let ca denote the cost of
n! replacing the RS, and let C(τ) denote the cost per unit time of
N (t + s ) − N (s )∈ {0,1, K} (21) RS ownership if the RS is replaced at time τ. Then:
E [N (t + s ) − N (s )] = Z (t + s ) − Z (s ) (22) E[C (τ )] = {ca + c f E[N (τ )]}
1
(36)
Var [N (t + s ) − N (s )] = Z (t + s ) − Z (s ) (23) τ

Pr [N (t + s ) − N (s ) = n ] =
e − [Z (t + s )− Z ( s )] [Z (t + s ) − Z (s )]
n

(24)
E[C (τ )] =
1
τ
[c a + c f Z (τ ) ] (37)
n!
c f τ β −1
E [C (τ )] =
ca
+ (38)
4.2 The CFR/0/− Model – The Poisson Process τ ηβ
If T is an exponential random variable then z(t) is a Differentiation and algebraic manipulation yield [9]:
1β
constant value λ and {N(t), t ≥ 0} is a Poisson process having ⎡ c ηβ ⎤
rate λ. In this case, the impact of CM is irrelevant. Since CM τ =⎢ a
∗
⎥ (39)
is instantaneous, {N(t), t ≥ 0} is a Poisson process having rate ⎣⎢ c f (β − 1) ⎦⎥
λ and N(t) is a Poisson random variable with mean λt [11]. For example, if β = 1.75, η = 1500 hours, ca = $1000, and cf =
N (t ) ∈ {0,1,K} (25) $75, then the RS should be replaced after τ* = 7768 hours.
E [N (t )] = Var [N (t )] = λt (26) 5.IMPERFECT MAINTENANCE

Pr[N (t ) = n] =
e − λt
(λt ) n

(27)
The final class of RS models that we address is based on
n! the concept of imperfect maintenance [12]. The phrase
“imperfect maintenance” typically refers to the impact of CM

4 – Cassady 2011 AR&MS Tutorial Notes

on a RS. Imperfect maintenance is more effective than
minimal CM but not as effective as perfect CM. A wide
variety of imperfect maintenance models have been presented
in the literature [12]. Our focus is on two of the models.
5.1. The W/E/K1 Model
Under this model, the time to first RS failure is a Weibull
random variable having β > 1. In the description W/E/K1, the
K1 refers to Kijima’s first model [13] of the imperfect impact
of CM. In two papers [13,14], Kijima proposes this model and
another imperfect CM model that he refers to as “virtual age”
models. K1 refers to the first of these models.
Let Vi denote the virtual age of the RS after the ith CM
action, and let V0 = 0. Kijima’s first virtual age model
indicates that
Vi = Vi −1 + aTi (40)
where 0 < a < 1. Under this model, each CM action removes a
portion, 1 − a, of the age accumulated during the most recent
period of RS function.
After the first CM action, the RS age is V1 = aT1. The
duration of the second period of RS function (T2) is governed
by a residual Weibull probability distribution (the parameters
β and η are unchanged) given survival to age V1. Let F1(t)
denote the cdf of T1. Then:
⎡ ⎛ t ⎞β ⎤
The inputs to the simulation model are the RS reliability
and maintainability parameters (β, η, μ, a) and the following
simulation parameters: the run length (tend), the number of
observation points (m), and the number of replications (n).
Note that the m observation points {t1, t2, … , tm} are equally-
spaced over the simulation run. The outputs from the
simulation models are: Status(i,tj) – the status of the RS (1 or
0) at observation point j in replication i; Uptime(i,tj) – the
accumulated uptime of the RS at observation point j in
replication i; NumFailure(i,tj) – the cumulative number of RS
failures at observation point j in replication i. These outputs
can be converted to the following performance estimates:
Aˆ (t j ) = ∑ Status(i, t j )
1 n
(45)
n i =1
Aˆ avg (t j ) = ∑ Uptime(i, t j )
1 n
(46)
nt j i =1
[ 1 n
]
Eˆ N (t j ) = ∑ NumFailure(i, t j ) (47)
n i =1
Suppose β = 1.75, η = 1, μ = 5, and a = 0.2. Using the
output from n = 153,664 replications of a simulation of length
tend = 25 with m = 2000 observations, the RS performance
estimates were computed and compiled into Fig. 6. Note the
degrading availability behavior.
1 50

F1 (t ) = 1 − exp ⎢− ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎥ (41)
⎣⎢ ⎝ η ⎠ ⎦⎥
45

