Upload
madhurgujar
View
538
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
01-02-2012
1
neer
ing
Cen
tre
Reliability Modeling and E l ti
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i
1
Evaluation
neer
ing
Cen
tre
DEFINITIONS
System is a collection of componentsconfigured to realize a given task.
This can be described through:
• Structure Function (Mathematical)
L i Di (Vi l)
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i • Logic Diagram (Visual)
2
neer
ing
Cen
tre
TYPE OF SYSTEMS
Systems are of two types:
• Non-maintained (Reliability and associated metrics)
• Maintained (Availability and associated metrics)
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i metrics)
• Appropriate stochastic models are verymuch different for these two types ofsystems!
3
neer
ing
Cen
tre
SYSTEM RELIABILITY MODELLING
• In case of non-maintained systems, systemreliability or Mean Time To Failure ( MTTF) isgenerally the main criteria of systemperformance.
• On the other hand, in case of maintainedsystems, maintainability design (MD) goeshand in hand with its design for reliability
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i hand-in-hand with its design for reliability(DFR) and the system needs to be designed forboth reliability and maintainability, or forMTTF and MTTR, and
• Many a times, system availability is oftenoptimized within the resources available forsystem design.
4
01-02-2012
2
neer
ing
Cen
tre
SYSTEM HIERARCHY
• All systems have a built-in hierarchy
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i
5
neer
ing
Cen
tre
SYSTEM MODELLING
• One can model system in any of the followingways using failure/success criterion:
Black Box ApproachIn this approach, the state of system is described either interms of the two states (working/ failed) or more than twostates without linking them to the components of the
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i
system.
White Box ApproachIn this approach, one models the state of the systemspecifically in terms of the states of various components ofthe system.
6
neer
ing
Cen
tre
SYSTEM MODELLING
White Box Modeling: The first one is called Forward (or Bottom up) approach. The other
is called Backward (top-down) approach.
1. In the forward approach, one starts with events(success or failure) at item level and thenproceeds forward to system level to evaluate theconsequences of such events on system
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i consequences of such events on systemperformance.
2. In the Backward approach, one starts at systemlevel and proceeds downward to the item levelto link system performance to success/failures atitem level.
7
neer
ing
Cen
tre
SYSTEM MODELLING
Linking the system performance to thefailures/success at item level can be donequalitatively or quantitatively.
In the qualitative analysis, the focus is on causalrelationships that link the item level events to
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i
system events or vice-versa.
In quantitative analysis, one obtains variousmeasures of system performance (e.g., systemreliability) in terms of items performance. (e.g.,item reliabilities)
8
01-02-2012
3
neer
ing
Cen
tre
GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION
• There are two ways of graphically representing the functional relationship in a Qualitative analysis of a system. The first one is Block diagram or Reliability Logic Diagram (RLD) approach. An RLD indicates which components of the system must operate for
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i
successful operation of the system. The other approach involves indication of which components must failbefore the system fails. This graphical representation is done through Fault Tree Logic Diagram. Block Diagram approach is optimistic approach of modelling whereas the FTA is pessimistic approachof Modelling.
neer
ing
Cen
tre
BLOCK DIAGRAM OF A SYSTEM
• Since the system modeling is done on the basis offunctional interrelationship of the constituent itemsin relation to the overall functioning of the system,one has to keep the hierarchy of the system in view.
• Therefore, we must consider the success of thesystem vis à vis the success of the constituent
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i system vis-à-vis the success of the constituentsubsystems and then success of each subsystem isconsidered vis-a-vis the success of the constitutingcomponents. This exercise will eventually result ina Block Diagram of the system.
neer
ing
Cen
tre
RELIABILITY LOGIC/BLOCK/NETWORK DIAGRAM
• A diagram which shows the logical relationships of systemsuccess (or failure) with success (or failure) of itsconstituent parts is termed as RLD/RBD/NRLD.
• RLD indicates that which component(s) in a system mustoperate without any failure for successful operation of thesystem
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i system.
• To develop RLD and reliability analysis thereof requireunderstanding and depiction of operational relationships orlogical interrelationships amongst its constituent items(subsystems, units or elements or parts.)
11
neer
ing
Cen
tre
BLOCK DIAGRAM OF A JET ENGINE
• Jet Engine– Fuel Supply System
• Fuel Pump
• Fuel Filter
– Carburetor• Jet
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i
• Other Components
– Ignition System (2)• LV
• HV
01-02-2012
4
neer
ing
Cen
tre
ASSUMPTION IN MODELING
• All elements and systems can be either in operatingor failed state, i.e., two state modeling.
