Unknown

Dimitci
VOLUME I
Handbook
Books by Dimitri B. Kececioglu, Ph.D., P.E.
1. Reliability Engineering Handbook, Volume 1.

2. Reliability Engineering Handbook, Volume 2.
3- Reliability & Life Testing Handbook, Volume 1.
4. Reliability & Life Testing Handbook, Volume 2.
5. Maintainability, Availability & Operational
Readiness Engineering Handbook, Volume 1.
6. Environmental Stress Screening—Its Quantification,
Optimization and Management.
7. Burn-In Testing—Its Quantification and
Optimization.
8. Robust Engineering Design-By-Reliabilty with
Emphasis on Mechanical Components and
Structural Reliability, Volume 1.
Thii O ni
9Q6E-A6X-67DQ
HOW TO ORDER THIS BOOK
by phone: 7 1 7 290- 1660 or 7 17-394-4583, 8am-5pm Eastern Time
BY FAX: 717-509 6100
by mail Order Department
DEStech Publications, Inc.
1148 Elizabeth Avenue #2
Lancaster, PA 17601, U.S.A.
by credit card: VISA, MasterCard
by www site: http://www.destechpub.eom
Maintainability,
Availability, &
Operational
Readiness
Engineering
Handbook
VOLUME 1
Dimitri B. Kececioglu, Ph.D., RE.

Department ofAerospace and Mechanical Engineering
The University ofArizona
0
DESteclj Publications
Maintainability, Availability & Operational Readiness Engineering
Handbook, Volume 1
DEStech Publications, Inc
1 148 Elizabeth Avenue #2
Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17601 U.S.A.
Copyright © 2003 by Dimitri B. Kececioglu

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

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

10 9 8 7 6 5
Main entry under title:

Maintainability, Availability & Operational Readiness Engineering Handbook, Volume 1
A DEStech Publications book

Bibliography: p.
Includes index p. 769
ISBN No 1-932078-05-3
To my wonderful wife Lorene,
daughter Zoe,
and son John.
VOLUME 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE xxix
CHAPTER 1- MAINTAINABILITY ENGINEERING 1
1.1- HANDBOOK OBJECTIVES 1
1.2- RELIABILITY AND MAINTAINABILITY
ENGINEERING OBJECTIVES AND
BENEFITS 4
1.3- BENEFITS DERIVED FROM THE

IMPLEMENTATION OF RELIABILITY AND
MAINTAINABILITY ENGINEERING 8
PROBLEMS 18
REFERENCES 18
CHAPTER 2- SYSTEM EFFECTIVENESS AND
RELIABILITY ENGINEERING
CONCEPTS 21
2.1- SYSTEM EFFECTIVENESS 21
2.1.1- WSEIAC 21
2.1.2- ARINC 22
2.2- A COMPREHENSIVE DEFINITION
OF RELIABILITY 26
2.3- A QUANTIFICATION OF SYSTEM
EFFECTIVENESS 27
EXAMPLE 2-1 29
SOLUTIONS TO EXAMPLE 2-1 29

2.4- A COMPREHENSIVE DEFINITION OF
MAINTAINABILITY 30
2.5- WHAT IS RELIABILITY ENGINEERING? 30
2.6- WHY RELIABILITY ENGINEERING? 31

vii
viii CONTENTS
2.7- WHAT ARE THE PRACTICAL

APPLICATIONS OF RELIABILITY AND
MAINTAINABILITY ENGINEERING? 32
PROBLEMS 35
REFERENCES 36
CHAPTER 3- MAINTENANCE 37
3.1- MAINTENANCE DEFINED 37
3.2- PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE 37

3.3- CORRECTIVE MAINTENANCE 40
3.4- OPERATING TIME AND DOWNTIME
CATEGORIES 41
3.4.1- WAITING TIME 41
3.4.2- ACTIVE MAINTENANCE TIME 42

3.5- MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL FACTORS
AND COSTS 44
3.6- MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL
SAFETY FACTORS 45
3.7- MAINTENANCE SUPPORT FACILITIES
AND EQUIPMENT 46
PROBLEMS 46
CHAPTER 4- MAINTAINABILITY DESIGN CRITERIA 49
PROBLEMS 51
CHAPTER 5- DOWNTIME DISTRIBUTIONS

AND MAINTAINABILITY
ENGINEERING FUNCTIONS 67
5.1- DOWNTIME DISTRIBUTIONS 67

EXAMPLE 5-1 67
5.2- ANALYTICAL MAINTAINABILITY
ENGINEERING FUNCTIONS ANALOGOUS
TO THOSE IN RELIABILITY ENGINEERING 77
CONTENTS IX
EXAMPLE 5-2 77
SOLUTION TO EXAMPLE 5-2 77
EXAMPLE 5-3 80
PROBLEMS 84
CHAPTER 6- MAINTAINABILITY AND ITS QUANTIFICATION ... .91
6.1- MAINTAINABILITY DEFINED 91
6.2- THE EXPONENTIAL CASE 93
EXAMPLE 6-1 96
6.3- THE REPAIR RATE, /i 97
6.4- THE MEAN TIME TO REPAIR, MTTR 97
EXAMPLE 6-2 99
6.5- MEAN ACTIVE CORRECTIVE
MAINTENANCE TIME, UTc 99
6.6- MEAN ACTIVE PREVENTIVE
MAINTENANCE TIME, t^ 100
6.7- MEAN ACTIVE CORRECTIVE AND
PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE TIME, t]j 100
6.8- EQUIPMENT REPAIR TIME, ERT 101
6.9- GEOMETRIC MEAN TIME
TO REPAIR, MTTRG 101
6.10- MAXIMUM MAINTENANCE TIME, tM. 102
EXAMPLE 6-3 102
6.11- THE LOGNORMAL CASE 106
EXAMPLE 6-4 107
x CONTENTS

6.12- MAINTAINABILITY FOR GIVEN
RESTORATION TIME WITH A WEIBULL
TIMES-TO- RESTORE DISTRIBUTION Ill
6.13- TIME TO RESTORE FOR GIVEN

MAINTAINABILITY WITH A WEIBULL
TIMES-TO-RESTORE DISTRIBUTION 112
EXAMPLE 6-5 113

6.14- A PRIORI VERSUS A POSTERIORI

MAINTAINABILITY DETERMINATION 114
EXAMPLE 6-6 115

PROBLEMS 115
CHAPTER 7- STEADY STATE MEAN TIMES TO ACTIVELY
RESTORE, REPAIR AND/OR REPLACE
COMPONENTS IN AN EQUIPMENT 123
7.1- MEAN TIME TO ACTIVELY RESTORE AN EQUIPMENT. . . . 123

7.2- EQUIPMENT RESTORATION TIME,
EFFICIENCY AND CONSISTENCY 125
EXAMPLE 7-1 127

7.3- MEAN MAINTENANCE MAN-HOURS 128
7.4- MEAN MAINTENANCE MAN-HOURS TO

REPAIR AND REPLACE AN EQUIPMENT 129
EXAMPLE 7-2 130

7.5- MEAN TIME FOR CORRECTIVE AND
PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE 137
EXAMPLE 7-3 138

CONTENTS xi
PROBLEMS 139
CHAPTER 8- MAINTAINABILITY ENGINEERING
SPECIFICATIONS AND
THEIR APPLICATIONS 147
8.1- GOVERNMENT MAINTAINABILITY SPECIFICATIONS 147
8.2- MIL - STD - 470 148
8.3- MIL - STD - 471 148
8.3.1- REQUIREMENTS 149
8.4- TEST METHOD 1 - TEST OF THE MEAN 150
EXAMPLE 8-1 154

EXAMPLE 8-2 156
8.4.1- HOW TO DETERMINE d FROM a2, 157

8.5- TEST METHOD 2 - TEST ON CRITICAL PERCENTILE 158
8.5.1- SAMPLE SIZE DETERMINATION 158
8.5.2- DECISION PROCEDURE 160
EXAMPLE 8-3 161

EXAMPLE 8-4 161
EXAMPLE 8-5 162

8.6- TEST METHOD 3 - TEST ON CRITICAL

MAINTENANCE TIME OR MAN-HOURS 163
8.6.1- TEST PLAN 163
8.6.2- SAMPLE SIZE, n; AND ACCEPTANCE NUMBER, c .... 163

xii CONTENTS
EXAMPLE 8-6 166
8.7- TEST METHOD 4 - TEST ON MEDIAN, EFT 169
8.7.1- SAMPLE SIZE 169
8.7.2- TASK SELECTION AND PERFORMANCE 169
8.7.4- DISCUSSION 170
EXAMPLE 8-7 170
8.8- TEST METHOD 5 - TEST ON CHARGEABLE

MAINTENANCE DOWNTIME PER FLIGHT 171
8.8.1- CMDT PER FLIGHT 171
EXAMPLE 8-8 173

8.8.2- SAMPLE SIZE 174
EXAMPLE 8-9 175
EXAMPLE 8-10 176
8.9- TEST METHOD 6 - TEST ON MAN-HOUR RATE 178
EXAMPLE 8-11 178
8.10- TEST METHOD 7 - TEST ON MAN-HOUR RATE

USING SIMULATED FAULTS 179
8.10.1- TEST PROCEDURE 180
8.10.2- DECISION CRITERION 181

CONTENTS xin
8.10.3- DECISION CRITERION DERIVATION 181
EXAMPLE 8-12 182

8.11- TEST METHOD 8 - TEST ON A COMBINED
MEAN/PERCENTILE REQUIREMENT 183
8.11.1- RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH PLANS Au #i AND B2. .184

EXAMPLE 8-13 190
8.12- TEST METHOD 9 - TEST FOR MEAN

MAINTENANCE TIME AND Mm« 191
8.12.2- DECISION CRITERIA 193
8.12.2.1- TEST FOR ic 193
8.12.2.2- TEST FOR tp 194
8.12.2.3- TEST FOR tc/p 194

8.12.2.4- TEST FOR lMm..e 194
EXAMPLE 8-14 194

8.13- TEST METHOD 10 - TESTS FOR PERCENTILES
AND MAINTENANCE TIME (CORRECTIVE
OR PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE) 196
8.13.2- ACCEPT/REJECT CRITERIA 196
EXAMPLE 8-15 197

8.14- TEST METHOD 11 - TESTS FOR PREVENTIVE
MAINTENANCE TIMES 199
8.14.1- QUANTITATIVE REQUIREMENTS 199

xiv CONTENTS
8.14.2- TASK SELECTION AND PERFORMANCE 199
8.14.3- TEST FOR tp{fip) 199
8.14.4- TEST FOR MmaXf 200
EXAMPLE 8-16 200
PROBLEMS 204
APPENDICES FOR THE DERIVATION

OF THE FORMULAS OF SAMPLE
SIZE, n, FOR TEST METHODS
GIVEN IN MIL-STD-471 215
APPENDIX 8A - TEST METHOD 1 215
APPENDIX 8B - TEST METHOD 2 217
APPENDIX 8C - TEST METHOD 3 220
APPENDIX 8D - TEST METHOD 4 223

APPENDIX 8E - TEST METHOD 5 225
APPENDIX 8F-TEST METHOD 7 228
APPENDIX 8G - TEST METHOD 8 230
APPENDIX 8H - TEST METHOD 9 234
APPENDIX 81 - TEST METHOD 10 239
CHAPTER 9- PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE AND ITS

QUANTIFIED ADVANTAGES 243
9.1- PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE CONCEPTS 243
9.2- PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE BY

AGE REPLACEMENT-POLICY I 244
EXAMPLE 9-1 248
9.3- THE CASE OF THE SINGLE EXPONENTIAL

UNIT SUBJECTED TO PREVENTIVE
MAINTENANCE 253
CONTENTS xv
EXAMPLE 9-2 255
9.4- CORRECTIVE FAILURE RATE AND

PREVENTIVE REPLACEMENT RATE
FOR POLICY I 269
EXAMPLE 9-3 270

9.5- TOTAL AVERAGE NUMBER OF SPARES FOR
FOR POLICY I 273
9.6- MINIMUM COST PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE

PERIOD, Tp, FOR POLICY I 274
BLOCK REPLACEMENT-POLICY II 275
EXAMPLE 9-4 278

REPLACING GROUPS OF PARTS 284
EXAMPLE 9-5 288
EXAMPLE 9-6 291

PROBLEMS 310
REFERENCES 334
CHAPTER 10- PERIODIC REPLACEMENT POLICIES 335
10.1- ORDINARY PERIODIC REPLACEMENT
POLICY-POLICY III 335
EXAMPLE 10-1 336

10.2- MODIFIED PERIODIC REPLACEMENT
POLICIES-POLICIES IV, V, VI 338
xvi CONTENTS
10.2.1- MODIFIED PERIODIC REPLACEMENT POLICY

WITH CONSTANT SPARES PROCUREMENT
LEAD TIME-POLICY IV 339
10.2.1.1- DESCRIPTION OF THE POLICY 339
10.2.1.2- DEVELOPMENT OF THE COST MODEL ... 340
EXAMPLE 10-2 343
10.2.2- AGE REPLACEMENT POLICY WITH

MINIMAL REPAIR-POLICY V 345
10.2.2.1- DESCRIPTION OF THE POLICY 345
EXAMPLE 10-3 348

10.2.3- AGE REPLACEMENT WITH MINIMAL REPAIRS
AND SYSTEM IDLE TIME-POLICY VI 351
10.2.3.1- DESCRIPTION OF THE POLICY 35 1
EXAMPLE 10-4 352
PROBLEMS 354
REFERENCES 357
CHAPTER 11- MODIFIED BLOCK REPLACEMENT

POLICIES 359
11.1- ORDINARY BLOCK REPLACEMENT

POLICY-POLICY VII 359
EXAMPLE 11-1 360
11.2- MODIFIED BLOCK REPLACEMENT

POLICY-POLICY VIII 361
CONTENTS xvii
11.2.1- MODIFIED BLOCK REPLACEMENT POLICY

WITH INVENTORY OF SPARES 362
11.2.1.1- DESCRIPTION OF A SINGLE-PERIOD
MODEL-POLICY VIII-1 362
11.2.1.3- DESCRIPTION OF A MULTI-PERIOD
MODEL-POLICY VIII-2 366
1 1.2.1.4- DEVELOPMENT OF THE COST MODEL ... 366
EXAMPLE 11-2 368
WITH RECONDITIONED SPARES USE-POLICY IX . 370
11.2.2.1- DESCRIPTION OF POLICY IX 370
EXAMPLE 11-3 374
11.2.3- MULTIPLE BLOCK REPLACEMENT POLICY
WITH IDLE TIME COST-POLICY X 378
11.2.3.1- DESCRIPTION OF POLICY X 378
EXAMPLE 11-4 380
PROBLEMS 381
REFERENCES 383
CHAPTER 12- ADDITIONAL MAINTENANCE POLICIES 385
12.1- OPTIONAL REPLACEMENT POLICY-POLICY XI 385
12.1.1- INTRODUCTION 385
12.1.2- POLICY PRINCIPLE 386
12.1.3- RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OPTIONAL
xviii CONTENTS
REPLACEMENT POLICY AND BLOCK, AGE AND

PURE CORRECTIVE REPLACEMENT POLICIES ... 387
12.1.4- ASSUMPTIONS FOR THE COST MODEL 388

12.1.5- COST MODEL WHEN THE INTERVAL BETWEEN
OPPORTUNITIES IS EXPONENTIALLY
DISTRIBUTED 388
EXAMPLE 12-1 393

12.1.6- COST MODEL WHEN THE INTERVAL BETWEEN

OPPORTUNITIES IS ENTIRELY REGULAR 396
EXAMPLE 12-2 397

12.1.7- CONDITIONS FOR POLICY'S EXISTENCE 399
12.1.8- SPARES REQUIREMENT MODEL 399

12.1.9- RELIABILITY MODEL UNDER THE POLICY 400
12.1.10- CONCLUSIONS AND COMMENTS ON THE

POLICY 402
12.2- MULTISTAGE REPLACEMENT POLICY-POLICY XII 402
12.2.1- INTRODUCTION - TWO-STAGE CASE 402
12.2.2- PRINCIPLE OF THE POLICY 404
12.2.3- THE COST MODEL 405
EXAMPLE 12-3 406
EXAMPLE 12-4 407
12.2.4- CONDITIONS FOR POLICY EXISTENCE 411
12.2.5- SPARES REQUIREMENT MODEL 412
12.2.6- THE SYSTEM'S RELIABILITY MODEL UNDER

THE MULTISTAGE REPLACEMENT POLICY 413
CONTENTS xix
12.2.7- COMMENTS 413
12.3- OPPORTUNISTIC REPLACEMENT POLICY-POLICY XIII. .413
12.3.1- PRINCIPLE OF THE POLICY 413
12.3.2- COST MODEL ESTABLISHMENT 414
12.3.3- TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES AND SOLUTIONS

IN THE DYNAMIC PROGRAMMING PROCESS 420
12.3.3.1- STATE SETS AND THE OLDEST AGE 420
12.3.3.2- DIMENSIONALITY REDUCTION 421

12.3.4- CONDITIONS FOR POLICY EXISTENCE 422
12.3.5- SPARES REQUIREMENT MODEL AND

RELIABILITY MODEL UNDER THE POLICY 423
12.3.6- AN APPLICATION OF THE OPPORTUNISTIC
REPLACEMENT POLICY TO A BALL-BEARING
SYSTEM 423
12.3.6.1- CASE STATEMENT 423
12.3.6.2- COST MODEL AND COMPUTER PROG

RAM FOR A SINGLE TWO-COMPONENT
BALL-BEARING SUBSYSTEM 423
12.3.6.3- COMPONENTS' LIFE DISTRIBUTIONS

AND SYSTEM STATE SETS 425
12.3.6.4- PROBABILITIES pis, AND p2S* 427
12.3.6.5- REPLACEMENT COSTS 428
12.3.6.6- COMPUTER-BASED OPTIMIZATION OF

POLICY AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS . . 428
12.3.6.7- REALIZATION OF OPPORTUNISTIC
REPLACEMENT POLICY UPON
THE WHOLE BEARING SYSTEM 431
12.3.7- CONCLUSIONS 432

12.4- PREVENTIVE REPLACEMENT POLICY
FOR CAPITAL EQUIPMENT-POLICY XIV 433
12.4.1- DESCRIPTION OF POLICY XIV 433

xx CONTENTS
12.4.2- DEVELOPMENT OF THE MODEL 433

EXAMPLE 12-5 437
12.5- OPTIMAL INSPECTION FREQUENCY:
MAXIMIZATION OF PROFIT-POLICY XV 438
12.5.1- DESCRIPTION OF POLICY XV 439

EXAMPLE 12-6 440
12.6- OPTIMAL INSPECTION INTERVAL:
MAXIMIZATION OF EQUIPMENT
AVAILABILITY - POLICY XVI 441
12.6.1- DESCRIPTION OF POLICY XVI 441
12.6.2- DEVELOPMENT OF THE MODEL 442
EXAMPLE 12-7 443

12.7- A SUMMARY OF RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
IN MAINTENANCE POLICIES 446
12.7.1- LOCAL VERSUS GLOBAL REPLACEMENT
POLICIES 446
12.7.2- MAINTENANCE POLICY FOR REPAIRABLE

SYSTEMS BASED ON OPPORTUNISTIC
FAILURE-RATE TOLERANCE 447
12.7.3- PERIODIC-REPLACEMENT MODELS WITH
THRESHOLD LEVELS 447
12.7.4- PERIODIC REPLACEMENT POLICY FOR
SYSTEMS SUBJECTED TO SHOCK DAMAGE 448
12.7.5- MAINTENANCE SCHEDULING FOR SYSTEM

WITH ASSURED RELIABILITY 448
12.7.6- REPLACEMENT POLICY FOR CUMULATIVE-
DAMAGE-CAUSED FAILURE 449
CONTENTS xxi
12.7.7- PREVENTIVE REPLACEMENT POLICY FOR

SYSTEMS WITH DEPENDENT COMPONENTS 450
PROBLEMS 450
REFERENCES 455
APPENDIX 12A - COMPUTER PROGRAM

FOR EXAMPLE 12-5 459
CHAPTER 13- OVERHAUL POLICIES 461

13.1- OVERHAUL 461
13.2- OVERHAUL DEFINED 463
EXAMPLE 13-1 465
EXAMPLE 13-2 469
13.2.1- WHEN THE WEAR-OUT PDF IS NORMAL 470

EXAMPLE 13-3 472

13.2.2- MEAN TIME BETWEEN FAILURES OF A
RENEWABLE DEVICE OR A SYSTEM 475
13.3- DYNAMIC PROGRAMING BASICS 477
13.4- OPTIMAL OVERHAUL/REPAIR/REPLACE