40

Let F2(t) denote the cdf of T2. Then: 0.85

35

⎡ ⎛ t + V ⎞β ⎛V ⎞β ⎤
F2 (t ) = 1 − exp ⎢− ⎜⎜ 1
⎟⎟ + ⎜⎜ 1 ⎟⎟ ⎥ (42)
30

⎣⎢ ⎝ η ⎠ ⎝ η ⎠ ⎦⎥ 0.7 25
A(t)
Aavg(t)
E[N(t)]

th
After the (i − 1) CM action, the RS age is: 20

i −1
Vi −1 = a ∑ T j
15

(43) 0. 55

10
j =1
th
The duration of the i period of RS function is governed by a 5

residual Weibull probability distribution (the parameters β and 0.4

0 6.25 12.5 18.75 25
0

η are unchanged) given survival to age Vi-. Let Fi(t) denote the t

cdf of Ti. Then: Figure 6. RS Performance under the W/E/K1 Model

⎡ ⎛ t + V ⎞β ⎛ V ⎞β ⎤
Fi (t ) = 1 − exp ⎢− ⎜⎜ 1−1
⎟⎟ + ⎜⎜ 1−1 ⎟⎟ ⎥ (44)
⎣⎢ ⎝ η ⎠ ⎝ η ⎠ ⎦⎥
Since β > 1 and a > 0, the age of the RS continues, the
age of the RS continues to increase over time. Therefore, the
reliability performance of the RS degrades over time. Note
that if a = 0, then CM is perfect, and note that if a = 1, then
CM is minimal.
Suppose we wish to evaluate the behavior of this type of
RS using the availability function, the average availability
function, or the average number of failures. We can use
discrete-event simulation to conduct this evaluation. With the
simulation approach, we begin by constructing a computer
program that mimics RS function, failure, CM and aging over
some finite time period. Within the computer program, we
track the status of the RS, the cumulative uptime of the RS,
and the number of RS failures, and we occasionally stop the
simulation clock and record these metrics. Then, we replicate
the entire process some specified number of times.
5.2 The W/E/K2 Model
Under Kijima’s second virtual age model (K2), RS aging
is governed by the following equation:
Vi = a(Vi −1 + Ti ) (48)
Under this model, each CM action removes a portion of the
total accumulated age. Using the same parameters as the
example in section 5.1, the simulation modeling approach can
be used to obtain the RS performance estimates capture in Fig.
7. Note that under Kijima’s second virtual age model, the RS
achieves steady-state availability performance.
As a final note, the simulation approach is applicable to
any RS model, but most appropriate for those that cannot yield
analytic performance results. Advances in computing
technology make it a more practical approach everyday, and in
many cases, the nature of the output makes it possible to
control the degree of uncertainty (e.g., confidence levels and
precision) in the results.

2011 Annual RELIABILITY and MAINTAINABILITY Symposium Cassady – 5

 1 30 component from another RS that is failed for some other
reason and waiting in some maintenance queue.
25
Cannibalization is often used as a maintenance alternative due
0.9
to the absence of spare parts and the need for reduced
20
maintenance delays.
0.8 15
A(t)
Aavg(t)
6.3 Allocating Maintenance Resources
E[N(t)]

Many RS models assume that the resources required to

perform maintenance are available in unlimited quantities. In
10

fact, components within a RS, and systems within an

0.7

organization, share maintenance resources. Typically,

0.6 0
0 6.25 12.5
t
18.75 25
Figure 7. RS Performance under the W/E/K2 Model
6.ADVANCED TOPICS
The models presented in this tutorial are very basic and
subject to some very limiting assumptions. However, these
models are applicable in many industrial and military settings.
More importantly, the concepts related to these models serve
as the building blocks for more complex and realistic
repairable systems models. We summarize some of these
advanced topics below.
6.1 System-Level Maintenance
A RS is almost always comprised of many components
that have different maintenance “needs”. Optimizing
maintenance planning at the component level is likely to be
suboptimal at the system level. Therefore, we need system-
level maintenance strategies for performing component-level
maintenance.
The availability function for a system is a function of the
availability functions of its components. If the components are
independent, then component availability functions can be
combined like reliability functions (e.g., series, parallel,
series-parallel) to construct the system availability function.
Often, components that comprise a system are not
independent. This dependence can be either structural or
economic. Structural dependence may manifest itself in terms
of common-cause failures or maintenance-induced damage.
Economic dependence may result in the potential for
opportunism.
Opportunism can be explained with a simple example.
Consider a RS comprised of two components. Either due to
failure or expiration of a PM interval, maintenance is about to
be performed on component 1. If component 2 is near the
expiration of its PM interval, then it may be worthwhile to go
ahead and perform PM on component 2. Such an action is an
opportunistic maintenance action [10].
6.2 Fleet-Level Maintenance
Organizations often utilize fleets of repairable systems
that share organizational resources. Maintenance plans should
account for the opportunities and limitations resulting from
having a fleet of identical repairable systems. One such
example is cannibalization.
Cannibalization refers to a maintenance action in which a
failed component in a RS is replaced with a functioning
insufficient resources are available for performing all
desirable maintenance actions. In such a case, a strategy is
needed for prioritizing maintenance actions and/or selecting a
subset of maintenance actions to perform. Such a strategy falls
in the domain of selective maintenance. For a single RS,
selective maintenance strategies answer questions such as:
Which components should be repaired? Which components
should be subjected to PM? Which components should be
replaced? [15,16,17,18] Given multiple RS in an
organization, selective maintenance strategies recommend
allocation of the organization’s maintenance resources.
6.5 Productive Maintenance (not Total Productive
Maintenance)
Models for optimizing PM policies typically use (as we
have) equipment availability or cost of equipment operation as
the performance measure. In most cases, a unit of equipment
(a single RS) only supports a part of an organization’s
mission. Maintenance decisions should be made so that the
productivity of the entire organization is maximized.
Examples of such a philosophy may include incorporating
production scheduling and PM planning or integrating vehicle
load assignment and PM planning.
7. CONCLUSIONS
In this tutorial, we present the basic reliability and
maintainability concepts and mathematical modeling
approaches associated with repairable systems. The concepts
and models should facilitate the attendee’s understanding of
the repairable systems modeling literature and ability to
formulate and solve repairable systems modeling problems.
As a final note, attendees may want to pursue
opportunities to learn more about several areas closely related
to repairable systems modeling. These areas in clued Markov
modeling, equipment inspection models, spare parts inventory
management, condition-based maintenance, and diagnostic
modeling.
8. REFERENCES
1. McCall, J.J. (1965) “Maintenance Policies for
Stochastically Failing Equipment: A Survey”,
Management Science, Vol. 11, No. 5, pp. 493-524.
2. Pierskalla, W.P., and J.A. Voelker (1976) “A Survey of
Maintenance Models: The Control and Surveillance of
Deteriorating Systems”, Naval Research Logistics
Quarterly, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 353-388.