• All elements are in operating state initially exceptpossibly in the case of redundancy.
• States of all elements are statistically independent.(Failure of one element does not affect the probability
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i (Failure of one element does not affect the probabilityof failure of other elements).
• The reliabilities of all constituent components areknown through some “reliability analysis”.
13
neer
ing
Cen
tre
INDEPENDENT FAILURES
• Failure times of components are influenced byenvironmental conditions. As the environmentgets harsher, the time to failure of componentdecreases.
• If the components of a system share the sameenvironment, failure times of components
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i environment, failure times of componentsbecome statistically dependent.
• However, if the dependence is weak, or thecomponents are located far apart, one canignore dependence and treat the failure times asbeing statistically independent.
neer
ing
Cen
tre
INDEPENDENT FAILURES
• The advantage of this assumption is thatthe failure times of a component can bemodelled separately using Univariatefailure distribution functions.
• If the dependence is significant
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i If the dependence is significant,multivariate failure distributions must beused and the analysis becomes much morecomplicated.
neer
ing
Cen
tre
Reliability Models
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i
16
01-02-2012
5
neer
ing
Cen
tre
VARIOUS SYSTEM MODELS
Now we will consider various systemmodels that can be built for a givensituation. Among these system models areseries, parallel, series-parallel andparallel-series, k-out-of-m:G, standby,
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i
partial standby , non-series parallel modeletc. We will consider these one by one andderive system reliability and system MTTFfor these configurations.
neer
ing
Cen
tre
Series & Parallel Systems
Series System Parallel System
non-redundant system(all components must work for system success)
fully redundant system(all components must fail for system failure)
TR1, 10 kVA TR1, 20 kVA
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i18
,
TR2, 10 kVA
15 kVALoad
TR2, 20 kVA
15 kVALoad
212
1
neer
ing
Cen
tre
Let R = P [Success]
Q = P [Failure]
R + Q = 1
n
i
21s
R
RRR
Ss
RR1
R1Q
21
Series System
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i
19
1i
2121
21
21
QQQQ
)Q)(1Q-(1-1
RR1
product rule of reliability
S
R1 R2
S
Q1 Q2
neer
ing
Cen
tre
Example:
A system consists of 10 identical components, all ofwhich must work for system success. What is thesystem reliability if each component has a reliability of0.95?
Component reliability, R = 0.95
Number of components n = 10
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i
20
Number of components, n = 10
Using Product Rule of Reliability,
System Reliability, Rs = Rn
= (0.95)10 = 0.5987
01-02-2012
6
neer
ing
Cen
tre
Series System
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
tem
Rel
iab
ilit
y
0.98
0.999
If each component has a reliability of 0.9.
Number of Components
Reliability
1 2 3 4 5
0.9 0.81 0.729 0.6561 0 59049
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Number of Components
Sys
t
0.9
System Reliability decreases as the number of components increases in a Series System. The number on the curve is the reliability of each component.
5 10 20 50
0.59049 0.348678 0.121577 0.005154
21
neer
ing
Cen
tre
• Most common and an important reliabilitymodel.
• Series system has no redundancy since afailure of any component causes failure ofthe entire system
Series Model
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i the entire system.
• The system reliability will be less than thereliability of least reliable component in themodel.
• System design would require high reliabilityand as few components.
2222
neer
ing
Cen
tre
• Assuming Ei s refers to the events of units being functionally good.
Series Model
n
is
ns
n
pn
nR
R
321
13212121
321s
)P(E)...P(E)P(E)P(ER
then,tindependenarefailuresunittheIf
)E...EE/EP(E)...E/EP(E.)/EP(E.)P(E
)E...EEP(E
13
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i
• The above result can also be obtained using time to failure considerations
2323
i 1
n
iis
ns
ns
trtR
tttttttR
tttttttR
1
21
21
)()(
)Pr()...Pr()Pr()(
)()...()(Pr)(
neer
ing
Cen
tre
Parallel Redundant System
2
1
21
21
Ss
RRRR
)R)(1R-(1-1
QQ1
Q1R
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i
product rule of unreliability
S
Q1 Q2
S
R1 R2
2121 RRRR
24
01-02-2012
7
neer
ing
Cen
tre
Example:
A system is to be designed with an overall reliability of 0.999 usingcomponents having individual reliabilities of 0.7. What is theminimum number of components that must be connected in parallel?
System Reliability, Rs = 0.999
Component reliability, R = 0.7
Number of components, n = ?