POLICY: FINITE TIME HORIZON 478
EXAMPLE 13-4 482
EXAMPLE 13-5 486
13.5- OPTIMAL OVERHAUL/REPAIR/REPLACE

POLICY: INFINITE TIME HORIZON 495
EXAMPLE 13-6 497

xxii CONTENTS
13.6- OPTIMAL COST LIMITS: FINITE TIME

HORIZON 501
EXAMPLE 13-7 504
EXAMPLE 13-8 512

PROBLEMS 525
REFERENCES 531
CHAPTER 14- SPARES PROVISIONING 533

14.1- SPARES PROVISIONING AT A DESIRED
CONFIDENCE LEVEL 533
EXAMPLE 14-1 535
EXAMPLE 14-2 537
EXAMPLE 14-3 538
EXAMPLE 14-4 541
14.1.1- SELECTION OF THE CONFIDENCE LEVEL 543

14.2- SPARES PROVISIONING FOR A
DECAYING POPULATION 544
EXAMPLE 14-5 545
14.3- SPARES PROVISIONING WHEN REPLACING

UNITS THAT FAIL BY A PRESCRIBED
OPERATING TIME 546
EXAMPLE 14-6 548

CONTENTS xxiii
14.4- PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE POLICIES

AND SPARES PROVISIONING 551
14.4.1-AGE REPLACEMENT POLICY-POLICY 1 551
EXAMPLE 14-7 552
14.4.2- BLOCK REPLACEMENT POLICY-POLICIES
II AND VII 554
EXAMPLE 14-8 555
14.4.3- GROUP REPLACEMENT WITH POLICY II 557
14.4.4- ORDINARY PERIODIC REPLACEMENT SPARES
FOR POLICY III 559
14.4.5- MODIFIED PERIODIC REPLACEMENT SPARES
FOR POLICY IV 559
EXAMPLE 14-9 560
14.4.6- AGE REPLACEMENT WITH MINIMAL REPAIR
SPARES FOR POLICY V 560
EXAMPLE 14-10 561
SPARES WITH RECONDITIONED SPARES
USE FOR POLICY IX 564
EXAMPLE 14-11 565
14.4.8- OPTIONAL REPLACEMENT POLICY SPARES
FOR POLICY XI 568
EXAMPLE 14-12 569
xxiv CONTENTS
14.5- SPARES PREDICTION WITH GROWTH AND

WARRANTY 573
EXAMPLE 14-13 574
14.6- SPARES PROVISIONING WITH COST OF

SPARES CONSIDERATION 583
14.6.1- PROVISIONING AN OPTIMUM NUMBER OF
SPARES IN A KIT WITH THE DESIRED
CONFIDENCE LEVEL 583
EXAMPLE 14-14 585

14.6.2- THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS 591
EXAMPLE 14-15 592

14.6.3- THE KETTELLE ALGORITHM 598
EXAMPLE 14-16 600

14.7- SPARES PROVISIONING AND INVENTORY
COSTS CONSIDERATION 609
14.7.1- UNDERSTOCK VERSUS OVERSTOCK COST

MODEL 609
EXAMPLE 14-17 610

14.7.2- A DYNAMIC SPARES PROVISIONING
APPROACH 612
EXAMPLE 14-18 614

14.7.3- MAXIMIZATION OF AVAILABILITY PER COST
RATIO MODEL 615
EXAMPLE 14-19 620
CONTENTS xxv

WITH INVENTORY OF SPARES 625
14.8- COST AND CRITICALITY OF SPARES
CONSIDERATION 625
PROBLEMS 627
REFERENCES 633
CHAPTER 15- DISTRIBUTIONAL TEST AND REPAIR TIMES
IN A TEST AND REPAIR FACILITY 635
15.1- HOW TO APPLY 635
15.1.1- METHOD 1 - CENTRAL LIMIT THEOREM 635
15.1.2- METHOD 2 - SYSTEM MOMENTS 639
15.1.3- APPLICATION TO OUR PROBLEM 642
15.1.4- INTERPOLATION PROCEDURE FOR Z'a TABLES.. .645
EXAMPLE 15-1 645
EXAMPLE 15-2 661
15.1.5- METHOD 3 - MONTE CARLO SIMULATION 662
15.2- GENERATION OF RANDOM VALUES FOR
VARIOUS DISTRIBUTIONS 671
15.3- ERROR BOUNDS AND NUMBER OF
MONTE CARLO TRIALS 673
15.4- CONCLUDING REMARKS 679
EXAMPLE 15-3 679
PROBLEMS 687
REFERENCES 691
APPENDIX 15A - PROOF OF EQ. (15.23) 692
xxvi CONTENTS
REFERENCES 696
CHAPTER 16- THE WEIBULL PROCESS OF

REPAIRABLE UNITS 697
16.1- THE WEIBULL PROCESS AND ITS CHARACTERISTICS ... 697
16.2- THE ESTIMATION OF A WEIBULL PROCESS 701
16.2.1- GRAPHICAL ESTIMATES 701

16.2.1.1- GRAPHICAL METHOD 1 701
EXAMPLE 16-1 702

16.2.1.2- GRAPHICAL METHOD 2 706

EXAMPLE 16-2 707
16.2.2- THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATES OF

THE PARAMETERS OF THE WEIBULL PROCESS . . 709
EXAMPLE 16-3 711

16.3- WHEN TESTING MORE THAN ONE UNIT 711
EXAMPLE 16-4 711

16.4- THE COMPOSITE WEIBULL PROCESS 721
PROBLEMS 724
REFERENCES 738
CHAPTER 17- RELIABILITY OF COMPONENTS
WITH A POLICY OF REPLACING
THOSE THAT FAIL BY A
PRESCRIBED OPERATING TIME 739
17.1- WHEN AND HOW IT IS APPLIED 739
EXAMPLE 17-1 742

CONTENTS xxvii
EXAMPLE 17-2 747

PROBLEMS 751
CHAPTER 18- RELIABILITY OF MAINTAINED EQUIPMENT
WHEN KEEPING TRACK OF THE AGES OF
ALL COMPONENTS WITH EXPONENTIAL
AND WEIBULLIAN PDF'S 755
18.1- RELIABILITY WHILE KEEPING TRACK OF THE AGES
OF ALL COMPONENTS 755
18.2- MEAN LIFE 757
EXAMPLE 18-1 757
PROBLEMS 761
REFERENCE 768
INDEX 769
ABOUT THE AUTHOR 777
PREFACE
THE NEED FOR MAINTAINABILITY, AVAILABILITY AND

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

maintainability prediction models which are covered in these hand
books in detail and illustrated by examples.
To scientifically arrive at which equipment to buy, if several manu
facturers provide a product that performs the same function, a quan
tity needs to be developed whereby the right manufacturer's equipment
is correctly selected. This quantity is life-cycle cost. A chapter is
devoted in these handbooks that gives numerous life-cycle cost mod
els, depending on the type of equipment involved, their use and the
investment strategies considered. Another chapter is devoted to the
optimization of reliability and maintainability combined, to enable the
determination of the combination of MTBF and MTTR that yields
the minimum life-cycle cost.
Renewal theory needs to be used beneficially in maintainability
engineering, because it quantifies with relative ease the reliability and
availability of maintained equipment and systems. It is for this reason
that one chapter is devoted to renewal theory and its implementation
with many illustrative examples.
HOW TO USE THIS HANDBOOK
This handbook is the culmination of over 45 years of teaching by the
author in the unique Reliability Engineering Program and the Master's
and Ph.D. Degree Programs at The University of Arizona, Tucson,
Arizona. He initiated the Reliability Engineering Program in 1963,
provided extensive consulting services to over 100 companies and gov
ernment agencies internationally, put on over 400 institutes, training
courses and seminars worldwide to over 12,000 students, and indus
try and government personnel, and published over 14 books and 152
papers and articles.
This handbook has been written to meet the needs of (1) his stu
dents taking his course "Maintainability Engineering" at The Univer
sity of Arizona, (2) those attending his "Annual Reliability Engineering
and Management Institutes," conceived, initiated and directed by the
author since 1963; and (3) all present and future reliability, product
assurance, maintainability, maintenance, spare parts provisioning, de
sign, test and quality assurance engineers, managers, and practitioners;
as well as serve as an engineering college textbook. It is the sequel to
the "Reliability Engineering Handbook" by Dr. Kececioglu, published
by DEStech Publications, Inc., 1148 Elizabeth Ave. #2, Lancaster,
xxxii PREFACE
PA 17601 - 4359, Vol. 1, 720 pp. and Vol. 2, 568 pp., and "Reliability
& Life Testing Handbook" by Dr. Kececioglu, published by DEStech
Publications, Inc., 1148 Elizabeth Ave. #2, Lancaster, PA 17601 -
4359, Vol. 1, 950 pp., 2002 and Vol. 2, 900 pp., 2002.
Each chapter has numerous practical examples, completely worked
out and necessary computer programs given. Problems to be worked
out by students and practitioners are given at the end of each chapter,
as well as complete references. It is recommended that those who teach
reliability engineering courses start by teaching out of the two-volume
"Reliability Engineering Handbook," follow it by teaching out of the
two-volume "Reliability & Life Testing Handbook," and then follow it
by teaching out of this, the two-volume "Maintainability, Availability
and Operational Readiness Handbook."
Chapter 1 of Volume 1, of this two-volume handbook establishes
the objectives of this handbook, the overall benefits of an integrated
reliability and maintainability engineering program implemented in in
dustry and government, and covers 22 case histories documenting the
actual benefits derived from the implementation of reliability and main
tainability engineering.
Chapter 2 defines and quantifies system effectiveness, and gives
the relationship between reliability and system effectiveness. It also
defines reliability and maintainability comprehensively and provides
46 practical benefits of implementing reliability and maintainability
engineering.
Chapter 3 defines maintenance, preventive maintenance, cor
rective maintenance; identifies and defines all types of corrective and
preventive maintenance downtimes and their relationship to all other
times associated with the life of equipment. It also covers maintenance
personnel factors and costs; maintenance personnel safety factors; and
maintenance support facilities and equipment.
Chapter 4 discusses 15 maintainability design criteria which mini
mize equipment downtime, increase accessibility to critical, high failure
rate parts in equipment, provide better packaging; identify the correct
placement of labels which contain operating and maintenance instruc
tions so that they can be seen easily, and the correct choice of fastener
design; provide for the correct identification of equipment check points,
numbering of parts, marking of connectors so that they are connected
to the correct receptacle, etc.
Chapter 5 covers downtime distributions, and maintainability en
PREFACE xxxiii
gineering equations and their equivalent relationships to those in re

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

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

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

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

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

tainability Engineering, Maintenance, Maintainability, Opera
tional Readiness, Reliability of Maintained Equipment and Sys
tems and the Availability of Maintained Equipment and Systems,
and System Effectiveness.
2. Equipment times, including the various preventive and corrective

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

and equipment.
4. Fifteen key maintainability design criteria to improve the acces

sibility to critical units in equipment scheduled for maintenance,
and minimize equipment downtime.
1
MAINTAINABILITY ENGINEERING
5. Equipment downtime distributions, with emphasis on the lognor-

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

Markov chain process and the following three methods:
18.1 State transition.
18.2 State transition matrix.
18.3 Markov graph.
19. Reliability of components with a policy of replacing those that
fail by a prescribed operating time.
20. Availability of maintained systems using the Markov chain pro
cess and the following three methods:
20.1 State transition.
20.2 State transition matrix.
20.3 Markov graph.
21. Availability of systems with parallel redundancy.
22. Availability of systems with redundancy when repairs cannot be
made until complete system failure.
23. Availability of series systems.
24. Renewal theory approach to availability.
25. A-priori versus a-posteriori availability determination.
26. Steady state availabilities including the intrinsic, inherent, opera
tional, use, general, achieved and other steady state availabilities.
27. System Effectiveness and Operational Readiness.
28. Availability improvement considerations.
4 MAINTAINABILITY ENGINEERING
1 .2 RELIABILITY AND MAINTAINABILITY

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

products and systems and their relative failure rates, and rec
ommend design, research, and development efforts to minimize
these failures.
9. Determine the times- to-failure distribution of parts, components,
products and systems to enable the calculation of the failure rate
and reliability.
10. Determine the times-to-restore distribution of the failed equip
ment. These times should include all components of these equip
ment downtimes, and the distributions of each downtime compo
nent, such as active corrective, diagnostic, logistic and adminis
trative downtime.
11. Determine the mean time and the variability of all downtime
components whose distributions were determined in the previous
item to identify problem areas which need to be addressed, and
primarily reduce the mean time and variability of those mainte
nance actions consuming a large proportion of the total down
time.
12. Reduce the number of components used in the design of the
equipment.
13. Use reliabilitywise better component arrangements and equip
ment configuration.
14. Determine the required redundancy (parallel or standby) to achieve
the specified reliability goal, if other methods fail.
15. Select better and more compatible materials.
16. Select the proper stress, strain, strength, and time relationships
in the design of the parts and components to attain the optimum
design reliability goal.
17. Use reliability and maintainability engineering checklists in all
phases of existence of the equipment from birth to death.
18. Predict at the design state the reliability being designed into
parts and components via the stress/strength distributions' inter
ference approach and thereby optimize the designed-in reliability
to conserve materials and energy.
19. Establish a failure and maintenance reporting system to scien
tifically gather the vitally needed reliability and maintainability
data.
20. Establish failure responsibility as to engineering, manufacturing,

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

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

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

IMPLEMENTATION OF RELIABILITY AND
MAINTAINABILITY ENGINEERING
1. In 1958, only 28% of all United States satellite launchings were
successful, whereas today over 92% are successful and this relia
bility is increasing every year.
2. During the Korean War less than 20% of the combat airplane
electronic gear was operational. Today this has been increased
to over 85%.
3. The advanced solid state Minuteman missile has attained a reli
ability of over 95% through reliability engineering applications.
4. One electronic instruments manufacturer through the application
of reliability and maintainability engineering has reduced service
costs by about 70%, even though the sales were increased by 25%
at the same time.
5. An airplane hydraulic pump when first introduced had a mean
time to overhaul of 1,200 hours. As a result of continued field
monitoring of failures and failure modes, design changes improv
ing reliability and maintainability were made which increased
this time to 4,000 hours and in some cases to 5,800 hours.
During a four-year period (1959 to 1962) the cost per hour of
operation for the time between overhauls decreased by a factor
of 4 to 5 [1, p. 340]. Based on 4,000 hours between overhauls,
the savings were as follows, per overhaul per airplane:
Old - (4,000 hr/overhaul)($0.63/hr) = $2,520/overhaul.
New - (4,000 hr/overhaul)($0.17/hr) = $680/overhaul.
SAVINGS: $l,840/overhaul.
ENGINEERING BENEFITS 9
6. A reliability improvement program was implemented on the T-38

airplane and in its first three years accounted for 441 specific doc
umented changes resulting from 2,262 failure investigations. The
cost of the reliability effort was approximately $1,500,000 and
resulted in savings over the three-year period of 1960 to 1962
of approximately $32,000,000. The savings included less main
tenance, greater availability, fewer accidents and fewer spares [2,
pp. 65-70].
7. A reliability improvement study was conducted on the Minute-
man missile system. During the study, all major subsystems were
considered. A total of 66 specifications were proposed of which
13 were approved. The net effect was a 30% reduction in the
failure rate of the first Minuteman wing. The cost-effectiveness
analysis revealed a return of $8.00 for every dollar invested in the
reliability improvement program. The net savings over a ten-year
period was expected to be $160,000,000 [3, p. 51].
8. Comparative costs for the Atlas guidance system for a "nominal"
reliability level and a "high" reliability program are given in Ta
ble 1.1 [4]. This table shows that a "high" reliability program for
the Atlas missile guidance system resulted in $58,400,000 savings
per year for a yearly investment of $10,100,000 in development
and production for reliability and maintainability.
TABLE 1.1 -The total annual costs (million dollars) for
the Atlas guidance system [4, p. 172].
"High" reliability "Nominal" reliability

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

ment program which justified the axioms that reliability may
increase initial cost but substantially reduce maintenance costs.
A comprehensive reliability program was conducted on the F-
105 Weapon System with the result that reliability was increased
from 0.7263 to 0.8986. The reliability program nonrecurring costs
were estimated at $25,500,000, while the annual savings in main
tenance costs were estimated at $54,000,000 [5, p. 423].
10. Unreliability hits the Navy supply business in two principal ar

eas: aircraft unavailability and high supply costs. In addition,
the dollars required for supply are in direct competition with
dollars required for new ships and aircraft. The aviation spares
inventory aboard a large attack carrier has a value of approxi
mately $4,000,000, while in an industrial air station the inventory
represents approximately $300,000,000. The Aviation Supply Of
fice is currently buying spares for the entire Navy at a rate of
$500,000,000 per year. Better reliability and maintainability can
be a significant factor in reducing these costs [6, p. 81].
11. Rear Admiral J.M. Lyle (SC), USN, past commanding officer,
Naval Aviation Supply Office, said "In addition to costs in readi
ness or time, unreliability costs us in dollars. The major direct
added cost, of course, is the additional stocks of parts to meet
the higher usage rate and to supply more frequent repairs. There
is also the cost of added transportation to meet emergency sit
uations. And, of course, there are the intangible and indirect
costs stemming out of unreliability. What is the dollar cost of
grounding an A3D Aircraft for lack of parts? Though not readily
measured, it is nevertheless real and important." [6]. "A Horizon
Stabilizer Actuator for one of our attack aircraft is an example of
unreliability, evidenced by failure or wear rate far exceeding that
expected. The replacement rate which finally developed was 60%
as contrasted with an expectation of 8%. Interpreted into dol
lars, this usage increase cost us $400,000 additional in stock level
buys. Moreover, this usage increase multiplied our repair and
transportation costs seven times." "Or take a fuel control having
current fighter application. The item cost us over $5,000. There
have been 27 modifications to this control. Just bits and pieces
to effect these modifications have cost us a total of $2,500,000.
The delays, and other direct and indirect costs, are on top of
that."
12. GM reported that its 1961 appliances required 9% less service
than the 1960 models and 33% less than 1957 models.
13. "There is no question at Tapco that reliability is a profitable

venture," said R.R. Landers, past Chief of Reliability, Tapco Di
vision, Thompson Ramo Woolridge, Inc. The profit contribution
shows up in many forms:
Standards -A bolt, washer, and nut assembly costing $10, used

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

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

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

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

and deliver 2,000 airborne indicator panels per year is presented
in Table 1.3 and Fig. 1.1. Supplier A prices its units at $3,227 per
unit, while Supplier B prices its units at $2,221, certainly a very
favorable price or about two-thirds that of Supplier A. However,
it happens that Supplier A's MTBF is 941 hours, while that of
Supplier B is only 331 hours, or about one-third that of Supplier
A. The end result is an annual maintenance cost of $14,285,000
for Supplier B's product versus $5,452,000 for Supplier A's prod
uct. The total annual cost of acquiring and maintaining the units
of Supplier A is $11,906,000, and of Supplier B is $18,727,000,
or a savings of $6,821,000 per year if Supplier A's units are ac
quired, even though the purchase price is about 50% higher than
that of Supplier B. In other words, the life-cycle cost should be
the basis of selecting the supplier, and the more reliable product,
even though it may cost more to acquire, it costs much less over
the design life of the product. Figure 1.1 also shows that Supplier
A has a very good grasp of the reliability engineering principles,
because the designed-in MTBF was chosen to be the optimum
MTBF at which the life-cycle cost is minimum.
dpanels
from
ifor
aand
MTBF
Fig.
two
Plot
cni1.1
fcost
doriembcropae-rtnoreing
1 ,906,0 0 18,727,0 0
Total
$
cost, 600
1,800
1,500
1,200
900
aiTABLE
cCost
for
1.3
dtwo
oermnbpt—oaircinaselon maintenance
Annual
ipanels
(based
units).
n2,000
dioncator
5,452,000 14,285,0 0
MTBF
hr.
941
=
$
cost,
MTBF
h33
1Unit
A
=rr
6,454,0 0 4,4 2,0 0

Initial hr
MTBF,
$
cost,
savings
Cost
MTBF,
hr 941 331 UnitB $of
6,821,0 0
Unit
cost,
3,227 2,221 sup liers.
$
Supplier
A B 25t
CO
16. Table 1.4 illustrates the benefits of trade-off studies which can
not be conducted without reliability and maintainability inputs.
The problem resolved in Table 1.4 is whether to throw away or
repair a failed module from the overall cost point of view. Un
der "Total cost of spares," 60 repairable modules per ten years
are estimated to be needed, yielding $20 X 60 = $1,200, and 50
throwaway modules yielding $150 X 50 = $7,500. This informa
tion is derived from reliability engineering studies. Under "Cost
of repair - active repair time," the MTTR of two hours is needed
yielding 60 repairs/10 years X 2 hr/repair X $15/hr = $1,800.
This MTTR can only be obtained from Maintainability Engi
neering studies. Finally, it is found that the "repair case" will
cost $14,796 versus $8,680 for the "discard case"; consequently,
the "discard case" wins out at great savings.
17. Military aircraft have typically been designed with performance