6 – Cassady 2011 AR&MS Tutorial Notes

3. Osaki, S. and T. Nakagawa (1976) “Bibliography for
Reliability and Availability of Stochastic Systems”, IEEE
Transactions on Reliability, Vol. 25, pp. 284-287.
4. Sherif, Y.S. and M.L. Smith (1981) “Optimal
Maintenance Models for Systems Subject to Failure – A
Review”, Naval Research Logistics Quarterly, Vol. 28,
pp. 47-74.
5. Valdez-Flores, C. and R.M. Feldman (1989) “Survey of
Preventive Maintenance Models for Stochastically
Deteriorating Single-Unit Systems”, Naval Research
Logistics, Vol. 36, No. 4, pp. 419-446.
6. Cho, D.I. and M. Parlar (1991) “A Survey of Maintenance
Models for Multi-Unit Systems”, European Journal of
Operational Research, Vol. 51, pp. 1-23.
7. Dekker, R. (1996) “Applications of Maintenance
Optimization Models: A Review and Analysis”,
Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Vol. 51, No. 3,
pp. 229-240.
8. Wang, H. (2002) “A Survey of Maintenance Models for
Deteriorating Systems”, European JOrunal of
Operational Research, Vol. 139, pp. 469-489.
9. Ascher, H. and H. Feingold (1984) Repairable Systems
Reliability, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York.
10. Barlow, R.E. and F. Proschan (1965) Mathematical
Theory of Reliability, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New
York.
11. Ross, S.M. (1989) Introduction to Probability Models,
Seventh Edition, Harcourt Academic Press, San Diego.
2011 Annual RELIABILITY and MAINTAINABILITY Symposium
12. Pham, H. and H. Wang (1996) “Imperfect Maintenance”,
European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 94, pp.
425-438.
13. Kijima, M., H. Morimura, and Y. Suzuki (1988) “Periodic
Replacement Problem Without Assuming Minimal
Repair”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol.
37, pp. 194-203.
14. Kijima, M. (1989) “Some Results for Repairable Systems
With General Repair”, Journal of Applied Probability,
Vol. 26, pp. 89-102.
15. Rice, W.F., C.R. Cassady and J.A. Nachlas (1998)
“Optimal Maintenance Plans under Limited Maintenance
Time”, Industrial Engineering Research ’98 Conference
Proceedings.
16. Cassady, C.R., W.P. Murdock and E.A. Pohl (2001) “A
Deterministic Selective Maintenance Model for Complex
Systems”, Recent Advances in Reliability and Quality
Engineering (H. Pham, Editor), World Scientific,
Singapore, pp. 311-325.
17. Cassady, C.R., E.A. Pohl and W.P. Murdock (2001)
“Selective Maintenance Modeling for Industrial
Systems”, Journal of Quality in Maintenance
Engineering, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 104-117.
18. Cassady, C.R., W.P. Murdock and E.A. Pohl (2001)
“Selective Maintenance for Support Equipment Involving
Multiple Maintenance Actions”, European Journal of
Operational Research, Vol. 129, No. 2, pp. 252-258.
Cassady – 7