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i
System Unreliability, Qs = 1 - Rs = 1 – 0.999 = 0.001
Component Unreliability, Q = 1 – R = 1 – 0.7 = 0.3
Using Product Rule of Unreliability, Qs = Qn i.e. 0.001 = (0.3)n
therefore, n = ln (0.001) / ln(0.3) = 5.74
since n is an integer, n = 625
neer
ing
Cen
tre
Parallel System
Reliability of each component is 0.7
Number of Components
System Reliability
1 0.7000002 0 910000
0.9
1.0
elia
bil
ity
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i26
2 0.9100003 0.9730004 0.9919005 0.9975706 0.9992717 0.999781 0.6
0.7
0.8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Number of Components
Sys
tem
Re
neer
ing
Cen
tre
PARALLEL MODEL
• System reliability will be more than any of theconstituent component.
• Most common and cheapest method of reliabilityimprovement, if feasible or permitted.
• An additional unit will improve the MTTF by 1.5times of the MTTF of a single unit
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i times of the MTTF of a single unit.
• There will not be much gain in system MTTF, ifnumber of units increased from 4 to 5 and so on.(Law of diminishing return-See in Next Slide).
27
neer
ing
Cen
tre
System MTTF for Various Configurations
PARALLEL MODEL
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i
01-02-2012
8
neer
ing
Cen
tre
Series/Parallel Systems
Network Reduction
Telcom. Repeater Station Power Supply System 4
2 31
Battery Bank
DG Rectifier
Cable
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i
29
TechniqueRX = R2.R3
QY = QX.Q4
RY = 1 - QX.Q4
= 1 – (1-RX).(1-R4)
RS = RY.R1
4
1X
1Y
29
neer
ing
Cen
tre
Example:
Derive a general expression for the unreliability of themodel shown below, and hence evaluate the unreliability ofthe system if all components have a reliability of 0.8.
input Output
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i30
Reliability Network Model (Reliability Block Diagram) of the System
input p
30
neer
ing
Cen
tre
Ri = 0.8 for i = 1 to 5
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i
31
Q8 = Q7 . Q5
= (1 - R7). Q5
= (1 - R1 . R2 . R6). Q5
= [1 - R1 . R2 . (1 - Q6)]. Q5
= [1 - R1 . R2 . (1 - Q3 . Q4)]. Q5
Q8 = [1 – 0.8 x 0.8 (1 – 0.2 x 0.2)]x 0.2 = 0.07712
31
neer
ing
Cen
tre
m out of n Systems
partially redundant system
TR1, 10 kVA
TR2, 10 kVA
15 kVALoad
If components are identical then
(R + Q)3 = R3 + 3R2Q + 3RQ2 + Q3
Rs = R3 + 3R2Q
Q 3RQ2 Q3 1 R
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i
32
TR3, 10 kVA
Qs = 3RQ2 + Q3 = 1 - Rs
If components are non-identical then
R1 R2 R3
Rs = R1 R2 R3 + R1 R2 Q3 + R1 Q2 R3 + Q1 R2 R3
1
3
2
2/32 out 3 system
32
01-02-2012
9
neer
ing
Cen
tre
Example:
Derive a general expression for the unreliability of the systemwhose reliability model is shown below. Consider the case inwhich all parallel branches of this system are fully redundantwith the exception of that consisting of components 4, 5 and 6 forwhich any 2 of the branches are required for system success.
24
2/3
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i
33
Reliability Network Model (Reliability Block Diagram) of the System
input Output
1
7
2
3 6
5
neer
ing
Cen
tre
If Components 4, 5 and 6 are identical, each with reliability R, R9 = R3 + 3R2Q
Q8 = Q2 . Q3
1
7
2
3
4
6
5
2/3
1 8 9
7
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i
OtherwiseR9 = R4 R5 R6 + R4 R5 Q6 + R4 Q5 R6 + Q4 R5 R6
R10 = R1 R8 R9
7
10
7
11
Qs = Q10 . Q7
= (1 – R10). Q7
= (1 - R1 . R8 . R9). Q7
= [1 - R1 (1 – Q8).R9 ]. Q7
= [1 - R1 (1 – Q2 .Q3). R4 R5 R6 + R4 R5 Q6 + R4 Q5 R6 + Q4 R5 R6 ]. Q7
34
neer
ing
Cen
tre
2-out-of-3:G Model
The Reliability Logic Diagram and Fault Tree diagram for 2-out-of-3:G system are shown below:
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i
35
neer
ing
Cen
tre
RELIABILITY OF 2-OUT-OF-3:G SYSTEM
Let us designate the paths in Block diagram asObviously,
where Ei is the event of unit i being good. Therefore, system reliability is given by:
., 321 TandTT
323312211 , EETandEETEET
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i system reliability is given by:
where,
3
1i ji kjikjijii TTTPTTPTP
.23
2
32
321323121
ppRor
pppppppppR
s
s
321Pr TTTRs
3
3321
3
1
3
2
EEEPTPRi
is
321312121 EEEPEEEEPTTP