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

to gain access to radar antennae. This process would require
3 people and 30 to 45 minutes. After redesign, the B-1B
nose radome is hinged mounted to swing open and can be
accessed by 1 person in less than 15 minutes.
(b) The B-1A had several external compartment panels which
allowed access to the avionics equipment but required main
tenance platforms to work from. This problem was solved by
redesigning the B-1A so that the avionics bay faces the cen
ter aisle where its accessibility has been greatly improved
and the equipment's reliability has increased due to the
elimination of possible effects of exposure to the elements.
18. The AV-8B was designed to meet quantitative maintainability

goals. The aircraft was specified to have fewer than 15.9 mainte
nance man-hours per flight hour (MMH/FH) and has surpassed
that goal at 15.5 MMH/FH [9]. This is particularly impressive
when compared to the AV-8A which had 30.3 MMH/FH. The
implementation of maintainability by design for the AV-8B will
eliminate depot level requirements, reduce support equipment re
quirements, reduce downtime, increase availability and result in
bfe-cycle cost savings of $ 8,000,000.
10%
module
peculiar.
of
in
Assume
parts
are
eOsxctielndosecrope
module
and
required.
hlOne
tMTTR
2
5
eevel.
chr.ni-cian discard
training
Formal
in
less
costs
case.
shipping.
No
repair.
level
field
Assume
Pprice.
design
Module
is
roduction Throwaway
module
50/10
years.
-
module
60/10
Repyears.
ai-rable
cTTABLE
study
rand
requiring
o1.4
ensalidear-btoiflnsity $200
3
Assume
at
pages
page.
per
Based
replonacements
module ffor
existing
repair.
Use
acilities $20
each.
rAssume
at
etonerofit
1labor.
iAssume
1nd0%
irect Oin
supply
ssystem.
cil oscope $5
action.
repair
Assume
per im-ated THROW
$5,000.
item
Escost
line
tper AWAY.
DECI-SION
Remarks
simpclaisfei.ed
discard
in
Module
repair
throw
(single
ap vaway
leircsautsion)
Discard
case $150 $7,500 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $1,000 N/A $30 N/A N/A $8,680
Apcostlicable
minputs.
aintainability
Repair
case $200 $1,200 $396 $1,800 $100 $300 none $140 none $60 $600 $10,000 $14,796
shipping
and
packaging
of
Cost tdiagrams,
retc.
ouble-sho ting
COST
ESTIMATED
TOTAL
of isioning, handling,
pCost
rovspares caetc.
taloguing,
eTest
quipment/spares echnical manuals,
ttraining
of
Cost tCost
of
echnical
spare modules)
10%
(Assume repairable Prepair
for
iece-parts
Factor of
Unit
module
cost Total
of
costspares repair
Active
time retrofit
of
Cost
and
Administration
repair
of
Cost modification
Facilities
19. The F/A-18 was developed under the Navy's "new look" weapons
procurement program in an effort to improve reliability and main
tainability and thus, reduce life-cycle cost [10]. During the four-
year period after entering service, the F/A-18 was three times
more reliable than the two aircraft it replaces, the F-4J and the
A-7E. The F/A-18 has an average of 2.2 mean flight hours be
tween failures (MFHBF) compared with its closest competi
tor the F-4J averaging 0.8 MFHBF. The F/A-18 required
26.0 MMH/FH which was a great improvement over the 46.1
MMH/FE necessary for the A-7E.
20. PATRIOT (Phased Array TRacking to Intercept Of Target) mis

sile developers implemented a reliability and maintainability growth
plan to increase the MTBF and reduce the MTTR [11]. The
results of this plan have demonstrated an increase in the MTBF
from 30 to 39 hours while the MTTR has decreased from 3.8 to
3.3 hours.
21. Pump failures cost an average of $4,000 per repair in the petro
chemical industry. The MTBF for typical pumps is 18 months
and because of the number of them at large refineries main
tenance costs for pump repairs alone may exceed $3,000,000.
Exxon has introduced a pump failure reduction program which
has yielded significant results and led to 29% less failures after
the first year of implementation [12].
22. The reliability and maintainability of a helicopter flight control

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

tainability and quality costs in industry are being spent to correct prod
uct design inadequacies and defects after they have occurred, while less
than 10% are being spent to make products right in the first place."
Let's make sure that this does not get perpetuated!
Maintenance
action, Digital/ Optical — 1,331 555 1,497 3,440 400 979 8,202 122
dand
midual
c-geTABLE
between
oRic1.5
temhalpin/aorbcptailscioatlny fr/106
hr
Mechanical 15,000 - 1,830 - 4,370 - - 21,000 48
Dual
- 1.1967 - 0.0665 315.30 30.340 346.90 2,882.6

Digital/ Optical 4.408xl0~5
aborts,
Mission
fr/106
hr
Mechanical 341.5 - - - 1,114.0 - - 1,455.5 687.0
Dual
- -
xlO6
28.65
Digital/ Optical -71.608x10 _63.307x10 "334.68x10 ~42.537x10 5.5 X10-1 ~334.94x10
safety,
Flight
[13].
control
flight
systems fr/106
hr
Mechanical 0.0054 - - - 0.2113 - - 0.2167 4.61x10s
Dual
cMoecnhtarnoilcasl
Hydromechanical
cForce
ontrol er Failure Elecpower
monitor trical
Functional Groupings Electronics hr

MTBF,
AFCS Total
*
18 APPLICATIONS AND BENEFITS
PROBLEMS
1-1. What is maintainability?
1-2. What is maintainability engineering?
1-3. What in today's advanced society dictates the acquisition and
the application of the maintainability engineering principles?
1-4. Name three complex products of today which should be de
signed by and their performance monitored through main
tainability engineering.
1-5. Name three current space and defense projects which have
been designed by and whose performance is being monitored
through maintainability engineering.
1-6. Which specific phases of existence of a product or system
does maintainability deal with?
1-7. List five of the most important applications of and benefits
derived from maintainability engineering in your opinion.
1-8. Illustrate by two numerical examples why product or sys
tem complexity dictates the acquisition and application of
the knowledge of maintainability engineering.
1-9. Why is today's worldwide industrial competition a challenge
to maintainability engineering?
1-10. How do you think maintainability specifications are set?
REFERENCES
1. Billit, A.B., "Control of Maintainability in Aerospace Fluid Power Sys
tems," Aerospace Reliability and Maintainability Conference Proceed
ings, Washington, D.C., pp. 340-349, June 1964.
2. Harter, W.W., "Results of an Airplane Reliability Program," Aerospace
Reliability and Maintainability Conference Proceedings, Washington,
D.C., pp. 65-70, June 1964.
3. Powell, H.R., "The Minuteman Approach to System Reliability," Aero
space and Maintainability Conference Proceedings, Washington, D.C.,
pp. 51-58, June 1964.
4. Camarata, J., "Product Reliability- The Concept of Integrated Relia
bility and Quality Assurance," Aerospace Reliability and Maintainabil
ity Conference, Washington, D.C., pp. 172-178, May 1963.
REFERENCES 19
5. Colletta, A., Cravero, J., and Russell, C, "Reliability in Procurement-

F105 Aircraft Electronic System," Seventh Military-Industry and Space
Reliability Symposium, pp. 423-430, June 1962.
6. Lyle, J.M., Rear Admiral, "Supply Aspects of Reliability," îA Navy-
Industry Conference on Aeronautical Material Reliability, Washington,
D.C., pp. 25.32-25.35, Nov. 1-2, 1960.
7. Bracha, Vincent J., "Analysis of Reliability Management in Defense
Industries" (Ph.D. Dissertation), Ballistic Systems Division, Air Force
Systems Command, USAF, AFIT, Dayton, Ohio, pp. 8-10 to 8-12,
1962.
8. Worm, Charles M., "The Real World - A Maintained View," Proceed
ings of the Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium, IEEE,
New York, pp. 86-90, 1987.
9. Schmitz, Wayne N., "AV-8B-M By Design: Impact on Supportability,"
Proceedings of the Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium,
IEEE, New York, pp. 240-246, 1987.
10. Gordon, Tommy W., "F/A-18 Hornet Reliability Program: Status Re
port," Proceedings of the Annual Reliability and Maintainability Sym
posium, IEEE, New York, pp. 228-231, 1986.
11. Wyatt, Mack W., "RAM Growth of the PATRIOT Missile System,"
Proceedings of the Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium,
IEEE, New York, pp. 381-385, 1987.
12. Bloch, H.P., "Centrifugal Pump Failure Reduction Program Can Show
Quick Success," Oil k Gas Journal, Vol. 81, No. 2, January 10, 1983.
13. Brady, T.V. & Hogg, G.W., "Army Helicopter Mission Reliability and
Cost Analysis," Proceedings of the Annual Reliability and Maintain
ability Symposium, pp. 280-286, 1983.
Chapter 2
SYSTEM EFFECTIVENESS AND

RELIABILITY ENGINEERING
CONCEPTS
2.1 SYSTEM EFFECTIVENESS

System Effectiveness, as a concept, had its beginning in the early six
ties. Two major pioneering efforts were those of WSEIAC and of the
ARINC Corporation, which are detailed next.
2.1.1 WSEIAC
The concept of System Effectiveness as developed by the Weapons Sys
tem Effectiveness Industry Advisory Committee (WSEIAC), involved
the totality of the requirements associated with the system's avail
ability, dependability and capability, as well as reliability. It must be
pointed out that reliability is directly a component of availability and
of dependability. Furthermore, reliability has to be designed into a
system. It affects its design and in turn its performance or capability.
WSEIAC task groups prepared and published six reports in eleven vol
umes. Their titles and Defense Technical Information Center numbers
are as follows:
21
22 SYSTEM EFFECTIVENESS
AFSC-TR-65-1 Final Report of Task Group 1 "Requirements

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

Measurement."
(AD 458-454) Vol. I.

(AD 458-455) Vol. II.
(AD 458-456) Vol. III.
AFSC-TR-65-3 Final Report of Task Group 3 "Data Collection

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

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

(AD 462-398) Vol. II.
(AD 458-586) Vol. III.
AFSC-TR-65-5 Final Report of Task Group 5 "Management

Systems."
(AD 461-171) Vol. I.

(AD 461-172) Vol. II.
AFSC-TR-65-6 Chairman's Final Report "Integrated Summary"

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

reliability readiness Adequacy
Storage Free Availability

time time
Operating time
(Reliability)
Intrinsic Down time

Availability (Maintainability)
Active Repair Time

Serviceability (Repairability)
Logistic time
Administrative
time
Fig. 2. 1 - System Effectiveness concepts.
Table 2.1 - Definitions of System Effectiveness Con

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

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

OF RELIABILITY
Reliability is the (1) conditional probability, at a given (2) confidence
level, that the equipment will perform their intended functions satis
factorily or (3) without failure and within specified performance limits,
at a given (4) age, for a specified length of time or (5) mission time,
when used in the manner and for the purpose intended while operating
under the specified (6) application and operation stress levels.
Reliability is a probability, hence a number between zero and one,
or zero percent and 100%. It is defined as the ratio of the number of
successful missions, Ns(t), each of t duration, to the total number of
such missions, Nr(t), undertaken, or
reliability estimate = R(t) = ^ ' (2.1)
_ NT(t) - NF(t)
(2.2)
NT(t) '
therefore,
reliability estimate =1 — ^, (2.3)
where
Njr(t) = number of missions of t duration that failed,
^g = unreliability, (2.4)
R(t) = 1 - Q(t) — 1 - unreliability estimate, (2.5)
and
R(t) + Q(t)=l. (2.6)
R(t) is only an estimate because of the limited, finite number of total

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

2.3 A QUANTIFICATION OF SYSTEM

EFFECTIVENESS
As at the beginning of each mission / = 0, the number of units surviving
at the beginning of a mission will be equal to the total number at hand
at the start of the mission. Consequently, the reliability will be equal
to one at t = 0. However, this is conditional to the fact that at the
beginning of a mission the equipment is available and ready to start
the mission successfully and the equipment will function within its
designed-for conditions.
A better way of considering this is to look at the quantified concept
of System Effectiveness, SE, which is defined as
SE = OrxRmx Da, (2.8)
where
Or = operational readiness,
RM = mission reliability
and
Da = design adequacy.
System Effectiveness is the probability that a system will success
fully meet all designed-to objectives when called upon to do so at a
point in time and when operated under the specified conditions.
Another, quantitative, definition of System Effectiveness is
Nac
SE = (2.9)
NT '
where
Nac — number of systems that have accomplished all
designed-to mission objectives when called upon
to do so, at a point in time,
and
Nt — total number of systems on hand at the start of
the mission.
Operational readiness is the probability that the system is either
available at the beginning of the mission or can be brought to an oper
ationally ready state by the beginning of the mission. The probability
that having started the mission successfully, the system will complete
the mission without failure is mission reliability. The probability that

having completed the mission the equipment has functioned within the
performance specifications it was designed for and provided all of the
required end results is design adequacy.
Operational readiness is a function of the reliability and the main
tainability of the equipment because the system would either be up due
to its functioning reliably or down, and has to be repaired or main
tained to bring it up to operational status.
A quantitative definition of operational readiness, Or, is
where
Nav = number of systems that are available to start
their mission successfully.
A quantitative definition of mission reliability, Rm, is
where
Ncm — number of systems that, having started their mis
sion successfully, complete their mission success-
fully.
Design adequacy is a difficult concept to conceive because it is dif
ficult to quantify. It can be illustrated by examples, however. Let
us assume one wants to take six people to work, there is only one
car available, and the car's capacity is only four passengers. The de
sign adequacy of this car for this mission is 4/6, or 67%. In terms
of intercontinental ballistic missiles, the probability that the required
number of missiles have been checked out and are ready to be launched
at the designated time is operational readiness. The probability that
each missile is successfully launched, reaches the target and explodes
successfully is mission reliability. The probability that the missile de
stroys the specified target to the extent intended is design adequacy.
If the number specified to destroy the whole target were launched suc
cessfully, and an inspection revealed that only 90% of the target was
destroyed, then the design adequacy of these missiles is 90%.
A quantitative definition of design adequacy, Da, is
D*-mt' (2-12)
where all terms were defined earlier.

When we talk only of reliability, it is assumed that operational
readiness and design adequacy are 100%. Therefore, reliability is a
probability conditional to the facts that operational readiness and de
sign adequacy are each 100%.
EXAMPLE 2-1
A system has an operational readiness of 98%, a mission reliability

of 95%, and a design adequacy of 90%. Answer the following questions:
1. What is the System Effectiveness of this system?
2. If we need the full output of 100 such systems, how many of them
should be purchased?
3. How many of these systems will start their missions successfully?
4. How many of these systems will complete their mission success
fully?
5. How many systems will accomplish their total, designed-to mis
sion objectives?
SOLUTIONS TO EXAMPLE 2-1
1. This system's System Effectiveness is

SE = Or x RM X DA = 0.98 x 0.95 x 0.90 = 0.84, or 84%.
2. The number of such systems we should have on hand is obtained

from
or
NAC 100
Nt = IF = ou = 119 systems-
3. The number of systems that will be operationally ready to start
their missions is obtained from
which yields
Nav = NT x Or = 119 x 0.98 =116 systems.
4. The number of systems that will complete their missions success

fully is obtained from
D Ncm
Rm = -=j— ,
Nav
or
Ncm = NaV X RM = 116 X 0.95 =110 systems.
5. The number of systems that will accomplish their total, designed-

to mission objectives is obtained from
* Ncm'
or
Nac = Ncm x Da = 110x 0.90 = 100 systems.
2.4 A COMPREHENSIVE DEFINITION OF

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

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

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

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

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

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

stration sample sizes.
29. Help provide guidelines for evaluating potential suppliers on the

basis of their product reliability and maintainability.
30. Help provide guidelines for system maintainability, spare parts

provisioning, and minimum-cost spares kit determination.
31. Establish the time required for average system scheduled repairs.
32. Establish the system's availability and its goal.
33. Establish the system's capability and its goal.
34. Establish the system's dependability and its goal.
35. Establish the system's utilization factor and its goal.
36. Establish the system's maintainability and its goal.
37. Establish the overall man-hours required for the entire mainte
nance procedure with inspections.
38. Provide analyses of failure reports to see if all failures are of the
same type, if shipping and packaging methods are adequate, if
there are trends in the frequency of failure versus service life, if
there is a sufficient number of men available for maintenance, if
the downtimes and repair times are consistent with the estimates
and if the changes made affected the life and the maintainability
of the equipment and to the desired degree.
39. Conduct failure modes, effects, and criticality analyses, FAMECA,

to identify areas which should receive concentrated redesign, re
search, development and testing efforts from the product's relia
bility and maintainability points of view.
40. Increase customer satisfaction and goodwill.
41. Increase sales and market share.
42. Increase profits.

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

to improve the productivity of the plant, and thereby reduce
production costs.
44. Reinvest some of the profits into more research and development
to stay ahead of world competition.
45. Improve the quality of life of the workers who produce these
products by giving them more deserved benefits from the profits.
46. Reward company shareholders who invested their money in the
company by distributing to them some of the excess profits as
dividends and by contributing to the appreciation of the com
pany's securities.
PROBLEMS
2-1. Who developed the System Effectiveness concept?

2-2. Define the following terms:
(1) System effectiveness.
(2) Mission reliability.
(3) Operational readiness.
(4) Design adequacy.
2-3. List the time categories associated with System Effectiveness.
2-4. List the key elements in the comprehensive definition of
reliability.
2-5. Create three examples of your own to illustrate design
adequacy.
2-6. List the key elements in the comprehensive definition of
maintainability.
2-7. Describe five applications of maintainability engineering.
2-8. The mission reliability for a system is known to be 99.4%.
If 1,000 such systems complete their mission, how many
were available at the start of the mission?
2-9. One thousand units have a System Effectiveness of 97.2%.
(1) Determine the number of units which accomplished
all designed-to mission objectives.
(2) Determine the operational readiness assuming that

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

Maintenance is defined as any action which retains non-failed units
in a reliabilitywise and safetywise satisfactory, operational condition;
and if they have failed, restores them to a reliabilitywise and safety-
wise satisfactory, operational condition. It involves fixing up partial
failures or incipient failures of independently operating subsystems of
the system and in the system's redundant elements without preferably
interrupting system operation. Maintenance is a vital part of the cy
cles of unreliability, maintainability, availability, and safety, as shown
in Fig. 3.1. It looks simultaneously at downtime, maintenance man-
hours, and maintenance dollars.
The previous definition of maintenance implies two types of main
tenance actions: (1) preventive or scheduled, and (2) corrective or un
scheduled. The various preventive and corrective maintenance times,
and their relationships to all other times associated with the life of a
unit are given in Fig. 3.2.
3.2 PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE

Preventive maintenance is performed on satisfactorily functioning units
at regularly scheduled intervals, and includes, but is not limited to, the
following actions:
1. Servicing periodically, such as replenishing depleted oil, changing
aged oil, greasing and lubricating, refueling, cleaning, adjusting,
aligning, checking and cleaning electrical contact surfaces, remov
ing rust deposits, tightening loose units, making routine checks
and calibrating.
37
SYSTEM SAFETY
safety.
amuvcycles
and of
Fig.
The
nia3.1
ritelainba-ility,
AVAILABILITY
\J~ SYSTEM
MAINTAINABIL TY
SYSTEM
C•OANSDIETISON
•FINDWEAROUTS
MAINTENANCE MAINTENANCE: MAINTENANCE

COR ECTIVE •PERSON EL •EQUIPMENT
•FACILITIES PREVENTIVE
ACTIONS
ACTIONS:
•COST
UNRELIABILITY
SYSTEM
GO
RESTORATION ACTION
TIME
LOGGING
ADMINISTRATIVE AND REPLACE

REMOVE WITH
LA
ITEM
IKE
other
all
rand
their
Fig.
emctimes
Pto
alo3.2
rientrviecon-taisnvhceips
TIME CLEANUP
TIME
STORAGE TIME
FREE
TIME
CHECKOUT
AND
REPAIR
TIME
DELAY TIME REMOVE. REPLACE
V INACTIVE
TIME
TIME
DELAY
SUPPLY
FAULT
COR ECTION
TIME
MODIFICATION
DOWNTIME REPAIR PLACE
TIME IN
ADJUSTMENT- CALIBRATION
EQUIPMENT
TIME TIME of
life
the
with
eatimes
squoicpamtendt.
MAINTENANCE
COR ECTIVE
MAINTENANCE TIME
OVERHAUL
TIME OBTAINMINT MA|OR TIME
ITEM TIME
ACTIVE
TIME
OVERHAUL
MINOR TIME
ISOLATION
FAILURE
TIME
MISSION TIME
REPLACINC
AGINC UNITS TIME
PREPARATION
TIME
REACTION
TIME
(TURN
AROUND)
SERVICING
TIME
MAINTENANCE
PREVENTIVE
TIME
TIME
ALERT
INSPECTION
TIME
40 MAINTENANCE
2. Inspecting, checking out, replacing or repairing failed redundant

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

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

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

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

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

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

The active maintenance time is that period during which the unit is
being worked upon by maintenance personnel during preventive and/or
corrective maintenance actions. Its length is a function of the unit's
inherent, designed-in maintainability. In the general sequence in which
the restorative actions will be performed, the active maintenance time
includes the following:
1. Servicing."
2. Inspection.*
3. Preparation.
4. Failure isolation.
5. Diagnostic.
6. Access to failed units or components.
7. Unit, component, or part obtainment.
8. Fault correction by replacement or repair.
9. Preventively replacing units scheduled for replacement with fresh
units.*
10. Minor overhaul.*
11. Major overhaul.*
12. Adjustment and/or calibration.*
13. Checkout.*
14. Cleanup.
OPERATING TIME AND DOWNTIME 43
15. Logging the restoration action.