321 EEEP
01-02-2012
10
neer
ing
Cen
tre
For exponential failure distribution, we cancompute system MTTF of by:
where,
2-out-of-3:G Model (MTTF)
dttRMTTF s )(0
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i
and for exponential failure distribution, t
i etp )(
321323121
2111
MTTF
321323121 2 pppppppppRs
neer
ing
Cen
tre
Consider a 3 out of 4 system. The system is successful ifany of the path is good The success of each pathdepends on the success of two elements
1
2
3in
Out
1
1
1
2
2
3
34
4
Exercise 3-out-of-4:G Model (MTTF)
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i3838
42
3 4
Block Diagram Reliability logic Diagram
neer
ing
Cen
tre
...)AP(A)(PA)P(A)P(A)P(A
)AAAP(AR
yields,
EEEAEEEA
EEEA,EEEA
ji4321
4321s
43244313
42123211
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i
3939
)AAAP(A)AAP(A
...)()()()()(
4321
i j k
kji
i j
j3
Rs=P(E1E2E3)+P(E1E2E4)+P(E1E3E4)+P(E2E3E4)- 3P(E1E2E3E4)
If the elements are identical and their failures are independentthen
Rs=4P3-3p4
neer
ing
Cen
tre
Identical Units k-out of – M:G system (Using Binomial)
A system functions properly if any k out of m units function properly, the probability of exactly k successes out of m is given by,
unitsmor1,m1,kk,aslongasfunctionalremainssystemThe
p)(1pk
mp)m,B(k; kmk
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i
4040
kthanlargeris1)k(mtheifly,particularp)(1pi
m1R
or
p)(1pi
mR
by,givenissuccesssystemofThe.function
mi1k
0i
s
mim
ki
s
i
i
yprobabilit
01-02-2012
11
neer
ing
Cen
tre
For identical units, for various
MTTF OF K-OUT-OF-M:G SYSTEM
m
kj jmkMTTF
11,
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i
combinations of k and m ,(for k m) , weprovide system MTTF for identical in thenext slide.
neer
ing
Cen
tre
k-out-of-m:G Model (MTTF)
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i
System MTTF for various values of k and m
neer
ing
Cen
tre
Example: System Reliability
Block A
ARR
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i
The system reliability can be calculated as:
3
110113
3211112
3
9876543
2110
)1()1(1
)1()(1)(11
,
RRCRRCR
RRRRRRRR
RRRwhereRRRRR
C
B
ACBAs
As RR neer
ing
Cen
tre
System Reliability Evaluation Using Probability Distributions
Time dependent reliability – described by probability distributions
Reliability of Component 1 for a time period t, R1(t) =t
0
1 (t)dtλ
e
where (t) is the hazard rate of Component 1.
During useful life period of the component R1(t) =tλ1e
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i
where is constant, and is called the failure rate of Component 1.
g p p 1( )
01-02-2012
12
neer
ing
Cen
tre
21
Series Systems
Rs = R1 . R2 product rule of reliability
Considering time dependent probabilities,
Rs(t) = R1(t). R2(t) =t
01 (t)dtλ
et
02 (t)dtλ
e
For ‘n’ component series system with hazard rates 1(t), 2(t), …, n(t),
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i
Rs(t) =
n
i 1
t
0i (t)dtλ
ealso applicable if failure distributions for different components are different
During useful life period when component failures are exponentially distributed
Rs(t) = = =
n
i 1
tλ ietλ i
1e
n
i tee where equivalent hazard rate, e = is also constant
n
ii
1
i.e. resulting distribution for the system is also exponentialne
erin
g C
entr
e
Parallel Systems
Qs = Q1 . Q2 product rule of unreliability
Considering time dependent probabilities,
Qs(t) = Q1(t). Q2(t) = [1- ].[1- ]t
01 (t)dtλ
et
02 (t)dtλ
e
For ‘n’ component parallel system with hazard rates 1(t), 2(t), …, n(t),
2
1
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i
Qs(t) = [1 - ]
n
i 1
t
0i (t)dtλ
e
During useful life period when component failures are exponentially distributed
Qs(t) = [1 - ]
n
i 1
tλ ie
Therefore, resulting distribution for the system is non-exponentiali.e. resulting hazard rate for the system is no longer constant, but a function of time
cannot obtain equivalent hazard rate for exponential distribution
neer
ing
Cen
tre
Partially Redundant (m out of n) Systems
[R(t) + Q(t)] n = nCr R(t) n-r Q(t) r
n
r 0
During useful life period when component failures are exponentially distributed
Apply Binomial Expansion
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i
R(t) = and Q(t) = 1 -λteλte
Let see some simple examples.
neer
ing
Cen
tre
Example:
A simple electronic circuit consists of 6 transistors each having a failure rate of 10-6 f/hr, 4 diodes each having a failure rate of 0.5 x 10-6 f/hr, 3 capacitors each having a failure rate of 0.2 x 10-6 f/hr, 10 resistors each having a failure rate of 5 x 10-6 f/hr and 2 switches each having a failure rate of 2 x 10-6 f/hr. Assuming connectors and wiring are 100% reliable, evaluate the equivalent failure rate of the system and the probability of the system surviving 1000 and 10000 hours if all components must operate for system success.
n
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i i
i1
Equivalent failure rate of the system, e =
= 6(10-6 ) + 4(0.5 x 10-6 ) + 3(0.2 x 10-6 ) + 10(5 x 10-6 ) + 2(2 x 10-6 ) = 6.26 x 10-5
f/hr
Rs(1000 hr) = = = 0.9393tee 1000x1026.6 6
e x
Rs(10,000 hr) = = = 0.5347tee 10000x1026.6 6
e x
01-02-2012
13
neer
ing
Cen
tre
Example:
Consider a system comprising of 4 identical units each having a failurerate of 0.1 f/yr. Evaluate the probability of the system surviving 0.5 yearsand 5 years if at least two units must operate successfully.
Using Binomial Expansion,
[R(t) + Q(t)] 4 = R4(t) + 4 R3(t)Q(t) + 6 R2(t)Q2(t) + 4 R(t)Q3(t) + Q4(t)
where, R(t) = and Q(t) = 1 -λte
λte
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i
For 2 out of 4 system,
Rs(t) = R4(t) + 4 R3(t)Q(t) + 6 R2(t)Q2(t)
= + 4 (1 - ) + 6 (1 - )2λt4e λt3e λte λt2e λte
For t = 0.5 years, t = 0.1 x 0.5 = 0.05 Rs(0.5) = 0.9996
For t = 5 years, t = 0.1 x 5 = 0.5 Rs(5) = 0.8282
neer
ing
Cen
tre
Standby Model
One or more units are in standby mode waiting to take overthe operation from the main operating unit as soon as thefailure of the operating unit takes place.
Decision switch senses the failure of the basic unit. It is assumed that the operation of failure sensing and
switching on to the standby unit is instantaneous, i.e.,uninterrupted system operation
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i5050
uninterrupted system operation. The standby system fails only when all the system units
including the standby units have failed. The reliability of such system will be higher than the
parallel system with equal number of active units.(Conditions?).
neer
ing
Cen
tre
STANDBY MODELS
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i neer
ing
Cen
tre
STANDBY MODELS: MISSILE SYSTEM
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i
01-02-2012
14
neer
ing
Cen
tre
Two Unit Standby ModelObviously, from the Fig (b), it
can be seen easily that the system success would be obtained:
Either (i) when the primary unit # 1 continues to work beyond the mission time t, i.e., t1 > t, where t1 is the time to failure
System Modelling
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i where t1 is the time to failure of unit # 1.
or (ii) unit # 1 fails at time t1 (t1< t), and the standby unit ( unit # 2) comes into operation immediately upon the failure of unit #1 and continues to work for t2 > (t-t1). The system reliability
therefore can be given by:
])}ttt(t){(tt)Pr[(t)t(R 1211s ne
erin
g C
entr
e
Two Unit Standby ModelTherefore, reliability for a two-unit standby system would be obtained as:
or
System Modelling
])}ttt(t){(tt)Pr[(t)t(R 1211s
t
dtttptftp 112111
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i 0
tetp 11
11111
tetf 1212
ttettp
1
0121
1211 dteeeRRtRt
tttts
21121
21
1
ttt
s
eeetR
neer
ing
Cen
tre
The function of decision switch (DS) is critical and thesuccess of a standby system to great extent dependsupon the reliability of this decision switch.
The reliability decision switch is driving the systemreliability.
STANDBY MODELS: IMPERFECT SWITCH
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i
55
Two-unit standby system ,
tds represents a random variable denoting the time to failure of the decision switch.