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

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

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

AND COSTS
It must be decided first who has to perform the maintenance, the
contractor or the customer. Subsequently the following are pertinent:
1. Availability of maintenance skills.
2. Number of maintenance personnel needed.
3. Training requirements (time, trainers, materials, etc.).
4. Operational conditions to perform the maintenance action(s).
5. Maintenance personnel safety.
6. "Human-error" proof equipment and procedures.

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

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

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

tric tension.
3. Maintenance personnel must not be exposed to hazardous moving

components.
4. Maintenance personnel must be protected from falling by having

a safe work location at all times.
5. Safety lanes must be provided at the workplace and must be very

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

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

conveniently accessible.
8. Safety clothing, shoes and glasses and/or goggles must be pro

vided.
9. Maintenance personnel must be trained in safety matters and

updated, so that they become safety conscious at all times.
46 MAINTENANCE
3.7 MAINTENANCE SUPPORT FACILITIES

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

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

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

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

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

external grips, and of electrical wiring lugs for ease of maintenance.
Figure 4.10 points out the need for the provision of rests on which
subassemblies can be placed for safe maintenance without damaging
any of their parts and components.
Figure 4.11 points out the need to locate connectors far enough
apart to be firmly grasped.
Figure 4.12 emphasizes adjustment-location aspect of design so that
check points, adjustment points, cable and connectors, and panels face
the technician. They should not be hidden by other units.
Figure 4.13 shows functional identification of circuit breakers in
addition to reference designation whenever possible.
Figure 4.14 illustrates circuits with many diodes or other polarized
components. The preferred mounting of the components is with their
polarization in one direction (left to right or top to bottom).
Figure 4.15 illustrates correct numbering of parts according to cir
cuit data flow and their physical location.
PROBLEMS
4-1. Come up with two suggestions of your own on how you would
improve the design of a certain assembly with respect to its com
ponents accessibility, adjustments, identification, safety, replace
ment, modularization, etc.
4-2. Consider your own car. Is there any system or subsystem that
could be improved with respect to its maintainability design cri
teria? What are these improvements? How would you implement
these improvements? Document your suggestions by appropriate
drawings.
4-3. Consider the failure of the water pump in your car. Come up with
your estimate of the expected time to disassemble it, replace it
and assemble it again including the minimum necessary time to
check it out to assure its proper function.
4-4. Obtain estimates of the repair time for the water pump in Prob
lem 4-3 from a car dealer or a car repair service.
4-5. How and where would you locate the water pump in your car for
ease of maintenance? Document your suggestions with appropri
ate drawings.
4-6. Where and how would you locate your car engine's oil dipstick
for ease of preventive maintenance thereof? Document your sug
gestions with appropriate drawings.
«
o
0
1) C
■r. o
EL 3
tr 3
3
a
e
u
-a
■i ■
C *—. -*—•
E 8
oo ,y 3
bi
s ■» o
a E >
X V~t
3 Tf
a , 8.
"3
| E C
u. «-*
u
Q.
T3
3 8
o ■—»
*■ Ul
UJ <w>
"*~0
C/i
o O "3
u
tn — oc a
^
--J
c* O U OX c
UJ —i o <~> H-
4-1
3
C
M
s
JO ■o
UJ to -J ^ u o
2 o UJ v>
tn
1
E
^
c
o CJ
3 K
:3 <-s
c
O 3 r3
U 9 •o
5. 5 h
5 >o.
o -»—a
■a 8 c
.1) "-1 1
1) « •f
l~ 0)
^^ tk
*—- LL.
52
trouble
of
for
aprovide
cdesigns
nto
ease
eoand
sPnrFig.
pi4.2
erbfileir-tyred
N(b)
oPn(a)
rpefer red.
rand
removal
eshooting,
placement.
u
M»tai-to-m«ui casing joint you resell

without a rigid gasket for a tighter seal.
Separate packing casings;
Baaring-cat* cooling-water chambers Steam strainer you r

you <~xn nr.Tjn taking the govern'
without installing valves.
/
Overall, a standard turbine that'ikasiaLta-maifllaml
DecaTJseTouTarTêT^TTffS'parTs^noâsier^^^^
Fig. 4.3 - Single-stage steam turbine designed for good ac

cessibility and ease of maintenance.
I
V
<-»
ft
a
z
1
'>
oII
©
!
bO
B
i
to
s
C3
V
o.
O
S
3
•ae
a
«
to
55
hand
tools
provide
to
for
required
using
4.4(b)
cworking
Minimum
oFig.
space
m o-n
ac es ibility.
adequate
s
CI
—
LU —
0
r.
C
—
it
z
■- a
LU
4
g <aC
= 'Sb
to jg
C9
I
60
57
<
03
g
Q
O ?
O *5
CD w
/:
—j
ffl =
-
C
<
~ :/:
«J
**
y C
u
X '■—
~^ a
3Sa B
0
c u
> ■aa
*J
irz C
.-5 "3
s
si;
JJ
Ti
a s
— a
—J w
o — ci
9 u
5 a
_ i. ..
0 c
•J u
«J i
3
k
■o
n
■
—s §
—
c
T
M
h
58
GROUPING
OF
TEST
POINTS
GOOD
BAD
Kland
oper
eigrouping
of
tpoints
for
.tost
riof
amta.easeionitenance.
'•
•*•
•<•• •»•
»>• ••'
•!•••• •!•
JLLl
••
•C
!•
.1
••
••
.1
•..»
IDOF
ENTIFICATION
TEST
POINTS Fig.
4.7
Proper
iden-tific
CO
HERE
IN
NOT
HERE
UNDER
NOT
TOP)
(ON
HERE easily
he
sshould
eLabels
,.(b)
mof
aifor
nlabels
teof
easenapnd
clacement
e.
canoindenctP'°Per
of iof4-8
irFig.
csati"on
recede
the
*.
to
each
CW
ode
DAD attached.
beis
it
to
liich
GOOD
to
w
s
lugs
riral
elect
and
wiring
egrips
good
fFig.
of
with
P4.9
xarstoveirns-eiarolsning
THIS
HAS
DRILLED
BE
KIND
TO
DAMAGED
IS
SLOT
IF
OUT
GRIP
EXTERNAL
FOR
PMAKE
ROVISIONS
FREPAIRS
LUGS
U-TYPE
ACILITATE
BAD
(LUGS) mfwhich
aicnitleinatncte.
GRIP
EXTERNAL
PERMITS
HEAD
WRENCH
OF
USE
GOOD
^
damaged
main
during
would
sthat
get
unot esocmbalu-itesions for
bpSafety
Fig.
ars4.10 mplaced
abe
units
which
iproviding
nsuch
rests
tecanntonaasencnea. nce,
BAD tJODP
for
placed
mabe
units
which
iProvide
ntrests
ecannonance.
GOOD Uyuuu
KD
PROBLEMS 63
This Not This
Fig. 4.11 — Connector location which enables easy grasping.
This Not This
Fig. 4.12 - Location of check points, adjustment points, ca

bles and connectors for ease of maintenance and
reduction of downtime.
Cfla* CW
CT* 0«i4
CVt« Ciwl *pr
1 Cft-| u-i
This
câ
Hi
omw |
oPf
off
ct-e
Not This
orr
tw
Fig. 4.13 - Proper circuit breaker identification.
1 1 i i i i i
l-h pi r^ r4n i4n
t If t f f t t f
1 VWW 1 U- i 1
-\ -H-- -*--- -»■-

-+- -- -H-h-Hh -
This Not This
Fig. 4.14 - The preferred mounting of the polarized elec

tronic components.
i
Hir^
o
cr
HBO-
CM
£ c
6 o
hio^ -CD- I
E
c
a
s 5 o
5
«^nrv> •OH
1
'8
•VWV—|h
CM —L '7
6/Ty oc
=3
6 ^> so
65
4-7. Where and how would you locate your car transmission's oil dip
stick for ease of preventive maintenance thereof? Document your
suggestions with appropriate drawings.
4-8. Where and how would you locate your car engine's spark plugs
for ease of maintenance thereof? What special tools if any, would
you use? Document your suggestions with appropriate drawings.
4-9. Come up with a better example than that given in Fig. 4.1 of
this chapter to decrease the diagnostic time of failed equipment.
Document your suggestions with appropriate drawings.
4-10. Come up with a better example than that given in Fig. 4.2
illustrating easier accessibility. Document your suggestions with
appropriate drawings.
Chapter 5
DOWNTIME DISTRIBUTIONS
AND MAINTAINABILITY
ENGINEERING FUNCTIONS
5.1 DOWNTIME DISTRIBUTIONS

The preventive and corrective maintenance actions described in Chap
ter 3 get completed in varying times depending on the component
involved, its physical characteristics and its location in the equipment,
the skill levels of the maintenance personnel, the work disposition state
of this personnel, the types of maintenance equipment available, the
environmental conditions under which they work, etc. As a result,
even for identical components in identical locations, such maintenance
action times will vary from one failed component to the next identical
failed component in identical equipment. This naturally leads to each
specific maintenance action's time being distributed. Such distribu
tions may be the exponential, the normal, the lognormal, the Weibull,
the gamma, and others. Most government specifications favor the use
of the lognormal distribution as best representing the active repair or
restoration times in particular. The application of the lognormal dis
tribution to the determination of the active repair or restoration times
is illustrated next.
EXAMPLE 5-1
Given the active times-to-restore data of Table 5.1 for a system in
which a specific part fails, do the following:
1. Determine the probability density function of the times to restore
the system when this part fails, using the lognormal distribution,
67
68 DOWNTIME DISTRIBUTIONS
TABLE 5.1 - Times-to-restore data of identical systems

in which a specific part fails, for the deter
mination of the maintainability character
istics of the system in Example 5-1.
1 2 3
Group Times to restore, Frequency of observation,
number tj, hr nj
1 0.2 1
2 0.3 1
3 0.5 4
4 0.6 2
5 0.7 3
6 0.8 2
7 1.0
8 1.1
9 1.3
10 1.5
11 2.0
12 2.2
13 2.5
14 2.7
15 3.0 2
16 3.3 2
17 4.0 2
18 4.5
19 4.7
20 5.0
21 5.4
22 5.5
23 7.0
24 7.5
25 8.8
26 9.0
27 10.3
28 22.0
29 24.5
Ar' = 29 # = 46
DOWNTIME DISTRIBUTIONS 69
and plot it.

2. What is the mean time to restore the system when this part fails?
3. What is the median of the times to restore the system when this
part fails?
4. What is the time by which one-half of such restorations will be
completed?
5. What is the most frequently occurring time to restore?
6. What is the standard deviation of the times to restore?
1. To determine the lognormal pdf of the times to restore given in
Table 5.1, the values of /' = loget and oti should be calculated
from
A'
V = ,=i (5.1)
for ungrouped data, where /' = loger, and from

A"
E »i*j
r = 3—N1 (5.2)
E nj
for grouped data, where iij is the number of identical observa

tions given in the third column of Table 5.1, N' is the number
of differcnt-in-vahie observed times to restore, or the number of
data groups which for this problem is N' = 29, given in Column
1 of Table 5.1, and N is the total number of observed times to
restore, or
A"
A* (5.3)
which for this problem is 46; and

.V
1=1
EOl-r-W)7\2
Of - Ar - 1 (5.4)
for ungrouped data, and
TV'
£ n^f - N{i'Y
ati = (5.5)
JV-1
for grouped data.

To facilitate the calculations prepare Table 5.2, from which the
sums of the entries in Columns 4, 5 and 6 are
7V'=29
£ »j = 46 = N, (5.6)
N'
£ njt'j = 30.30439, (5.7)
and
TV'
]T n,(«J)a = 75.84371. (5.8)
The value of t', using Eq. (5.2) is

- _ 30.30439
4G
or
V = 0.65879.
The value of cy, using Eq. (5.5) is
'75.84371 - 46(0.65879)2
av =
46- 1
or
at, = 1.11435.
Consequently, the lognormal pdf, representing the data in Table
DOWNTIME DISTRIBUTIONS 71
TABLE 5.2 — Calculations to determine t' and oy for the

data in Table 5.1 of Example 5-1.
1 2 3 4 5 6
tj logetj - tj' wr ni TI& nAW
0.2 -1.60944 2.59029 1 -1.60944 2.59029
0.3 -1.20497 1.44935 1 -1.20397 1.44955
0.5 -0.69315 0.48045 4 -2.77260 1.92180
0.6 -0.51083 0.26094 2 -1.02166 0.52188
0.7 -0.35667 0.12721 3 -1.07001 0.38166
0.8 -0.22314 0.04979 2 -0.44628 0.09958
1.0 0.00000 0.00000 4 0.00000 0.00000
1.1 0.09531 0.00908 1 0.09531 0.00901
1.3 0.26236 0.06884 1 0.26236 0.06884
1.5 0.40547 0.16444 4 1.62188 0.65760
2.0 0.69315 0.48045 2 1.38630 0.96090
2.2 0.78846 0.62167 1 0.78846 0.62167
2.5 0.91629 0.83959 1 0.91629 0.83959
2.7 0.99325 0.98655 1 0.99325 0.98655
3.0 1.09861 1.20695 2 2.19722 2.41390
3.3 1.93920 1.42545 2 2.38784 2.85090
4.0 1.38629 1.92181 2 2.77258 3.84362
4.5 1.50408 2.26225 1.50408 2.26225
4.7 1.54756 2.39495 1.54756 2.39495
5.0 1.60944 2.59029 1.60944 2.59029
5.4 1.68640 2.84394 1.68640 2.84394
5.5 1.70475 2.90617 1.70475 2.90617
7.0 1.94591 3.78657 1.94591 3.78657
7.5 2.01490 4.05983 2.01490 4.05983
8.8 2.17475 4.72955 2.17475 4.72955
9.0 2.19722 4.82780 2.19722 4.82780
10.3 2.33214 5.43890 2.33140 5.43890
22.0 3.09104 9.55454 3.09104 9.55454
24.5 3.19867 10.23151 3.19867 10.23151
5.1, is
5(0 = e »( v \ (5.9)
f <7t> V27T
or
1 l/l'-0. 65879 \2
O(t) = ==e 3* 1.11435 I
yK ' (1.11435) *VS
where t' = loge i.
The plot of this pdf is given in Fig. 5.1 in terms of the straight
times in hours. See Table 5.3 for the g(t) values used.
The pdf of the loge t which is that of a normal distribution, or of
the t' values, is
9(f) = —±g=« 2( '" ' , (5-10)
or
/j/x 1 _l/t'-0. 85879)2
flf(r) = ==e «l 1.11435 J .
; (1.11435) y/2r
This pcf/ is that of a normal distribution and is shown plotted in
Fig. 5.2. See Table 5.3 for the g(t') values used.
2. The mean time to restore the system when this part fails, t, is
obtained from
? = e?+i(^)a= | eiK* (5.11)
7 _ e0.65879+^(1.11435)2
or
t = 3.595 hr,
This compares with a mean of t = 3.609 hr, which would be
obtained using the straight t's and averaging them. The differ
ence is due to the fact that the former value assumes all data
are exactly lognormally distributed which is not the case, and
the latter gives only one estimate of a statistic, the arithmetic
mean, of the times to restore which would be an estimate of one
of the parameters, the mean of a normal distribution were the
data normally distributed. However, if it is known that the t's
come from a lognormally distributed population the t = 3.595 hr
is the value closest to the true mean.
Table
in
Fig.
5.1
given
data
t6.1
pdf
lognormal
the
of
Plot
imes-to-restore
hr
rto
t,
Time
estore,
hr
3.595
t=
Mean_
straight
the
of
hours.
in
terms
is
0.5582
hr
1.932
t
t==
Median
Mode„m
0.4T
w
TABLE 5.3 - The probability density of the pdf's of g{t)

and g(t') for the data in Table 5.1 based
on the straight times to restore and on
the natural logarithm of the times to re
store used to plot Figures 5.1 and 5.2,
respectively.*
1 2 3
Times to Probability Probability
restore, density, density,
t, hr <?(<) g(t') = g(\oge t)
0.02 0.00398 0.00008
0.10 0.10480 0.01048
0.20 0.22552 0.04510
0.30 0.29510 0.08853
0.50 0.34300 0.17150
0.70 0.33770 0.23639
1.00 0.30060 0.30060
1.40 0.24524 0.34334
1.80 0.19849 0.35728
2.00 0.17892 0.35784
2.40 0.14638 0.35130
3.00 0.11039 0.33118
3.40 0.09260 0.31483
4.00 0.07232 0.28929
4.40 0.06195 0.27258
5.00 0.04976 0.24880
6.00 0.03556 0.21351
7.00 0.02625 0.18373
8.00 0.01985 0.15884
9.00 0.01534 0.13804
10.00 0.01206 0.12061
20.00 0.00199 0.03971
30.00 0.00058 0.01733
40.00 — 0.00888
80.00 — 0.00132
•At the mode, t = 0.5582 hr, g(t) = 0.34470 and g{f) = 0.19247.
At the median, i = 1.932 hr, g(t) = 0.18530 and g(i') = 0.35800.
100
Fig.
of
Plot
6.2
the
lognormal
pdf
the
tdata
given
Table
in
i5.1
rme-st-or-e
5.889'
0.634
1.932
to
Time
hr
t,
restore,
of
the
lt'.
of
terms
loget
ogi,
aorr=ithms
0.4T
Si
3. The median of the times to restore the system, i, is obtained

from
I = e1' = antilogy', (5.12)

i _ ,,0.65879
or
1 = 1.932 hr.
This means that in a large sample of t's, half of the t's will have
values smaller than t, and the other half will have values greater
than t.
4. The time by which one-half of the restorations of such systems
will be completed is the median, or
t = 1.932 hr.
5. The most frequently occurring, or observed, time to restore such
systems is the mode of the pdf of the t's, i, and is given by
t = e'-"2'1 = t e-°2', (5.13)
2 _ 0.65879- (1.11435)2.
i c ,
consequently,
t = 0.5582 hr.
6. The standard deviation of the times to restore such systems is
given by
,2
at = t (eV - 1)', (5.14)
at = 3.59549 [e(111435>2 - l] ^ ,
or
at = 5.641 hr.
This compares with the standard deviation of the straight t's of
the raw data, assuming they are normally distributed, or
at = 4.945 hr.
The difference between these two values is due to the skewness
of the data which favors the lognormal distribution.
ANALOGOUS ENGINEERING FUNCTIONS 77
5.2 ANALYTICAL MAINTAINABILITY