1121
0
11 )()()()( dtttptfptptRt
dsS
)}]()(){()[()( 12111 tttttttttPtR dss
neer
ing
Cen
tre
DS perfect but Degradation of standby unit in standby mode. Combining degradation of standby unit and
Imperfect switching
STANDBY MODELS: OTHER
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i
56
01-02-2012
15
neer
ing
Cen
tre
THREE-UNIT STANDBY MODEL
Similarly, we can determine the reliability of a three unit system as:
System Modelling
1
21
1
tt
ts
eeetR
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i 2112
1 s
32312321131221
321
ttt eee
neer
ing
Cen
tre
PARTIAL STANDBY MODEL
As shown in fig. there is another way to configure threeunits.
Two units are in operational mode and third unit maybe put in standby mode.
Actually both units are required in operational mode forsatisfactory operation of the system.
Thus are in series as far as reliability logic diagramconcerned.
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i58
Third unit replaces any one failed from these twooperational units.
1
2
3
Units 1 and 2 are in active mode and unit 3 is in standby mode
neer
ing
Cen
tre
Standby ModelsSystem Modelling
)exp(!
)(1
0
ti
tR
m
i
i
s
Rs(t) = e-2( 1+ 2 t )
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i neer
ing
Cen
tre
Triple Modular Redundancy
System Modelling
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i
The triple modular redundancy (TMR) consists of threeparallel digital circuits – A, B, and C - all having the sameinput. The outputs of the three circuits are compared by avoter, which sides with the majority and gives the majorityopinion as the system output. If all three circuits areoperating properly, all outputs agree; thus the system outputi t
01-02-2012
16
neer
ing
Cen
tre
System Modelling
Triple Modular RedundancyHowever, if one element has failed so that it has produced an
incorrect output, the voter chooses the output of the twogood elements as the system output because they bothagree; thus the system output is correct. If two elements havefailed, the voter agrees with the majority (the two that have
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i
failed); thus the system output is incorrect. The systemoutput is also incorrect if all three circuits have failed.Actually, circuits-A, B, and C- in most cases are identical andthey are three replications of the same design. Using thisassumption, and also assuming that the voter does not failand all digital circuits are independent and identical withprobability of success p, the system reliability is given by:
123
2
033
3s p1pp1pR
p23pp2p3 232
neer
ing
Cen
tre
SHARED LOAD MODEL
System Modelling
A model in which the load on a memberchanges and consequently the hazard rate ofthe member also changes, as one or moremember fail.
In this model all the units/sub-systems are
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i
connected in parallel and each unit shares theload equally.
After the failure of one or more units theremaining units share the load equally but witha higher value of hazard rate.
The levels of hazard rate change only when asubsystem failure occurs.
It is assumed that failure distribution of thesurvivor subsystem after failure of asubsystem does not depend on the interval of
neer
ing
Cen
tre
TWO UNIT SHARED LOAD MODEL
System Modelling
In this case, we will have two units sharing the given load equally however if one unit fails, the total load will have to be take over by the single unit as shown in the following figure.
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i
Half load
Half load
Full load
neer
ing
Cen
tre
System ModellingTWO UNIT SHARED LOAD MODEL
Let, fh(t) : be the p.d.f. for time to failure of a unit
under half load condition ff(t) : be the p.d.f. for time to failure of a unit
under full load condition( this occurs
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i under full load condition( this occurs when one unit fails and other unit is forced to take the full load )
Therefore the system is successful if,1. Both component remain operational until the
mission time. The probability of this is givenby:P[(t1>t)∩(t2>t)] = {ph(t)}2
Where, ph(t) is reliability of a unit under halfload
01-02-2012
17
neer
ing
Cen
tre
TWO UNIT SHARED LOAD MODEL
System Modelling
2. The first unit fails and the second unit survives and the takes the full load (after the failure of the first unit) until the time t, The probability of this operation is given by:
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i
P[(t1≤t, under half load)∩(t2>t1, under half load)∩
( t2>t-t1, under full load)] =
3. This is identical to the case 2 the only difference is that here unit 2 fails and unit 1 take the full load( after failure of the second unit) and the probability of this operation can be found by replacing t1 by t2 .
Incase both the units are same the probabilities in case 2 and case 3 turns out to be same.
neer
ing
Cen
tre
TWO UNIT SHARED LOAD MODEL
System Modelling
Now the system reliability is found by adding theprobabilities of case 1 , case 2 and case 3 i.e.