ENGINEERING FUNCTIONS ANALOGOUS
TO THOSE IN RELIABILITY ENGINEER
ING
A good way to look at analytical maintainability engineering functions
is in terms of functions which are analogous to those in reliability en
gineering. They may be derived in a way identical to that in reliability
engineering by merely substituting t (time to restore) for T (time to
failure), fi (restoration rate) for A (failure rate), and M(t\) [probability
of successfully completing a restoration action in time r1? or P(t <h)],
for <2(Ti) [probability of failing by age I\, or P(T < Ti)]. In other
words the following correspondences prevail in maintainability and re
liability engineering functions:
1. To the times- to-failure pdf in reliability engineering corresponds

the times-to-maintain pdf in maintainability engineering.
2. To the failure rate function in reliability engineering corresponds

the maintenance, or restoration, rate function in maintainability
engineering. Maintenance, or restoration, rate is the rate with
which a maintenance, or restoration, action is performed and is
expressed in terms of the number of maintenance, or restora
tion, actions performed and successfully completed per hour of
maintenance, or restoration, time.
3. To the probability of system failure, or system unreliability, cor
responds the probability of successful system maintenance, or
system maintainability. These and other analogous functions are
summarized in Table 5.4.
EXAMPLE 5-2
Prove that
ii(t) « 1 - «-*, (5.15)

if the restoration, or repair, rate is constant with time.
SOLUTION TO EXAMPLE 5-2
M(i)= /'*(*)*.
Jo
tft)
[1
M(t)}
g(t)
=•-
Functions (*)]
[1
g(t)
fi(t)
M=-■
mAnalogous
reand
TABLE
a5.4
inlgtiaen-n-beaiblritnyg
Meanigtianeabirlintyg
rSfe
MO= f(T)
g(t).
of
idrthe
that
i.e.,
lis
neospvtcorarpoi*7
rbeltaucvimteoindtv;er
MO 1^7}
MO
=
<K0
marate.
inortenance
or rerate,
Repair
rate, storation
Item of
Pdf
times mto
aintain
resortore.
A(r).e-/>T)rfT
/(r)
=
functions.
gineering A/(T)
(T)-=[1-Q(T)]
Functions f(T)
X(T)
R(T)
=•
Renlgianbeilritnyg
ffi
Mr)=
f(T) A(T)
Pdf
times
of
fato
ilure.
Item Failure
rate.
number
Item 1 2
00
/
[1-M(t)]dt
MTTR
-y+
=
/
tg(t)dt
MTTR=
Functions ' g(t)dt
M(ti)=
J
Meanigtianeabirlitnyg
M(U)
P{t<U)
= MM-l-.'F*** mfmi
MTTR
J-l
M(ti)
"(««>-»-#!$
cot
bympliet.ion
Pof
robability Mean
time
to
maintenance maiorntain
Item
restore.
/
R(T)dT
MTBF=-r+
j
JT
MTBF=
{T)dT
I
' /(T)
Q(Ti)
dT= i-{^
0(rI)
i-H(r,)
=
Functions
Renlgianbeilritnyg g(r1)
p(r<r1)
= Jy
Q(T1)
l-e=
MTBF=T=m J-,
J-1
CTABLE
o5.4
ntin-ued.
Q(Ti)
Pof
robability
failure
Tj.
by
Mean
time
Item between failures.
number
Item 3 4
2
80 ANALOGOUS ENGINEERING FUNCTIONS
Jo
= - / ev dv,
Jo
where
/ fi(t) dt = v,
Jo
and
fi(t) = -dv/dt.
Then,
M(t) = -°v «
0'
or
If /i(/) = /*, or constant with time, then

M(t) = 1 -«-"*.
EXAMPLE 5-3
Given the times- to- repair data of Example 5-1 determine the repair
rate function and plot it.
The repair rate function is given by
where
_ 1 / loge t— 0.65879 »2
g(t) = 7=e "~(
2* 1U135
1.11135 '
(1.11435) i y/2ir
g(t) = g(t')/t = ^-/t,

10
when
Example
5-1
of
data
the
frepair
the
uof
rate
Plot
nFig.
5.3
ctio-n
5-3.
Example
for
dilsrepair
ottimes
gthe
rto
niarebourtmeadl, y
hr
Time
t,
restore,
to
6
5
4
82 ANALOGOUS ENGINEERING FUNCTIONS
TABLE 5.5 - The calculation of maintainability, M(t),

and of the restoration (repair) rate, n{i),
based on the data of Table 5.1.
Probability Repair rate,
t, Maintainability, density, tit),
hr t' z(t') *(z) = M(t) g(t) 1 - M(t) rp/hr
0.2 -1.60944 -2.03552 0.0210 0.22552 0.9790 0.23035
0.4 -0.91629 -1.41357 0.0788 0.32961 0.9212 0.35780
0.6 -0.51083 -1.04965 0.1469 0.34397 0.8531 0.40320
0.8 -0.22314 -0.79141 0.2144 0.32718 0.7856 0.41646
1.0 0.00000 -0.59121 0.2772 0.30061 0.7228 0.49590
1.2 0.18232 -0.42768 0.3345 0.27227 0.6655 0.40911
1.4 0.33647 -0.28929 0.3862 0.24524 0.6138 0.39954
1.6 0.47000 -0.16944 0.4327 0.22057 0.5673 0.38882
1.8 0.58779 -0.06373 0.4746 0.19849 0.5254 0.37780
2.0 0.69315 0.03083 0.5123 0.17892 0.4877 0.36689
2.2 0.78846 0.11636 0.5463 0.16163 0.4537 0.35629
2.4 0.87547 0.19444 0.5771 0.14638 0.4229 0.34611
2.6 0.95551 0.26627 0.6064 0.13290 0.3936 0.33765
3.0 1.09861 0.39469 0.6534 0.11039 0.3466 0.31854
3.6 1.28093 0.55830 0.7117 0.08510 0.2883 0.29517
4.0 1.38629 0.65285 0.7431 0.07232 0.2569 0.28154
4.6 1.52606 0.77827 0.7817 0.05749 0.2182 0.26348
5.0 1.60944 0.85310 0.8032 0.04976 0.1968 0.25281
5.6 1.72277 0.95480 0.8301 0.04053 0.1699 0.23860
6.0 1.79176 1.01671 0.8430 0.03559 0.1570 0.22666
7.0 1.94591 1.15504 0.8760 0.02625 0.1240 0.21161
8.0 2.07944 1.27487 0.8988 0.01986 0.1012 0.19625
9.0 2.19722 1.38057 0.9163 0.01534 0.0837 0.18322
10.0 2.30259 1.47512 0.9299 0.01206 0.0701 0.17205
ANALOGOUS ENGINEERING FUNCTIONS 83
and
.f log, 1-0.64878
M(t) = J g(t) dt= """" <t>(z) dz.

JO J-oo
The plot of fj.(t) for various values of / is given in Fig. 5.3 based on
the calculated results given in Table 5.5.
A sample calculation follows:
For t = 2 hr,
g{t' = loge0 = K*' = 0.69315),
<t>[z{t' = 0.69513)]
rti,/'0.69315-0.6S879>\
_ v\ 1.11435 )
1.11435
^(0.03083)
1.11435 '
or
/./i
<?(*' = loge 2n hr)
u n = tttt^
0.3988 = 0.35784.
1.11435
Therefore,
g(t = 2 hr) =
0.35784
or
g(t = 2 hr) = 0.17892.
The maintainability for t = 2 hr is
/*(<'=0.69315)
0(2) rf»,
-oo
oo
0.03083
= 0(2) dz,
/
or
M(t = 2 hr) = 0.5123.
Consequently,
*-»■>- rifeSW
0.17892
1 - 0.5123'
or
n(t = 2 hr) = 0.36689, or 0.367 restorations per hour.
PROBLEMS
5-1. The lognormal times to restore of a particular electronic device

have the following parameters:
t' = 1.0 and ay = 1.0 in loge hours.
Do the following:
(1) Write down the maintainability function for this equipment.
(2) What is the mean time to restore the system when this
device fails?
(3) What is the median of the times to restore the system when
this device fails?
(4) What is the time by which one-half of such restorations will
be completed?
(5) What is the standard deviation of the times to restore?
5-2. Given is the times- to- repair data of Table 5.6 for a specific part
in a system. Do the following:
(1) Determine the probability density function of the times
to repair of this part in its system, assuming a lognormal
distribution.
(2) Determine the repair rate function.
(3) Determine the maintainability function.
(4) What is the maintainability (the probability of completing
the repair) for this part for a repair time of 6 hr?
(5) Same as in Case 4, but for 25 hr.
PROBLEMS 85
TABLE 5.6 - Times-to- repair data for the determina

tion of the maintainability for Problem 5-
2,
Times to repair, Frequency of observation,
tr, hr n
0.3 1
0.5 1
0.9 2
1.1 3
1.5 4
1.6 5
2.0 6
2.1 7
2.5 7
2.9 6
4.0 5
4.7 4
5.0 4
5.4 3
6.0 2
6.5 2
7.8 1
9.0 1
9.4 1
10.0 1
11.0 1
14.0 1
20.0 1
25.0 1
40.0 1
(6) What is the mean time to repair this part?

(7) What is the median of the times to repair?
(8) What is the time by which one-half of such repairs will be
completed?
(9) What is the most frequently occurring time to repair?
(10) What is the standard deviation of the times to repair?
5-3. An equipment which requires restoration to satisfactory function
when its components fail has a lognormal pdf with the following
parameters:
t' = 5 and oy = 1.
Do the following:
(1) Determine the probability density function of the times to
restore the equipment and plot it.
(2) Determine the maintainability function and plot it.
(3) Determine the repair rate function and plot it.
(4) Calculate the 50% confidence level time to restore the equip
ment.
(5) Calculate the time to restore for a maintainability of 95%.
5-4. Given is the times-to-repair data of Table 5.7 for a specific part

repair this part in its system assuming a lognormal distri
bution.
completed?
PROBLEMS 87
TABLE 5.7 - Times-to- repair data for the determina

4.
*r, hr n
0.1 1
0.3 1
0.5 5
0.6 6
0.7 4
0.8 3
1.0 2
1.1 1
1.3 1
1.5 1
2.0 2
2.3 2
2.5 2
2.8 1
3.1 2
3.5 2
4.1 2
4.7 1
4.9 1
5.1 1
5.4 1
5.6 1
7.5 1
9.3 1
25.5 1
i
5-5. Given is the following time to restore distribution of an equip

ment which requires restoration to satisfactory function when its
components fail:
g(t) = == e 2 { it > .
Do the following:
(2) Calculate the maintainability of this equipment for an al
lowable time to restore of 5 hr.
(3) Calculate the mean time to restore this equipment.
(4) Calculate the 50% confidence level time to restore.
5-6. An equipment which requires restoration to satisfactory function
when its components fail has a lognormal pdf with the following
parameters:
f = 5 and at> — 0.5.
Do the following:
restore the equipment and plot it.
(2) Determine the maintainability function and plot it.
(3) Determine the repair rate function and plot it.
(4) Calculate the 50% confidence level time to restore the equip
ment.
5-7. Given is the following times to restore distribution of an equip
components fail:
Off) = ; e 2 V 2.8 ' .

' t (2.8) v/2T
Do the following:
(2) Calculate the maintainabib'ty of this equipment for an al
PROBLEMS 89

5-8. Given is the following times-to-restore distribution of an equip
components fail:
-I f t'—0.4 \2
9{t) =
t (1.4) y/Tir
Do the following:
5-9. Given is the following time-to-restore distribution of an equip
components fail:
-i (t'-0.2)2
*(') = e 2
t y/TH
Do the following:
5-10. An exponential equipment has a repair rate of 5 repairs per hour.
Do the following:
(1) Write the time-to-restore distribution equation in terms of
the repair rate.
the MTTR and plot it.
(3) Write the maintainability function in terms of MTTR and

plot it.
(4) What should the allowable time to restore be for a main
tainability of 50%, 90% and 99%?
(5) Interpret the results of Case 4.
(6) What should the MTTR be for a 95% maintainability re
quirement and an allowable time to restore of 1 hr?
Chapter 6
MAINTAINABILITY AND ITS

QUANTIFICATION
6.1 MAINTAINABILITY DEFINED

Maintainability may be denned variously as follows:
1. Maintainability is the probability of successfully performing and
completing one or more, or any specified combination, of the var
ious maintenance actions listed in Chapter 3, within a prescribed
period of time t\ .
Once the times-to-maintain pdf is determined, based on the main
tenance downtime category involved, the maintainability for the
period t\, M(t\), may be calculated from
M(h) = P(t<h)= I' g(t)dt, (6.1)

Jon
where g(t) is the pdf of the times required to complete the partic
ular maintenance action(s), for which the equipment's maintain
ability is desired to be quantified. This quantification of main
tainability is illustrated in Fig. 6.1 based on Eq. (6.1).
2. Maintainability is a characteristic of design and installation which
is expressed as the probability that an item can be restored to, or
retained in, satisfactory operating condition within a given pe
riod of time when maintenance action is performed in accordance
with prescribed procedures and resources.
3. Maintainability of a part in a system is the probability of com
pleting system maintenance, whether by replacing or by repairing
91
£
8
=
=
S3
E
-=v
t
I
to
-3
rt
s
■5
c
I
60
92
EXPONENTIAL CASE 93
that part, in time fj, when that part fails or has to be replaced
preventively.
4. Maintainability comprises those characteristics (both qualitative
and quantitative) of materials, design and installations which
make it possible to meet operational objectives with a minimum
expenditure of maintenance effort (in terms of manpower, skill
levels, test equipment, technical data, operating and maintenance
manuals, maintenance support organization and facilities) under
operational environmental conditions in which scheduled and un
scheduled maintenance is performed.
5. Maintainability is the rapidity with which failures and malfunc
tions are diagnosed and corrected, or preventive maintenance is
completed and the equipment is successfully checked out. It is a
function of interacting variables including those of the design con
figuration of the equipment, of accessibility of frequently failing
or malfunctioning parts, or of parts scheduled for more frequent
preventive maintenance on the one hand and available facilities
and appropriate manpower on the other.
6.2 THE EXPONENTIAL CASE

The exponential times- to-restore distribution applies to corrective main
tenance when the duration of repair, replacement or restoration times
is exponentially distributed. Then, the times-to-restore probability
density function, g(t) is
g(t)
yy ' = ^
n e""' = MTTR
, *„ e-M¥TR , v(6.2)'
where
/x = equipment corrective repair, replacement or restora
tion rate, in restorations per unit time; e.g., restora
tions per hour,
t = time required to correctively repair, replace or re

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

or restore the equipment to satisfactory function
expressed in the same time units as t,
94 MAINTAINABILITY AND ITS QUANTIFICATION
and
MTTR = -. (6.3)
The maintainability function for the exponential time to restore dis

tribution case, from Eq. (6.1), is
M(h) = f ' g(t) dt = ( ' n z~* dt, (6.4)

yo Jo
or
Af(ti) = 1-e-*"1 = 1-e "sftw, (6.5)

where
M(ti) = probability that repair will be successfully com
pleted in time tj when it starts at t\ — 0,
and
t\ = the repair, replacement, or restoration time for
which M{t\) is to be determined.
Once the MTTR is given, M(tj) can be calculated for any specific
value of t\. Figure 6.2 illustrates two such maintainability functions,
M (t) : One for an equipment with an MTTR of 0.5 hr and the other
for an equipment with an MTTR of 1 hr.
An equipment with an exponential times-to-restore pdf has a 63.2%
probability of being restored satisfactorily in a time t which equals
its MTTR, a probability of 40% for t = 0.5108 X MTTR, a prob
ability of 22% for t = 0.2485 x MTTR, a probability of 90% for
t = 2.3026 x MTTR and a probability of 95% for t = 2.9957 x MTTR.
Finally, there is a 50% probability of accomplishing restorations in
t = 0.69315 x MTTR, which is called the median time to restore. See
Table 6.1 for these and other values.
Of specific interest in maintainability specifications are the 90% and
95% probabilities. It is often desirable to specify a maximum repair,
maintenance, or restoration time, tMMAX, which should possibly not be
exceeded, or exceeded only with a small probability. Such constraints
on maximum maintenance times are usually associated with the 90th
or 95th percentile; i.e., the probability of accomplishing maintenance
in a specified time t\fMAX should be 0.90 or 0.95, according to what
the specification demands. In the case of an exponential distribution
of restoration times, M(t) = 0.90 for tMMAX = 2.3026 x MTTR and
M(t) = 0.95 for tMuAX ~ 2-9957 x MTTR. The explanation of such a
fmuaeinxTwo
Fig.
c6.2
ptaoinae-bsni.ltityal
hr
Rt,
time,
estoration
hr
0.693
ERT
0.347
=
1.000 0.950 0.91
0.900
8
TABLE 6.1 - Times for various maintainabilities for the

exponential distribution.
1 2
*1 M(h), %
0.24850 t 22.0
0.51080 t 40.0
0.69315 t (Median time to restore) 50.0
MTTR = t 63.2
tMltAXmOM = 2.3026 t 90.0
tMMAXs0M = 2.9957 t 95.0
requirement is that 90% or 95% of all restoration actions shall require

less than t = 2.3026 x MTTR, or t = 2.9957 x MTTR, respectively,
according to which percentage is associated with the tMMAX require
ment. For example if the MTTR is 1 hr, from Fig. 6.2, 90% of all
repair actions should take less than 2.3026 hr and 95% should take less
than 2.9957 hr. In the exponential case it makes no difference whether
the MTTR or the tmmax are specified along with the associated prob
ability or percentile.
If Imm ax (maximum maintenance time) is specified with probabil
ity M(tMMAX) = 1 - a, then
1"max
MTTR
M(lMMAX )= 1-e ' ) = l-OJ (6.6)
consequently,
loge a = - (6.7)
MTTR'
*,MMAX
MTTR = (6.8)
loge a '
and
'%^x = -MTTR x loge a. (6.9)
EXAMPLE 6 -1
It is specified that with probability M(t) = 1 — a = 0.90, or with
a = 0.10, the maintenance time for a specific equipment must not
exceed one hour; i.e., tiuMAX = 1 hr. Determine the MTTR that has
to be designed into this equipment.
REPAIR RATE 97

The MTTR to be designed is obtained from Eq. (6.8) where a =
0.10, loge 0.10 = -2.302 and Immax = 1 hr. Then,
loge a
or about 26 minutes.
6.3 THE REPAIR RATE, fi

The maintenance, repair or restoration rate, (i, for the exponential case
is
1
(6.10)
MTTR
Since the MTTR is a fixed number, the repair rate, /x, is constant for
the exponential distribution. When this is the case, the probability of
completing a repair in a short period of dt when repair started t time
units ago; i.e., \i dt is always constant, regardless of how long a repair
action has been in progress. For all other distributions, the repair rate
is nonconstant. It usually increases as a function of the progressing
maintenance time, t.
6.4 THE MEAN TIME TO REPAIR, MTTR

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

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

by computing the total observed repair downtime over an extended pe
riod of time, the sum of all individual downtimes, and dividing this by
the number of repair actions, JVr, which occurred during the period of
observation, or
MTTR = (6.12)
EXAMPLE 6-2
A system consists of three replaceable units which have the follow
ing MTBF's and replacement times:
Subassembly 1 : MTBFX = 1, 000 hr, t[ = 1.0 hr,
Subassembly 2 : MTBF2 = 500 hr, t2 = 0.5 hr,

and1
Subassembly 3 : MTBF3 = 500 hr, tj = 1.0 hr.
Compute the MTTR of this system.