If we assume the failure distribution to the
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i If we assume the failure distribution to theexponential distribution for both the units anddenote the failure rates at half and full load by λh
and λf respectively. Then the reliability expressioncan be written as,
][)(
)( t2
fh
tht2
sfh
f
h e12
e2etR
neer
ing
Cen
tre
THREE UNIT SHARED LOAD
SYSTEMS
System Modelling
Similarly the reliability expression for the threeunit shared load model can be derived, thesuccess probability versus time plot is shownbelow, E1∩E2∩E3#1
E ∩E ∩ESu
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i
#2
#3
E1∩E2∩E3
E1∩E2∩E3
ccess
Probability
Time
321 EEE
321 EEE
321 EEE
t1 t2 t
neer
ing
Cen
tre
THREE UNIT SHARED LOAD
SYSTEMS
System Modelling
1/3 load
1/3 load
The diagrammatic representation of the load shifting is shown below,
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i
Full load
1/2 load
1/2 load
1/3 load
01-02-2012
18
neer
ing
Cen
tre
THREE UNIT SHARED LOAD
SYSTEMS
System Modelling
For three similar units the above possibilities can be described as,
1. All the three units operate until the mission time and share the load equally.
2. Unit #1 fails and the other two units survive
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i 2. Unit #1 fails and the other two units survive and share the load equally.
3. Unit #1 and Unit #2 fail and Unit #3 operates and is forced to take the full load.
Let t1, t2 and t3 be the time to failure of the first, second and third unit respectively then the probabilities of the above possibilities can be written as,P(#1) = P[(t1>t)∩(t2>t) ∩(t3>t)] = [po(t)]3
neer
ing
Cen
tre
THREE UNIT SHARED LOAD
SYSTEMS
System Modelling
P(#2) = 3P[(t1≤t,at 1/3 load)∩{(t2>t1) ∩(t3>t1), at 1/3load}∩ {(t2>t-t1) ∩(t3>t-t1), at ½ load}]
AndP(#3) = 6P[(t1≤t, at 1/3 load) ∩{(t2>t1) ∩(t3>t1), at 1/3 load}
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i }∩{(t2≤t, at ½ load) ∩(t3>t2, at ½ load)} ∩{(t3>t-t1-t2), at full load}
Now the reliability expression for the three unit shared load model canbe written as,
Rs(t) = P(#1) + P(#2) + P(#)
neer
ing
Cen
tre
THREE UNIT SHARED LOAD
SYSTEMS
System Modelling
In the integral form it can be written as,
Rs(t) = [po(t)]3 ++
12
1h2
1o1
t
0
o dtttptptf3 )}({}{
tt
2t
dtdttttttfttf61
)()()(}{
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i 1
0
221f2h2h2
1o1
0
o dtdttttptptftptf6 )()()(}{
Now if we take the failure distribution to be exponential distribution with failure rates λo, λh
and λf for the 1/3, ½ and full load respectively then the reliability expression can be written as,
neer
ing
Cen
tre
THREE UNIT SHARED LOAD
SYSTEMS
System Modelling
The expression comes out to be,
)()32(
3)( 233 tt
oh
ots
hoo eeetR
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i
])2)(3(
)2)(32()3)(23([6
)(23
hfof
t
fhoh
t
foho
t
ho
oh
f
ho
e
ee
01-02-2012
19
neer
ing
Cen
tre
THREE UNIT SHARED LOAD
SYSTEMS
System Modelling
One very important thing to note is that,• If we put, λ1=2λh and λ2= λf in the two unit
standby reliability expression we get thereliability expression for the two unit
h d l d d l
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i shared load model.• Similarly if we put λ1=3λo, λ2=2λh and λ3=
λf in three unit standby reliabilityexpression we will end up with thereliability expression of three unit sharedload model.
Finally MTTF can be found byintegrating the reliability expressionbetween 0 and Infinity
neer
ing
Cen
tre
COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT MODELS
• Basis:– Assuming constant failure rate.
– All elements or subsystems are identical with reliability, p.
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i74
neer
ing
Cen
tre
SINGLE COMPONENT
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
R
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i
75
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 10
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
p
neer
ing
Cen
tre
Three Component in S & P
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
R 0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
R 0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
R 0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
R
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i
76
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 10
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
p
Series
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 10
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
p
Series
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 10
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
p
Series
parallel
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 10
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
p
Series
parallel
01-02-2012
20
neer
ing
Cen
tre
SP:(2-IN-P WITH 1-IN-S)
0 5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
R
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i
77
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 10
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
p
R
SeriesparallelSP
neer
ing
Cen
tre
PS:(2-IN-S WITH 1-P)
0 5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
R
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i78
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 10
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
p
R
SeriesparallelSPPS
neer
ing
Cen
tre
2-OUT-OF-3:G
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i
79
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 10
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
p
R
Series
parallelSPPS
2O3:G
neer
ing
Cen
tre
STANDBY WITH ONE ACTIVE AND 2-STNDBY, DS PERFECT, NO
DEGRADATION
0 5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
R
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i
80
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 10
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
p
R
SeriesparallelSPPS2O3:GStndby
01-02-2012
21
neer
ing
Cen
tre
WITH DS HAS HALF THE FR OF UNITS’ FR, NO DEGRADATION
0 5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
R
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i
81
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 10
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
p
R
SeriesparallelSPPS2O3:GStndbyStndbyDSFRH
neer
ing
Cen
tre
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
With DS has same FR of units’ FR, No Degradation
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i82
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 10
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
p
R
Series
parallelSP
PS2O3:GStndby
StndbyDSFRHStndbyDSFRF
neer
ing
Cen
tre
PARTIAL STANDBY
0 5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i
83
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 10
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
p
R
SeriesparallelSPPS2O3:GStndbyStndbyDSFRHStndbyDSFRFPstndby
neer
ing
Cen
tre
Comparison of Various Models
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i
01-02-2012
22
neer
ing
Cen
tre
COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT MODELS
• Series and standby provides the lowest and highest bounding curves.