To compute the MTTR of the system, first convert the MTBF's
into failure rates, or Xi = 1/1000 = 0.001 fr/hr, A2 = 1/500 = 0.002
fr/hr and A3 = 1/500 = 0.002 fr/hr. Then, using Eq. (6.11),
Ai t\ + X2 t2 + A3 ?3
MTTR = (6.13)
Ai + A2 + A3
(0.001)(1) + (0.002)(0.5) + (0.002)(1)

MTTR =
0.001 + 0.002 + 0.002
or
MTTR = jj^ = 0.8 hr, or 48 min.
6.5 MEAN ACTIVE CORRECTIVE

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

when the ith component with failure rate A; fails, the mean active
corrective maintenance time of the system is
N
Wc = ^ (6.14)
t'=l
6.6 MEAN ACTIVE PREVENTIVE

MAINTENANCE TIME, tMp
The mean active preventive maintenance time is defined as the arith
metic mean of the active preventive maintenance times of an equipment
or system, and is
M
£ fj tMp,
E/i
where
M = total number of different active preventive main
tenance actions undertaken,
fj = frequency with which the jth preventive mainte

nance task is performed, preventive maintenance
tasks per unit time,
and
1mP} — system's mean active preventive maintenance
time when the jth preventive maintenance task
is performed.
If the frequencies fj are given in maintenance tasks completed sat
isfactorily per hour, the downtimes t\fp} should be given in hours.
6.7 MEAN ACTIVE CORRECTIVE AND

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

by
N M
£ A, tMci + E fj tM,,,
Tm = — jj 3~jf , (6.16)
£*.+ £/,
»=1 j=\
where the terms Aj,/j,Imcj, and t\tpi are as defined earlier. In this
equation the same units must be used for the AJa and f'jS, and the
same time units for the values of tMci and Tm~.
6.8 EQUIPMENT REPAIR TIME, ERT

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

TO REPAIR, MTTRg
The geometric mean time to repair concept is used in connection with
the lognormal distribution, where it happens to be identical with the
ERT. It is given by Eq. (6.20) which is identical with Eq. (6.19); i.e.,
ERT = MTTRG m MTTRJ e \ J. (6.20)
It can also be directly obtained from the estimate of the mean, rop, of
the natural logarithms of the mean repair times, *,-, or
N _
W=i5L1v = t', (6.21)
t=l
and the MTTRg estimate, MTTRg, is then given by
MTTRg = e7^, (6.22)

or
I = eF.
6.10 MAXIMUM MAINTENANCE TIME, tMMAX

The maximum maintenance time is denned as the 95th percentile of
the maintainability function M (t), as shown in Fig. 6.2. t^MAX is that
maintenance time within which 95% of all maintenance actions can be
accomplished satisfactorily, i.e., not more than 5% of the maintenance
times may exceed t^MAX ■ For the normal distribution
tMuAX = MTTR + 1.65 at, (6.23)
where ot is the standard deviation of the normally distributed main
tenance times.
For the exponential distribution
tMMAX = 3 MTTR. (6.24)
For the lognormal distribution
loge tMMAX = W + 1-65 df, (6.25)
where mp, is given by Eq. (6.21), and at> is the standard deviation of
the natural logarithm of the repair times.
EXAMPLE 6-3
An exponential equipment has a mean time to restore of 2 hr. Do
the following:
MAXIMUM MAINTENANCE TIME 103
1. Write the times- to-restore distribution equation in terms of the

MTTR.
2. Write the times-to-restore distribution equation in terms of the
repair rate.
3. Calculate the maintainability of this equipment for a time to
restore of 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 hr. Put these values in a neat
table.
4. Plot carefully the results obtained in Case 3, and identify the X
and Y axes scales and values used on the plot.
5. What should the allowable time to restore be for a maintainabil
ity of 50%, 90%, 95% and 99%?
6. Interpret the results of Case 5.
7. What should the MTTR be for a 95% maintainability require
ment and an allowable time to restore of 3 hr?
1. The times-to-restore distribution equation in terms of the MTTR,
for an exponential equipment, is
q(t) = MTTR e mttr,
*W
where
MTTR = 2 hr.
Therefore,
/ ^ 1 -•
5(0= 2 e 2-
2. The times-to-restore distribution equation in terms of the repair

rate, for an exponential equipment, is
g(t) = n e~*
where
1
= repair rate,
MTTR
or
\i — — = 0.5 repair/hr.
Therefore,
g(t) = 0.5 e"0-5 '.
TABLE 6.2 - Maintainability versus time to restore for

Example 6-3.
1 2
t,
hr 110)
0.5 0.22120
1.0 0.39347
2.0 0.63212
4.0 0.86466
6.0 0.95021
8.0 0.98168
10.0 0.99326
3. The maintainability is given by

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

ties, are given in Table 6.3.
Example
of
6-3.
Fig.
the
for
fmPlot
times
of
rato
6.3
uienstcati-oniarboeinlity
4.61
5.99
9.21
139
hr
t,
restore,
to
Time
0.99 0.95
s
TABLE 6.3 - Times to restore versus maintainability for

Example 6-3.
1 2
M(f), t,
% hr
50 1.38629
90 4.60517
95 5.99146
99 9.21034
6. The results of Case 5 show that as time t increases, the prob

ability of successfully completing the maintenance action(s) in
creases.
7. The MTTR for a maintainability of 95% and an allowable time
to restore of 3 hr is given by
t
MTTR =
loge[l-M(t)Y
or
3 _
MTTR = - 1.00142 hr.
loge{\ - 0.95) "
6.11 THE LOGNORMAL CASE

If the times to restore the equipment are lognormally distributed, the
equipment's maintainability can be evaluated using Eq. (6.1), as fol
lows:
M(h) m r gLN(t) dt= I' gN(t') dt' = I l 4>{z) dz, (6.26)
JO J—oo J—oo
where LN stands for lognormal, N for normal, and <j> for the standard
normal distribution,
t' = loge t, (6.27)
t[ - V
*(*i) (6.28)
ov
LOGNORMAL CASE 107
and t' and at-, are given by Eqs. (5.1) and (5.2), and (5.3) and (5.4),
respectively. Entering the standard normal distribution probability
tables with z(t[) yields M(ti) quantitatively.
It is also desirable to determine the maintenance time by which
a specific percentage of the maintenance actions will be completed
satisfactorily. This is also the time *i_a for which the maintainability
is 1 — q, or
Af(<,_a) = P(t < h-a) = / *~" gLN(t) dt, (6.29)

Jo
Mih-c) = / gN(t') dt' = / <t>(z) dz, (6.30)
and
<Tti
The commonly used maintainability, or (1 — a), values are 0.80, 0.85,

0.90, 0.95 and 0.99. Consequently, the 2(<i_a) values which would be
used most commonly would be those given in Table 6.4. Using Eq.
(6.31), the time t\-Q would then be calculated from
t'i-a = t! + z(t'1_a)otl, (6.32)
h-Q = antiloge (t[_a) = antiloge [? + z(t[_a) at«], (6.33)
or
*1_0 = e?+2<ti-<.)<T''. (6.34)
EXAMPLE 6-4
Given the times- to- restore data of Example 5-1, do the following:
1. Determine the maintainability function and plot it.
2. Determine the maintainability for this part if the maintenance
action needs to be completed within 5 hr.
3. Determine the maintainability for a 20 hr completion time.
4. Determine the time within which 90% of the maintenance actions
for such parts will be completed.
TABLE 6.4 - Values of z(t'1_a) for the most commonly used

maintainabilities for use in Eq. (6.26).
1 2
Maintainability,
1-a «(«U)
0.80 0.8416
0.85 1.036
0.90 1.282
0.95 1.645
0.99 2.326
5. Determine the time within which 95% of the maintenance actions

for such parts will be completed.
1. The maintainability function for the system, when this part fails,
M(t), from Eq. (6.26), is
z(t>)
M(t) = / ««) dz,
J—oo
where
t' - t'
2(0 = -—,
t' = loge t,
t' = 0.65879,
and
Of = 1.11435.
The quantified M(t) values are shown plotted in Fig. 6.4.
2. The maintainability for this system, for a maintenance time of
5 hr is
/z(logci>)
z(logc5)
4>{z) dz
-oo
Example
of
6-4.
the
fmPlot
for
times
repair
Fig.
a6.4
uto
intcati-niaobinlity
9
Time
restore,
hr
to
t,
5
4
3
6
2
5 jr n CO c CO c m2
§
1 10 MAINTAINABILITY AND ITS Q UANTIFICATION
With
t = 5 hr, t' = loge 5 = 1.6094,
and
, 1.6094-0.65879 „ „.,.
*{log. 5) = j-^ = 0.85310,
/u.sajiu
0.85310
<Hz) dz,
-oo
or
M (5 hr) = 0.8032, or 80.32%.
This means that there is about an 80% chance that the mainte
nance action on these systems, when this part fails, will last 5 hr
or less, or the probability of completing the maintenance action
satisfactorily within 5 hr is about 80%.
3. The maintainability for this system when this part fails, for a
maintenance time of 20 hr, is
M(20 hr) = / 4>{z) dz,

J —oo
where
loge 20 = 2.9957
and
1.11435
Therefore,
/2.0972
4>{z) dz,
-oo
or
M(20 hr) = 0.9820, or 98.20%.
Statements similar to those made for the previous case can be

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

completed, from Eqs. (6.33) and (6.34), and Table 6.4, is
t0.90 = antiloge(?+ 1.282at»),
= antiloge(0.65879 + 1.282 x 1.11435),
= antiloge(2.08739),
or
*o.90 = e208739 = 8.06 hr.
5. The time within which 95% of the maintenance actions will be

completed, from Eqs. (6.33) and (6.34), and Table 6.4, is
to.95 = antiloge(*'+ 1.645^/),
= antiloge (0.65879+ 1.645 x 1.11435),
= antUoge(2.491896),
or
<o.95 = e2491896 = 12.08 hr.
It can be seen from Cases 4 and 5 that approximately 50% more
time is required for a 5% point improvement in M(t).
6.12 MAINTAINABILITY FOR GIVEN

RESTORATION TIME WITH A WEIBULL
TIMES-TO-RESTORE DISTRIBUTION
The maintainability for <i hours of restoration time is given by
M(ti)= f1 g(t)dt, (6.35)

Jo
where
g(t) — time-to-restore distribution.
The Weibull times-to-restore distribution is
"w-iffr^- (6-36)
Substitution of Eq. (6.36) into Eq. (6.35) yields the maintainability
M(tx)= I - e'^^ . (6.37)

If the times-to-restore distribution parameters are given as 7 =

0.5 hr,/3 = 2.5 and 77 = 3.0 hr, the maintainability for a restoration
time of ti = 5.0 hr, from Eq. (6.37), is
M(t! = 5.0 hr) = 1 - e-(*^)",

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

MAINTAINABILITY WITH A WEIBULL
TIMES-TO-RESTORE DISTRIBUTION
The time to restore, <i , for a desired maintainability, M(t\ ), is obtained
by solving Eq. (6.37) for ti, or
h = 7 + V i- logjl - MiU)]}1"3. (6.38)

If the maintainability is M(t\) = 90% then
U = 7 + 77 (2.302585)1//3, (6.39)
if M(h) = 95% then
U = 1 + «J (2.995732)1/^. (6.40)
If the times-to-restore distribution parameters are 7 = 0.5 hr, /? =
2.5 and 77 = 3.0 hr, the time to restore this equipment, t\, for a main
tainability of M(ti) = 95%, from Eq. (6.40), is
*1 = 0.5 + 3.0 (2.995732)1/25,
or
<i = 5.15 hr.
This means that 95% of the maintenance, or restorative, actions
will last 5.15 hr or less; or that if we allow 5.15 hr for maintenance
to be completed successfully, 95% of these maintenance actions will be
completed successfully within 5.15 hr.
WEIBULL CASE 113
EXAMPLE 6-5
Given is the following Weibull times-to-restore pdf of equipment
which requires restoration to satisfactory function when its components
fail:
, , 3.5 /i-0.25\2S
3.5 ft -0.25Y-5 f-o.»^.s
where t is in hours.
Do the following:
1. Write down the maintainability function for this equipment.
2. Calculate the maintainability of this equipment for an allowable
time-to-restore period of 5 hr.
3. Calculate the mean time to restore this equipment.
4. Calculate the median time to restore this equipment.
5. Calculate the time to restore for a maintainability of 95%.
1. The maintainability function for the equipment is given by
M(t) = 1 - e InSrJ .
2. The maintainability of this equipment for an allowable time-to-

restore period of 5 hr is
M{t = 5 hr) = 1 - e l « ° ' ,
or
M(t = 5 hr) = 0.83875, or 83.875%.
3. The mean time to restore this equipment is given by
MTTR = 7 + T?rQ + l))
MTTR = 0.25 + 4.0 T

n+0-
where
r [— + 1 j = T(1.2857) = 0.8998.
114 MAINTAINABILITY AND ITS Q UANTIFICATION
Therefore,
MTTR = 0.25 + 4.0 (0.8998),
or
MTTR = 3.84920 hi.
4. The median time to restore this equipment is
I = 0.25 + 4.0 [- loge(l - 0.50)]1/3"5,

i = 0.25 + 4.0 (0.69315)1/35,
or
t = 3.85231 hr.
5. The time to restore this equipment for a maintainability of 95%

is
t = 0.25 + 4.0 [- loge(l - 0.95)]1/3'5,
t = 0.25 + 4.0 (2.99573)1/35,
or
t = 5.72273 hr = tMAX-
6.14 A PRIORI VERSUS A POSTERIORI

MAINTAINABILITY DETERMINATION
The a priori maintainability, M{t\), is that predicted from
M(tx)= J g(t)dt,
where
g(t) = time-to-restore distribution, which needs to
be known ahead of time,
and
ti = restoration period for which the maintainability
is to be predicted.
PROBLEMS 115
The a posteriori maintainability is determined from

JV(*<tj)
M(h) =
NT
where
N(t < ti) = number of maintenance actions which were com
pleted successfully in time t\ or less; or the num
ber of maintenance actions that required ti or
less time to complete successfully, or were clocked
to have been completed successfully in time t\ or
less,
and
Nj = total number of maintenance actions undertaken,

out of which N(t < ti) were completed success
fully in time ti or less.
EXAMPLE 6-6
Failures were simulated in identical equipment operating in identi
cal environments, and the same maintenance crew restored this equip
ment to satisfactory function. Out of the 120 restoration times that
were clocked, 115 lasted 35 minutes or less.
Determine the a posteriori maintainability of this equipment for a
required restoration time of 35 minutes.
The a posteriori maintainability is given by
— 115
M(h = 35 min) = — = 0.958,
or
M{h = 35 min) = 95.8%.
Consequently, the average maintainability that has been demonstrated
is 95.8%, and that on the average 95.8% of the restorative or mainte
nance actions lasted 35 minutes or less.
PROBLEMS
6-1. Given is the times-to- repair data of Table 6.5 for a specific part
TABLE 6.5 - Times-to-repair data for the determina

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

tr, hr n
0.4 1
0.6 1
1.0 2
1.2 3
1.4 4
1.6 5
2.0 6
2.2 7
2.6 7
3.0 6
4.0 5
4.4 4
5.0 4
5.4 3
6.0 2
6.6 2
8.0 1
9.0 1
9.4 1
10.0 1
11.0 1
13.0 1
19.0 1
25.0 1
44.0 1
PROBLEMS 117
(1) Determine the probability density function of the times

to repair of this part in its system, assuming a lognormal
distribution.
completed?
6-2. Given is the times-to-repair data of Table 6.6 for a specific part

repair this part in its system assuming a lognormal distri
bution.
completed?
components fail:
g(t)
*V ' = — .
t (1.5) y/2lr e" <^3-) .
Do the following:
TABLE 6.6 - Times-to-repair data for the determina

2.
ir,hr n
0.2 1
0.3 1
0.5 4
0.6 5
0.7 4
0.8 3
1.0 2
1.1 1
1.3 1
1.5 1
2.0 2
2.2 2
2.5 2
2.7 1
3.0 2
3.3 2
4.0 2
4.5 1
4.7 1
5.0 1
5.4 1
5.5 1
7.0 1
9.0 1
24.5 1
PROBLEMS 119

6-4. Given is the following times to restore distribution of an equip
components fail:
9^ = t (2.5) W* C ' " '
Do the following:
6-5. A system is made up of three exponentially failing subsystems
having the following mean times between failures, and mean
times to actively restore the system when a subsystem fails:
Subsystem 1 MTBFi = 800 hr, MTTRX = tMcl = 1.5 hr,
Subsystem 2 MTBF2 = 600 hr,AfTTR2 = Tm* = 1.8 hr,
and
Sybsystem 3 MTBF3 = 400 hr, MTTR3 = tMc3 = 2.0 hr,
Do the following:
(1) Calculate the mean time to actively and correctively restore
the system when any one of the subsystems fails.
(2) If Subsystem 1 is subjected to three preventive maintenance
tasks, Subsystem 2 to two and Subsystem 3 to three, with
the frequencies and active times given in Table 6.7, calculate
the mean active preventive maintenance time of this system.
(3) Calculate the mean active corrective and preventive main
tenance time of this system.
TABLE 6.7 - Preventive maintenance tasks, their fre

quency and duration for the system in
Problem 6-5.
fu tMpi, /a, iMp2, tMp3,

per hr hr per hr hr per hr hr
Subsystem 1 0.001 3.5 0.002 1.75 0.005 1.5
Subsystem 2 0.003 4.6 0.006 2.00
Subsystem 3 0.001 5.9 0.020 4.50 0.015 2.5
6-6. Prove Eqs. (6.18) through (6.26).

components fail:
1 ; 2 V
0.2 \2
_i f ! ~0-3
1.2
1
I
*(0 = t (1.2) V2w
Do the following:
6-8. Given is the following time-to-restore distribution of an equip
components fail:
9(t) = I ,-h2 (t'-0.15)»

e
Do the following:
PROBLEMS 121
TABLE 6.8 - Preventive maintenance tasks, their fre

quency and duration for the system in
Problem 6-9.
/i, /a, *Mp2, /s.

per hr hr per hr hr per hr hr
Subsystem 1 0.002 3.75 0.004 1.95 0.003 1.0
Subsystem 2 0.005 4.00 0.008 2.20

6-9. A system is made up of two exponentially failing subsystems hav
ing the following mean times between failures, and mean times
to actively restore the system when a subsystem fails:
Subsystem 1 MTBFi = 1,000 hr, MTTRi = tMcl = 1.3 hr,
and
Subsystem 2 MTBF2 = 500 hr, MTTR2 = Im* = 2.0 hr,
Do the following:
(1) Calculate the mean time to actively and correctively restore
the system when any one of the subsystems fails.
(2) If Subsystem 1 is subjected to three preventive maintenance
tasks and Subsystem 2 to two, with the frequencies and
active times given in Table 6.8, calculate the mean active
preventive maintenance time of this system.
(3) Calculate the mean active corrective and preventive main
tenance time of this system.
6-10. An exponential equipment has a repair rate of 4 repairs per hour.

Do the following:
the repair rate.
the MTTR.
(3) Calculate the maintainability of this equipment for a time

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

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

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

values of the mean time to restore an equipment when considering ac
tive repair time only. This establishes the average downtime for the
equipment while it is undergoing active repair. If the equipment con
sists of AT units each with MTBF's of m\, rri2, w.3, ■ ■ •, m^, and when
Unit 1 fails it requires on the average t\ hours to correctively restore
(replace or repair and reinstall the repaired unit) the equipment, and
when Unit 2 fails I2 hours, ■ • ■, and when Unit N fails t^ hours, the
mean time to correctively restore the downed equipment for t hours of
operation, in, when all units fail eventually, is given by
— t _ t. t
tn = ti H t-2 H 1 tN,
m\ mi myv
123
124 MEAN TIME TO ACTIVELY RESTORE AN EQUIPMENT
or
N T
«=-«£(=).1=1
<T-l>
where
tR = mean time to correctively restore the downed equip
ment to successful function for t hours of operation,
N = number of units in the equipment,
i, = mean time to restore the equipment when the ith

unit fails
and
m, = mean time between failures of the ith unit.
The mean time to restore the equipment per one operating hour,
ijj, is given by
»=i
The above apply regardless of the underlying times-to-failure dis

tribution of each unit, under steady state conditions, or after several
(approximately three or more) corrective maintenance actions on each
unit, according to renewal theory.
If the units have a constant failure rate, then
N
iR = t X>« U), (7.3)
«=i
and
ifc = 5>,5). (7.4)

1=1
This t*R time should be minimized to reduce the downtime per op

erating hour, to reduce the cost of corrective maintenance, to increase
the availability of equipment, to increase the production per hour and
to reduce the unit cost of production.
If the failed units must be repaired elsewhere and brought to the
equipment for installation, or repaired on the spot, and the mean time
RESTORATION EFFICIENCY AND CONSISTENCY 125
consumed for this effort is d\ for Unit 1, e^ for Unit 2, etc., then Eq.
(7.1) becomes
(7.5)
where
t* = mean time to replace a failed unit with a fresh
one.
7.2 EQUIPMENT RESTORATION TIME

EFFICIENCY AND CONSISTENCY
The ith maintenance crew's equipment restoration time efficiency, Et{,
may be determined from
ETl = *>/*» (7.6)
where
E^ = maintenance time efficiency of Crew i,
to — intrinsic mean restoration time of equipment,

when the equipment fails, by a specially selected
skilled maintenance Crew 0,
anc
t, = mean restoration time by the designated ith
Crew.
Figure 7.1 shows the relative values of to and ti.
To compare the restoration time efficiency of maintenance Crew 1,
determine to and ti, then calculate
As the value of Etx approaches 1 then Crew 1 approaches Crew 0

in restoration time efficiency.
If two different crews are to be compared, then determine t\ and
*2 for Crew 1 and Crew 2, respectively, and calculate
-Etj = *o / h and Et2 = t0 / t2.

their
pfor
dFig.
aiTtwo
7.1
srmtcrews,
ea-imtboeu-rteisotnrse
time,
rt0.
equipment
iesntmeanoraitnisoinc
the
and
of
g2(t)
2
Crew
Crew
of
g,(t)
1
Restoration
t
time,
g(t)
s
RESTORATION EFFICIENCY AND CONSISTENCY 127
The crew with the larger Et should be preferred. However, it is

desirable to conduct statistical tests of comparison to determine the
confidence level at which Et2 is greater than £t, , if Et2 > f/r, were
the case.
It may also be desirable to determine the ith maintenance crew's
restoration time consistency, Cj;, defined by
CTi = 1 - '< I ii, (7.7)
where
C^ = restoration time consistency of maintenance Crew i,
er,- = standard deviation of the restoration time of main

tenance Crew i,
and
er, / ti = coefficient of variation of the restoration time of
maintenance Crew i.
The closer the value of Ct, is to 1 the better the ith crew's restora
tion time consistency would be, because the lower the variability of the
maintenance crew's restoration time of the equipment when it fails,
the closer the value of ct,/*7 would be to zero, thus yielding a Cr, value
closer to 1.
If two different crews are to be compared then determine ai and
ct2 for Crew 1 and Crew 2, respectively, and calculate
Cti — 1 - <f\ I ?T and Ct2 = 1 - a2 / h, Oi < U.
The crew with the larger Ct should be preferred. Figure 7.1 shows
the relative values of o\ and a2. Again, it is desirable to conduct sta
tistical tests of comparison to determine the confidence level at which
Cj2 is greater than Cjx , if Ct2 > Cjx were the case.
EXAMPLE 7-1
It has been established that an equipment's intrinsic mean restora
tion time clocked for a select, skilled crew is 36 minutes. Two other
crews of the equipment manufacturer's Service Department are selected
to restore the equipment shipped to a key customer. The times to re
store this equipment by each crew are determined with the following
results:
Crew 1: t\ = 42 min and o\ — 4 min.
Crew 2: ti = 48 min and a2 = 8 min.
128 MEAN TIME TO ACTIVELY RESTORE AN EQUIPMENT
Determine the following:
1. Each maintenance crew's restoration time efficiency.
2. Each maintenance crew's restoration time consistency.
3. Which crew would you select from the restoration time efficiency
point of view?
4. Which crew would you select from the restoration time consis
tency point of view?
5. Which crew should be selected overall?
1 . The restoration time efficiency of Crew 1 is

_ ,_ 36
ETl = t0 I h = — = 0.857.
The restoration time efficiency of Crew 2 is
Et2 = to I h = ^ = 0.750.
2. The restoration time consistency of Crew 1 is
C1 = l-a1/?T=l-^ = 0.905.
The restoration time consistency of Crew 2 is
C2 = l-<72/i2 = l--- = 0.833.

48
3. Crew 1 should be preferred from the restoration time efficiency

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

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

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

If Unit 1 requires n\ maintenance men to replace or repair and reinstall
the repaired Unit 1, Unit 2 requires n2 maintenance men, • • •, and Unit
N requires un maintenance men, then for t cumulative operating hours
the mean corrective maintenance man-hours to replace failed units,
Dr, is given by
— t _ t — t —
Dr= — *i na H t2 n-i + (7.8)
mi m? tun
or
^=<te) (7.9)
t=i
For one operating hour, or t = 1 hr, the mean maintenance man-hours

to replace the failed units, DR, is given by
35- M?)-1=1
(7.10)
If each unit has a constant failure rate, then the mean maintenance
man-hours for t cumulative operating hours is given by
N
I
Dr = t J2(Xi U m),
t'=l
(7.11)
and for one cumulative operating hour by
' N
DR = E(A- E »»•)• (7.12)
«=1
also known as
D^ = MMH/OH, (7.13)
or Mean Maintenance Man-Hours to Correctively Replace the Failed

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

REPAIR AND REPLACE AN EQUIPMENT
If the failed units have to be repaired by more than one repairman,
and Unit 1 requires d\ hours to repair, on the spot, or elsewhere and
reinstalled, on the average, with T\ repairmen, Unit 2 requires d% hours
with r2 repairmen,..., and Unit N requires d^ hours with r/v repairmen,
then the total mean man-hours to repair and replace the failed units in
the equipment, for t cumulative hours of equipment operation, Drr,
is given by
For one hour of operation, or t = 1 hr,
^-=^{dlr, + t;ni) (?15)

ml m«
This value may be used to calculate the average labor cost, Cl, for
repairing and replacing failed equipment on the spot and/or in a repair
shop for t cumulative hours of operation of the equipment from
CL = DRR ■ cL, (7.16)
where
d = average labor cost to repair and replace, $, for t
operating hours of the equipment,
and
C£, = average labor cost per hour, or the average hourly
labor rate.
EXAMPLE 7-2
A subsystem consists of three units, which are reliabilitywise in
series. Their useful life failure rates and wear-out pdf parameters are
given in Table 7.1.
TABLE 7.1 - Useful life and wear-out data associated with

the three units of the subsystem of Example
7-2.
Useful life Wear-out life
7,
Unit fr/106 hr hr hr 0
1 300 0 300 2.5
2 600 0 500 3.5
3 450 0 400 4.5
For each unit use the following reliability model:
with ? = 1,2 and 3. Take ^ = 0.25 and ^ = 0.75.

The average replacement times, <*, and the required number of ser
vice men, n,, as well as the average repair times, r/,, and the required
number of repairmen, r,, are given in Table 7.2.
TABLE 7.2 - Additional data for Example 7-2.
1 2 3 4 5
Unit m r,
hr hr
1 0.50 l 0.75 2
2 0.80 3 1.00 3
3 0.25 2 0.50 2
1. What is the mean time to replace these three units, per subsys
tem operating hour?
2. What is the mean time to repair these three units, per subsystem
operating hour?
3. What is the mean time to repair and replace these three units,
per subsystem operating hour?
4. Same as Case 1 but for operating hours equal to the stabilized
MTDF of this subsystem with units reliabilitywise in series,
given by
Subsystem MTBF = m3S =

y —
Note that for each unit
MTBF = [°° R{T)dT = P 1 dT + f°° e'^^ dT,

Jo Jo Jj
or use Simpson's Rule with 8 or 16 intervals.

MTBF of this subsystem with units reliabilitywise in series.
MTBF of this subsystem with units reliabilitywise in series.
7. Same as Case 1 but for operating hours equal to the regular
statistical MTBF of this subsystem, given by
MTBFreg= r R,s(T)dT,
Jo
where Ra, (T) is the reliability function for the configuration and
the types of units comprising the configuration.
statistical MTBF of this subsystem.
statistical MTBF of this subsystem.
10. What is the average total maintenance man-hours to repair and
replace, per subsystem operating hour, if the failed units are
not disposable but require repair in a workshop before they are
replaced?
11. What will the results of Case 10 be if Units 1 and 3 can be
repaired and replaced simultaneously, but by the two separate
crews used in Case 10?
12. What will be the mean time to repair and replace these three
units, per subsystem operating hour, for Case 11?
1. The mean time to replace these three units, per subsystem oper
ating hour, is determined from
3 /*
£? Vm«
The MTBF for each unit is calculated from
m; = r Ri(T) dT.
Jo
For Unit 1
™i = r Ri{T)dT
Jo
= J" (o.25 e-00003 T + 0.75 e~lM 5) dT,
1
mi = 0.25 + 0.75
0.0003
0-25 + 0-75
n „ o + 300 r
mi = nnnM
0.0003 AtOl-
where
T f — + l) = r(1.4) = 0.88726.
Therefore,
0.25
mi = + 0.75 [(300)(0.88726)] = 1,032.96683 hr.
0.0003
Similarly,
T7l2 = / R2(T) dT
Jo
= J°° (o.25 e"00006 T + 0.75 e^]3 ') dT,
0.25
™2 = 7-^77 + 0.75
0.0006
0 + 500 r
(1-M
where
I (rr + l ) - I'D. ■2^7) 0.S9975.
therefore.
0 25
m2 = - ' + 0-75 [(500) (0.89975)] = 754.07292 hr;
and
roc
m3 = / R3(T) dT
Jo
= |o°° (o.25 e-000045 T + 0.75 e^]' *) dT,
0-25
77l33 = 0.00045 1- 0.75 u ! .Kiorf JL + i
4.5
where
T (— + l) = r(1.22) = 0.91257.
Therefore,
0 25
m3 = nn'nAe + °-75 [(400)(0.91257)] = 829.32656 hr.
0.00045
Substituting these values into the equation for V, yields
t*\ 0.50 0.80 0.25
"■fiO-i:
032.96683 754.07292 829.32656'
<* = 0.001846397 hr/subsystem operating hr.
2. The mean time to repair these three units, per subsystem oper
ating hour when all units require repair, is determined from
0.75 1.00 0.50

1,032.96683 754.07292 829.32656'
or
d* = 0.002655094 hr/subsystem operating hr.
3. The mean time to repair and replace these three units, per sub
system operating hour, is given by
*-££?)•
__ (0.75 + 0.50) (1.00 + 0.80) (0.50 + 0.25)
1,032.96683 754.07292 829.32656 '
or
^RR ~ 0.004501492 hr/subsystem operating hr.
4. The mean time to replace these three units for operating hours
equal to the stabilized MTBF of this subsystem
t = m„ • i",
where
1
msa = subsystem MTBF =
E—
1=1
m.. =
J + I +
1,032.96683 T 754.07292 ' 829.323656
L
or
m„ = 285.71309 hr.
Therefore,
I = (285.71309)(0.001846397),
or
I = 0.527539796 hr.
5. The mean time to repair these three units for operating hours
equal to the stabilized MTBF of this subsystem is given by
d = mM • dm,
= (285.71309)(0.002655094),
or
2 = 0.758595111 hr.
6. The mean time to repair and replace these three units for oper
ating hours equal to the stabilized MTBF of this subsystem is
given by
dRR = m„ • dRR,
= (285.71309)(0.004501492),
or
dRR = 1.286135189 hr.
7. The mean time to replace these three units for operating hours
equal to the regular, statistical MTBF of this subsystem is
I = MTBFreg ■ F,
where
MTBFREG = /°° R..(T) dT,
Jo
= r°s,(T).jfe(T).Jk(r)<Br,
= /°° [ (0.25 e-00003 T + 0.75 e~^ *)
.(0.25e-OOOO6T + 0.75e-[ô]35)
• (0.25 e-000045 T + 0.75 c"I*J") ] dT.
This integral can be evaluated using Simpson's Rule with 16 in

tervals to get
MTBFreg « 260 hr.
Therefore,
I = MTBFreg «F« (260)(0.001846397),
or
I = 0.48006 hr.
8. The mean time to repair these three units for operating hours
equal to the regular, statistical MTBF of this subsystem is
1 = MTBFreg -F,
= (260)(0.002655094),
or
d = 0.690324440 hr.
9. The mean time to repair and replace these three units for oper
ating hours equal to the regular, statistical MTBF of this sub
system is
dRR = MTBFreg • dfm,
= (260)(0.004501492),
or
dRR = 1.170387920 hr.
10. The average total maintenance man-hours to repair and replace,

per subsystem operating hour, if the failed units are not dispos
able but require repair in a workshop before they are replaced is
determined from
TE.f./5aiia"
i=i
where DRR is the total mean man-hours to repair and replace

the failed units in the subsystem per one operating hour, then
_ = (0.75)(2) +(0.50X1) (1.00)(3)+(0.80)(3)

m 1,032.96683 754.07292
(0.50)(2) + (0.25)(2)
829.32656
or
DRR = 0.010905978 MMH /subsystem operating hr.
11. The DRR of Case 10, if Units 1 and 3 can be repaired and re
placed simultaneously, but by the two separate crews, is the same
since the replacing and repairing man-hours are independent of
simultaneity, as long as these two crews are putting in their time
anyway. Thus, even though the repair and replacement of Units
1 and 3 occur simultaneously, the mean man-hours per operating
hour remain unchanged.
12. The mean time to repair and replace these three units, per sub
system operating hour, for Case 11 is given by
^-tm i=i
138 MEAN TIME FOR MAINTENANCE
however, since Units 1 and 3 are being repaired and_replaced si

multaneously, we use the larger of (dj + t\)/m\ and (^3 + t^)/m^.
Thus, for Unit 1
571T
+ tf1 = T-^Trrrr^;
0.75 + 0.50 = 0.001210107,
mx 1,032.96683
and for Unit 3
Ifc + tZ 0.50 + 0.25
3 3 = rrr-^rrr = 0.000904348.
m3 829.32656
Since (d^ + t\)lmx > (d^ + *|)/m3 the MTTR of the subsystem
per operating hour is
0.75 + 0.50 1.00 + 0.80
«RR
m — 1,032.96683 + 754.07292 '
or
dRR ~ 0.002387037 hr/subsystem operating hr.
7.5 MEAN TIME FOR CORRECTIVE AND

PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE
If in addition to corrective maintenance, also preventive maintenance
is performed on the equipment every Tp hours, such that the mean cor
rective failure rate for the ith unit, with the unit undergoing preventive
maintenance, is ACJ, the mean corrective repair time of the equipment
when the ith unit fails is tci, the mean preventive replacement rate of
the ith unit is Apj, and the mean time to maintain the ith unit pre
ventively is dpi, then the mean time to restore the equipment while it
is undergoing both preventive and corrective maintenance, MTTR, is
given by
N
X) (Ki *« + Ap, dpi)
MTTR = =3-55 , (7.17)
£(Act + Apt)
t=i
where
Ac, = mean corrective failure rate for the ith unit
while the equipment undergoes preventive main
tenance, also in corrective failures per hour,
which is also the number of corrective restorative
actions required per equipment operating hour,
MEAN TIME FOR MAINTENANCE 139
td = mean corrective repair time of the equipment when

the ith unit fails, in hours,
Xpi = mean preventive replacement rate for the ith unit

when the equipment undergoes preventive and cor
rective maintenance, in preventive replacements per
equipment operating hour,
and
dpi = mean preventive maintenance time of the equipment
when the ith unit is preventively replaced, in hours.
The expressions for Ad and Ap^ are functions of the preventive main
tenance policy exercised in the equipment, and on Tp, and are derived
in Chapter 9.
The MTTR given by Eq. (7.17) is a fundamental statistic of the
equipment and is the value that should be used in the steady-state
availability equations, in conjunction with the appropriate MTBF.
EXAMPLE 7-3
A system consists of three units and is subjected to corrective as
well as preventive maintenance. Given the mean corrective failure
rates, X&, the mean corrective repair times, t^, the mean preventive
replacement rates, Xpi, and the mean times to maintain the units pre
ventively, dpi, in Table 7.3, determine the mean time to restore the
equipment, MTTR, while it is undergoing both preventive and correc
tive maintenance.
TABLE 7.3 - Additional data for Example 7-3.
Unit ■^di dpi,
fr/106 hr hr prev. repl./lO3 hr hr
1 289 0.55 6.667 0.25
2 310 0.75 2.273 0.35
3 179 0.33 3.333 0.15

Using Eq. (7.17) the mean time to restore the system can be ob
tained as follows:
N
£ (Ad td + Apj dpi)
t=i
MTTR =
£ (Ad + Ap.)
i=l
where
A'
H(A« Q + Api dpi-) = (289 x 10"6) (0.55) + (310 x 10~6) (0.75)
i=i
+ (179 x 10-6) (0.33)

+ (6.667 x 10-3) (0.25)
+ (2.273 x 10~3) (0.35)
+ (3.333 x 10-3) (0.15),
= 0.003413,
and
N
£(Aci + \pi) = (289 x 10-6 + 310 x 10-6 + 179 x 10"6
t=i
+6.667 X 10"3 + 2.273 x 10-3 + 3.333 x 10"3),

= 0.013051.
Then, the MTTR is given by
0.003413
MTTR =
0.013051'
or
MTTR = 0.261513 hr.
PROBLEMS
7-1. A subsystem consists of three units, which are reliabilitywise in

series. Their useful life failure rates and wear-out pdf parameters
are given in Table 7.4.
TABLE 7.4 — Useful life and wear-out data associated
with the three units of the subsystem
for Problem 7-1.

Ac, 7, V,
Unit fr/106 hr hr hr fi
1 250 0 200 2.0
2 500 0 400 3.0
3 350 0 300 4.0
PROBLEMS 141
Use the following reliability model for each unit:
with i = 1,2 and 3. Take j£ = 0.20 and tyf- = 0.80. Determine

the following:
1. What is the mean time to replace these three units per system
operating hour if the average replacement times, f*, are as
follows:
t\ = 0.50 hr,
i*2 = 0.80 hr,
and
*3 = 0.25.
Furthermore, the required number of service men, n,-, are
the following:
"i = 1,
n2 = 3,
and
n3 = 2.
MTBF of the units.
3. What is the average total maintenance-man hours to repair
and replace per system operating hour, if the failed units
are not disposable but require repair in a workshop before
they are replaced and the average repair times, d,, are as
follows:
d-i. = 0.75,
d2 = 1.00
and
4 = 0.50.
The number of required repairmen, r,, are as follows:
r, = 2,
7*2 = 3,
and
r3 = 2.
!
4. What will be the results of Case 3 if parts 1 and 3 can be

repaired and replaced simultaneously?
Note that the stabilized MTBF for a system with units reliability-
wise in series is given by
m.. =
N i '
E—
:=1
Also note that
Jo
e"^ i I dT = f + »rg+i).
or use Simpson's Rule with 8 or 16 intervals. Note that the
regular, statistical MTBF for any configuration is given by
MTBFreg •f Jo
Raa dT,
where Rss is the reliability function for the configuration and the
types of units comprising the configuration.
7-2. A system consists of three units which are reliabilitywise in series.
Their useful life failure rates and wear-out probability density
function parameters are given in Table 7.5.
TABLE 7.5 - Useful life and wear-out data associated
for Problem 7-2.

Ac>
Unit fr/106 hr hr hr
1 0.5 3,000 500
2 1.0 10,000 1,000
3 0.7 5,000 800

operating hour if the average replacement times, f*, are the
following:
i[ = 0.55 hr,
^2 = 0.75 hr,
PROBLEMS 143
and
£ = 0.33.
Assume the stabilized MTBF of each unit is given by
MTBFi = l
*ci T t ■
What is the average total maintenance man-hours to repair

they are replaced? The required number of service men, n,-,
are as follows:
»1 = lj
n2 = 3,
and
n3 = 2
The average repair times, d,-, are as follows:
Ji = 1.5 hr,
d2 = 2.0 hr,
and
d3 = 1.0 hr.
The number of required repairmen, r;, are as follows
n = 2,
T2 = 3,
and
r3 = 2.
7-3. A subsystem consists of three units, which are reliabilitywise in
series. Their useful life failure rates and wear-out pdf parameters
are given in Table 7.6.
TABLE 7.6 - Useful life and wear-out data associated

for Problem 7-3.

Ac, 7,
Unit fr/106 hr hr hr 0
1 500 0 400 3.0
2 1,000 0 800 4.5
3 700 0 600 7.0
Use the following reliability model for each unit:
ft(D-f «-*.' + *£,-<5>\

with i = 1,2 and 3. Take $» = 0.25 and fy = 0.75.
operating hour if the average replacement times, i*, are as
follows:
i\ = 0.55 hr,
t'2 = 0.75 hr,
and
0.33.
Furthermore, the required number of service men, n,, are
the following:
m = i,
n2 = 3,
and
n3 = 2.
MTBF of the units.
3. What is the average total maintenance- man hours to repair
PROBLEMS 145
they are replaced and the average repair times, </,-, are as
follows:
dx = 1.5,
d2 = 2.0
and
J3 = 1.0.
The number of required repairmen, r,, are as follows:
n = 2,
r2 = 3,
and
r3 = 2.
4. What will be the results of Case 3 if parts 1 and 3 can be
repaired and replaced simultaneously?
Note that the stabilized MTBF for a system with units reliabil-
itywise in series is given by
1
m.. = N
£
Also note that
or use Simpson's Rule with 8 or 16 intervals

7-4. A system consists of three units which are reliabilitywise in series.
Their useful life failure rates and wear-out probability density
function parameters are given in Table 7.7.
TABLE 7.7 — Useful life and wear-out data associated
for Problem 7-4.