• Reliability of partial standby and k-out-of-m for some values of p(0<=p<=0.5) lie below the single component curve line and for highervalues of p lie above the single component line.
• This implies that reliability of such model is worse than the reliabilityof single component for some values of p close to 0 while same modelsoffers better reliability for higher values of p.
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i
• SP/PS also would also exhibit similar characteristics for higher ordersystems.
• k-out-of-m system invariably shows this characteristic.
• Therefore, it is necessary to know the breakeven point for which amulti-component system has the same reliability as that of a singlecomponent.
• The designer must ensure that the reliability of his system is better thanthis breakeven value while designing.
85
neer
ing
Cen
tre
COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT MODELS
• Although, standby model offers best possible reliability. However, inreality it may not be possible to introduce this kind of redundancy withall types of subsystems or elements.
• Besides, the advantage will level off if DS is imperfect and has highFR.
• SO BE CAREFUL IN DESIGNING A SYSTEMS.
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i86
neer
ing
Cen
tre
SHARED LOAD MODEL
This model is considered in which load on a member changes and consequently the hazard rate of the member changes, as one or more members fail.
In this model all the units or subsystem comprising the system are connected in parallel and each unit shares the load equally.
If any of subsystem fails the surviving subsystems will share the load
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i
87
If any of subsystem fails, the surviving subsystems will share the load equally but with higher value of hazard rate.
For example,
If three generators of 110MW each, connected in parallel electricity andthe load is 200MW, then each of these generators shares a load of66.67MW and at this load each generator has definite failure rate.
neer
ing
Cen
tre
If any one fails the remaining two will share the load of 100MW eachto meet requirement , obviously now failure rate of the survivinggenerator s will be higher than before.
Therefore in this model the levels of hazard rate changes only when a
subsystem failure occurs.
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i
88
01-02-2012
23
neer
ing
Cen
tre
Two units shared load Model:
Two units are sharing given load equally. However if a unit fails, the total load will have to be taken over by a single unit.
L f ( ) b h d f f
E1∩E2
E1∩E2
E1∩E2Success probabilities
#1
#2
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i
89
Let fh(t) be the p.d.f. for time to failure of a unit under half load condition.
Let ff(t)be the p.d.f. for time to failure of a unit under full load condition.
t1 t
Time
Success probabilities of two unit shared load system
neer
ing
Cen
tre
The system will be good if:
1. Both components remain in operational mode until the mission time.
The probability of this given by,
P[t1>t∩t2>t]={ph (t)}2
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i90
Where, ph (t) is reliability of a unit at half load condition i.e.
t1 and t2 are time to failure of two units and the ‘t’ is mission time.
duuftpt
hh )()(
neer
ing
Cen
tre
2 Unit 1 is failed at time t1 , and prior to this the units are taking half of the load each. After time t1 ,unit 2 alone takes the full load until time t.
the probability of this operation ,
),(),[( 121 loadhalfunderttloadhalfunderttP
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i
91
)],( 12 loadfullunderttt
1111
0
)()()( dtttptptf fh
t
h
)()()( uduftpwheret
ff
neer
ing
Cen
tre
3 This is like 2 but instead of the first unit failing fist, the second unit is fails first and the other survives until time t.
the probability of this operation
)],(
),(),[(
21
212
loadfullunderttt
loadhalfunderttloadhalfunderttP
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i
92
System Reliability = [ sum of the probabilities of earlier three equations]
2222
0
)()()( dtttptptf fh
t
h
111
0
12 )()()(2)]([ dtttptptftpR fh
t
hhS
01-02-2012
24
neer
ing
Cen
tre
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Rel
iabi
lity
Eng
i
93