Ac, T,
Unit fr/106 hr hr hr
1 0.5 1,000 150
2 1.0 5,000 800
3 0.7 3,000 500

operating hour if the average replacement times, t*, are the
following:
i\ = 0.55 hr,
t_2 = 0.75 hr,
and
t$ = 0.33.
Assume the stabilized MTBF of each unit is given by
1
MTBFi =
\ 4- J-
What is the average total maintenance man-hours to repair
they are replaced? The required number of service men, n,,
are as follows:
ni = 1,
n2 = 3,
and
n3 = 2
The average repair times, d,-, are as follows:
di = 1.5 hr,
d2 = 2.0 hr,
and
d3 = 1.0 hr.
The number of required repairmen, t\, are as follows:
ri = 2,
r2 = 3,
and
r3 = 2.
Chapter 8
MAINTAINABILITY
ENGINEERING
SPECIFICATIONS AND THEIR
APPLICATIONS
8.1 GOVERNMENT MAINTAINABILITY

SPECIFICATIONS
The following maintainability engineering specifications are available
and their use is recommended:
1. Maintainability Program Requirements - MIL - STD - 470.
2. Maintainability Verification/Demonstration/Evaluation - MIL -

STD -472.
3. Maintainability Prediction - MIL - HDBK - 472.
4. Maintainability Verification/Demonstration/Evaluation for Aero

nautical Systems - MIL-STD-471.
5. Definitions of Effectiveness Terms for Reliability, Maintainability,

Human Factors, and Safety - MIL - STD - 721. ,
6. Maintainability Terms and Definitions - MIL - STD - 778.
147
148 MAINTAINABILITY ENGINEERING SPECIFICATIONS
8.2 MIL - STD - 470

This standard provides requirements for establishing a maintainabil
ity program and guidelines for the preparation of a Maintainability
Program Plan.
The following tasks are required to be incorporated into the Main
tainability Program:
1. Prepare a maintainability program plan.
2. Perform maintainability analyses.
3. Prepare inputs into the detailed maintenance concept and de

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

tractor and vendor contract specifications.
8. Integrate other items.
9. Participate in design reviews.
10. Establish data collection, analysis and corrective action system.
11. Demonstrate achievement of maintainability requirements.
12. Prepare maintainability status reports.
8.3 MIL - STD - 471

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

portance is the contractor's maintainability analysis as defined in MIL
- STD - 470, which should contain a comprehensive description of the
predicted maintenance tasks.
The maintainability analysis shall contain the following:
1. Failure mode or symptom and "How malfunction code," which

would initiate the corrective maintenance task.
2. Frequency of occurrence of each failure mode and symptom of

every maintenance task.
3. Appropriate "Action taken codes" and "Work unit codes" for

each maintenance task.
4. Predicted times for each element of maintenance time as defined

in MIL - STD - 721.
5. Skill levels and number of people required for each maintenance

task.
6. Support equipment and tools required for each maintenance task.
7. Technical order interface for each maintenance task.
8. Identification of preventive maintenance tasks.
9. Identification of those maintenance tasks which are not normally,

or under any circumstances will not be, permitted to be per
formed concurrently with other maintenance tasks.
It is assumed that all other maintenance tasks can be performed un

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

Multiple nomenclature is used in this section giving the author's nomen
clature, as well as that used in MIL-STD-471. The procedure for this
method is the following:
1. Choose
Ho = Ho = Ili = lower, one-sided confidence limit on
the mean time to restore the failed equipment,
Hi — p.\ — tu\ — upper, one-sided confidence limit on
the mean time to restore the failed equipment,
f3 = consumer's risk,
a = producer's risk,
and
Plan A, which assumes a lognormal g(t),
or
Plan B, for which selection of a g(t) is not necessary.
Figure 8.1 illustrates these parameters as they relate to the mean-
time-to-restore distribution, g(t); and Fig. 8.2 as they relate to
the Operating Characteristic (OC) Curve.
2. Calculate the demonstration sample size, n, for Test Plan A,
from
n = (za J/o + 2/3 Hi) ( " 7*,■' -

Oi - Mo)2 («=* ,)
Cumulative 0
1749
0000-0 9030
0*370-0
1334*
0770-0 370*
3330-0
0 0.3710-0
442* M0OO0
040-1
0(430-0.*3«*
raafe
Variable <»J>
•ample
•ample D.mo ample

•
iiao
C-2■ D-l
Find (ii) 1 11 1 23 3 2 1 " 30
A-2 B-2
popolauon ejlocatioa
Drfflt
It At E-l 3 10 3 Ho
(i«) •4 I*
B-7 3« D-4
C-7
Relative of
Iraq,
173
0 OK
0 70
42 0.0(4 0.047 0.013 166
bo) 6l»7
Tolol
m rata" 163 loa 10 240 30
2*
• &#3
pStTABLE
r8.1
aotcifei-cdautirone. groepief
Tul Gro.p TaaaA Group
1 2
A, B.C.D.E
Taaae
3
Group
r Oroup
Tuii 0
Tut
A
Group
3
B
Tut
Group
0
AT
Tut Group
Tub
A
m
of
each
«Um«nl
limo
(iaclude
perform
lime
rlo
eR/R
movem/replace
Dole cjrcl*
1.0 1.0 0
> 10 10 1.0 1.0 or 0.7 •
0 I
0
I*. ill
io
ronly
to
ni*
labia
(or
oliioipThi.
eari■•lodralodiela
(ttmi ' tool

dot*
coalrlea
obo
ikeald
aradar
••complete
lnordered
•#> ( 1 1 1 1 1 1 I « I 1
(*)
Fatlore
rale* 103 21 71 21 11 23 10 «00 20 33 10
<3>
mill maial. lime.

E«l 14 01 03 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.3 0
3 0
3 lor
13
o»d
II
Column
aquaal
Dolole
•
kf
(«> o.« o.« boon.
fi/10
io
failure
'All
ore
rem
M*ial«n*nc«
Cr».«al.(B)
<M •«•• Replace
R/R(A) R/R(A) R/R(B) R/R(C)R/R(D) R/R(E) R/R<F) R/R(A) R/R(A) R/R<A)
MIdofiaed
i.
L-Su
TD-731)
supply
Powti Transmit er trackar
Prcq
F«l«li0«l
level
or Modulator Radar angle indicator
«el control Drift
XYZ
Radar
Kquip•rncnt Amplifier
<»)
IF-
A IF-B
unit*
Major angle indicator
frequency
tracker act control Out*
Rada*
(l) NOTE
2: NOTE
3 NOTE
4
Cn
a = producer's risk = manufacturer's risk

p = consumer's risk = buyer's risk
>—-
lu = MTTR goal lm = max. acceptable

= design-to MTTR MTTR
I , mean time to restore, MTTR
Fig. 8.1- Test Method 1 parameters illustrated on the g(t)

plot.
a = producer's
risk
P(A)=l-a
<
■— 1-P=P(R)
o it, = 30 min. p, = 45 min

= t, = tu,
Fig. 8.2- Test Method 1 parameters illustrated on the OC

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

precise estimates thereof must be obtained. The practical range
of ati appears to be 0.5 < oti < 1.3.
For Test Plan B use
n= Ml -MO
where
/3 = consumer's risk,
or
P(H > /zi = hi) < 0,
or
P(/x </x0 = tLl) < a,

and
d = standard deviation of the maintenance times.
d must be known from prior information, or reasonably precise

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

Use random sampling for the task to be demonstrated and the
sequence. See Tables 8.1 and 8.2 for the procedure.
Also the actual operation of the equipment may be monitored,
and if it fails, the times to restore may be clocked, recorded, and
used.
4. Apply the Decision Criteria
For Test A
Accept if
X < /iQ + 2C
v^T
TABLE 8.2 - Failure mode selection.

1 2 3 4 5
Relative
frequency of Cumulative
Maintenance Failure occurrence, range,
task mode Effect percent percent
Receiver 1. Component 1. Noise 20 0.000- 0.199
remove/ out of
replace tolerance
2. Component 2. Receiver 35 0.200 - 0.549
shorted/open inoperative
3. Tuning 3. Cannot change 45 0.550- 1.000

failure frequency
NOTE: This table is for illustration only and does not reflect real failure modes, etc.
otherwise reject.
For Test B
Accept if
X < no + za
y/n'
otherwise reject.
Here
n
x = '^— = t,
n
and
£ t2i - n t2
d* = a? = & — = fft\
n- 1
EXAMPLE 8-1
The maximum acceptable mean maintenance time is
Mi = tvi = 55 minutes,
TEST METHOD 1 155
with a consumer's risk, /?, of 10%, such that
P$>'kn)<0= io%.
The desirable, design-to, mean maintenance time is
Mo = tn = 35 minutes,
with a producer's risk, a, of 5%, such that
P(?<*Li)<<* = 5%.
Find the number of the maintenance actions that have to be demon
strated, n, according to Plan A, and according to Plan B.
Plan A sample size
\2
(Ml - Mo)2 V *
(1.65 x 35 +1.28 x55)20,6 n J--

n" (55 - 35)2 (e "I)- 33.67,
or
n = 34,
with
o\i = 0.6, a prior estimate.
Plan B sample size
n=
d
where the prior estimate of the standard deviation, d, of the mainte

nance times is taken to be
d = 38 minutes.
See Section 8.4.1 for the justification of this value.
Then,
/l.65+1.28\2 nnnn
*=[ 55-35 J =30-99'
or
n = 31.
EXAMPLE 8-2
If t = 40 minutes and at — 30 minutes, determine if the equipment
passes its maintainability demonstration test according to Plan A, and
according to Plan B.
Plan A
o d
t < MO + Za-7=,
y/n
y/n
or
c 30
t < 35+ 1.65-^= = 43.49.
V34
Since
40 < 43.49,
the equipment passes the test.
Plan B
- _ d
or
40 < 35+1.65-^L = 43.89.
Since
40 < 43.89,
the equipment passes the test.
TEST METHOD 1 157
8.4.1 HOW TO DETERMINE d FROM a],

If d\, = 0.6, then
rf2 = e(2?+^).(e^,_1) (8.1)
A realistic estimate of t', the true mean of the times to restore the
equipment, is needed. One way is to start with t = no = 35 minutes
and increase it as experience indicates.
We know from the lognormal pd/'s properties that
Solving this for V yields
logJ = F+-at2„
or
t' = logJ-^,.
Substituting the t and ati values chosen previously yields
F = log, 35 -^ (0.6),
or
t' = 3.255.
Substitution of this value into Eq. (8.1) for d yields

j2 _ e(2x3.255+0.6) . ^0.6 _ j\
d2 = 1,006.3,
or
d = 31.7 minutes.
Consequently, the value that should be used should preferably be

greater than 35.0, and d = 38 minutes is realistic as it does not vi
olate the assumed value of af, and yields a more conservative (larger)
demonstration sample size.
8.5 TEST METHOD 2 - TEST ON CRITICAL

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

tl = design-to, or design goal of, time
to restore the equipment,
tL = T0.
3. ty such that P(t < ty) = M. This M is the same as before.
ty = maximum allowable, or required, time to

restore the equipment,
tu = Tj.
4. 0 — consumer's risk.
5. a = producer's risk.
The two times-to-restore distributions for the same chosen, fixed
maintainability are shown in Fig. 8.3. The corresponding OC curve is
shown in Fig. 8.4.
8.5.1 SAMPLE SIZE DETERMINATION

The demonstration sample size is calculated from
9 J- Z(\-M)
r2 , 2
z + . 2 za + ZP
n =
^2
where 5f,, is a prior estimate of the variance of the logarithms of the
times to restore.
2
o
H (N
II II
• =1 a
J w°
6
0)
E
ul (31*
J3 ct3
s«o a.
E- - Ol
ii n -o
o
*r «-? ,S
ii V
s
«->
1
A
&
159
Maintenance time, t, for a fixed maintainability
Fig. 8.4- OC curve for Test Method 2.
8.5.2 DECISION PROCEDURE

Conduct the required number, n, of maintenance actions, record the
times to restore, and calculate
. I>get,
r - i =i
n
and
1/2
'£(loget,)2-n<'2"
i=i
t' —
n-1
_
The decision criterion is
1/2
*'* = X' = loge tL + za ov -1 + * (1-M)
n 2(n-l)
Accept if
' + *(l-Af) "f S * ■
TEST METHOD 2 161
Reject otherwise.
EXAMPLE 8-3
It is specified that for a maintainability of 95% the desired mainte
nance time of the equipment be 35 minutes, and the 95% maintenance
time is not to exceed 55 minutes.
The consumer's risk is specified as 10%, and the producer's risk as
5%.
Determine the maintenance actions that have to be demonstrated,
assuming Bt> = 1.2.
SOLUTION TO EXAMPLE 8-3 i
Given are
a = 0.05, 0 = 0.10,
M = 95%, 100% -M = 5%,
tl = 35 minutes,
ty = 55 minutes.
Za = 20.05)^/9 = ô.lO,
za = 1.65,2/3= 1.28,
t'u = loge 55 = 4.00733,
and
t'L = loge 35 = 3.55535.
Then,
2 + (1.65)2
n = (1.2)a 1.65 + 1.28 : \2 = 1jnoo
142.88,
4.00733-3.55535,
or
n = 143.
EXAMPLE 8-4
The maintenance actions of Example 8-3 are demonstrated with
the following results:
1 = 3.0 loge minutes,

al< = 1.5 loge minutes,
and
*' = logei.
Were the n = 143 maintenance actions demonstrated in Example 8-3
adequate? How many additional maintenance tasks need to be demon
strated?

Since at< is found to be 1.5 instead of 1.2, and since all other quan
tities in the sample size equation remain the same,
(1.5)2
"new = j—y "old'
2 25
nnew = t1^ (142.88) = 223.25,
1.44
or
"new = 224.
Therefore, n = 143 is not adequate and the additional maintenance
tasks that have to be demonstrated are
"add = 224-143 = 81-

EXAMPLE 8-5
At the conclusion of the total required maintenance tasks the fol
lowing updated results are obtained:
t = 2.9 loge minutes,

and
oj* = 1.49 loge minutes.
Determine if the equipment has met the desired maintenance time
requirement of 35 minutes.
Since at> is near, and slightly below, the value on which the new
sample size was based, no new additional tasks need to be demon
strated.
The decision criterion now becomes
1 (1.65)2 1/2
*'* = loge35 + (1.65)(1.49)

224 2(224 - 1)
*'* = 3.55535 -(- 0.25274 = 3.808,
or
z." = 3.81,
and
** + Z(\-M)°t' ■ 2-9 + (1-65)(1.49) = 5.36.
TEST METHOD 3 163
Since
5.36 ft 3.81,
the equipment has not met the ti = 35 minutes requirement.
8.6 TEST METHOD 3 - TEST ON CRITICAL

MAINTENANCE TIME OR MAN-HOURS
One critical maintenance time, or maintenance manhours, to restore
the equipment is specified for two different maintainability levels, and
the associated two risks: /? and a.
8.6.1 TEST PLAN

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

1. 7/0.20 < Mu < 0.80, the normal approximation to the binomial
distribution is employed to find n from
1/a z0[ML(l - ML)]V2 + za[Mu(l - My)]1/2
n ' = .
Mv — Ml
Use next high integer value. Next find c from
[A]
c = n
[BY
where
[A] = z0{\ - Mu)[ML(l - ML)}1/2
+za(l - ML)[Mu(l - Mi/)]1'2,
_1_
p
ML
T
I
;
T.
time
rfor
to
maeiTwo
Fig.
n8.5-
sonetatinoabrileti,es
M„
T
I
a;
W)
2
TEST METHOD 3 165
<
a.
Fig. 8.6— OC curve of maintainability for fixed time T.

and
[B] = za[Mu{\ - Mu)}1'2 + zp[ML(l - Mrf]1'2.
Use next lower integer value. Also

P0 = 1 - Mv,
and
P, = 1 - ML.
2. If My > 0.80, n and c are found from

£ e-nfi-M0) . Ml " ?U)Y > ! _ tt|
r=0 r!
and
£ e-n(i-Mt) . [n(l-ML]r ^ ^^
r=0
Table 8.3 provides sampling plans for various a and /? risks and
ratios of
fc = Pj/Po = 1-^L when My > 0.80.
1 - Mu

Conduct the required number, n, of maintenance actions, record the
associated times to restore, t, count the number of the recorded t values
that exceed the specified time T, and designate it as r.
Accept if r < c. Reject otherwise.
EXAMPLE 8-6
It is specified that the critical maintenance time of T = 20 min
utes be at least the 70th percentile (acceptable to the consumer), or
a maintainability Ml of 70%, and T = 20 minutes also be the time
of the design goal with a maintainability Mu of 90%. The consumer's
risk is specified as (3 — 10%, and the producer's risk as a = 5%.
1. Determine the number of maintenance actions that have to be

demonstrated per MIL-STD-471, Test Method 3.
2. Determine the acceptance number of these maintenance actions,
c.
14.400 4.730 2.300 1.540 0.824 0.824 0.227
0.20= n
fi it 8 3 2 1 1 0
c
23.500 7.280 3.840 2.300 1.540 0.824 0.824

.0.20
D
0.10
m
a fi c 2* 8 5 3 2 1 1
Sampling
for
plans
TABLE
specified
(3
and
8.3-po,pi,a 31.800 8.810 5.580 3.080 2.300 1.540 0.824
D
0.05
a the
greatest
Uie
fi c 38 12 7 4 3 2 1
23.200 7.020 3.800 2.430 1.100 1.100 0.532

0.20
» D
4■.
fi »■><•0 otos
is
(e.g.,
small
0.20).
when
<po c 28 10 8 4 2 2 1
vD
by
te
&loe
p k »nd
0.05
■
33.000 10.300 5.430 3.150 1.750 1.100 0.532
D
0.10
m fi
a 0.10
m
c 40 14 8 5 3 2 1
ippropri*
the
ie
43.000 12.800 7.020 4.880 2.430 1.750 0.532
0.05=
D
0.10,4
0.10,a
=
P
c 51 17 10 7 4 3 1
4.
■
divi
0,
ind
a1, umber
ifc
30.200 8.250 4.700 3.280 1.870 1.370 0.353
D
p
0.20
m
n
ince
c 38 14 3 8 4 3 1
given
for
prj.p, he
accept
43.400 12.400 8.170 3.080 2.810 1.370 0.818
COS
m
a
T>
0.10
p= T
48.
c 54 10 7 5 3 2
1*
kite,
pie
r
the
nquo
fi
OmS D
0
is.too 8.480 5.430 3.280 1.870 0.818 -HI-
S4.100
lei»rr
cH 22 13 ■ 8 4 2 th«it
t&
I le
find
To integer
Po 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 4.0 SO 10.0 Then
n=
3. If 5 of these maintenance actions exceeded 20 minutes in dura

tion, determine if the equipment should be accepted or rejected.
4. Same as in Case 3, but when 25% of the maintenance actions
exceed the required critical maintenance time of T = 20 minutes.
1. Mu = 0.90, then
P0 = 1 - Mv = 1 - 0.90 = 0.10.
Since P0 < 0.20, Table 8.3 is used to find c and n as follows:
a = 0.05, 3 = 0.10,
and
A _ 1-ML _. 1-0-70 = CU
P0 1-Mu 1-0.90 0.1
Then, from Table 8.3
D b 3.98;
consequently,
D D 3.98
' P0 I- Mv 1-0.90'
or
n = 39.8.
Use the greater integer value less than the quotient, then n = 39.
Therefore, 39 maintenance actions have to be demonstrated.
2. From Table 8.3 with a = 0.05, Q = 0.10, and k = 3,
c = 7.
3. Accept if r < c. Here,
r = 5 < c = 7;
consequently, the equipment should be accepted as having demon
strated a maintainability of at least M — 70% with 3 < 10%, for
a critical, desired maintenance time of T = 20 minutes.
TEST METHOD 4 169
4. In this case
r = (0.25) n,
or
r = (0.25)(39) = 9.75, or r = 10.
Since, in this case,

r = 10 > c = 7.
the equipment should be rejected.
8.7 TEST METHOD 4 - TEST ON THE MEDIAN,

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

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

Sample tasks shall be selected in accordance with the procedure out
lined in Table 8.1. The duration of each shall be recorded and used to
compute the following statistics:
.£o°gio<«-)
log10 MTTRa = — = t" = log10 1, (8.2)
and
EOog10ic,)2 - nc(\og10MTTRG)^
t=i
S = Ofi = (8.3)
IL. - 1
where log10f = t", and MTTRq is the measured geometric mean time
to repair, or tc.
A.

The equipment under test will be considered to have met the maintain
ability requirement, ERT, when the measured geometric mean time to
repair, MTTRq, and the standard deviation, ot», as determined by Eq.
(8.3), satisfy the following expression:
Accept if log10 MTTRG < log10 ERT + 0.397<v-, (8.4)
where
logj0 ERT = logarithm of the equipment repair time,
logi0 MTTRq = value determined from Eq. (8.2),
and
atn = value determined from Eq. (8.3).
8.7.4 DISCUSSION
The value of the equipment repair time, ERT, to be specified in the
detailed equipment specification should be determined from:
ERT( specified) = 0.37 ERTmax, (8.5)
where ERTmax is the maximum value of ERT that should be accepted
no more than 10% of the time, and 0.37 is a value resulting from the
application of the "Student's t" operating characteristics that assures
a 95% probability that an equipment having an acceptable ERT will
not be rejected as a result of the maintainability test when the sample
size is 20, and assuming a population standard deviation at» of 0.55.
EXAMPLE 8-7
A specific equipment's median repair time, ERT, requirement is
2.50 hours. Twenty (20) corrective maintenance tasks are performed,
in accordance with the procedure outlined in Appendix A of MIL-STD-
471, or Table 8.1, and their duration is recorded. Using these times to
repair, the following are calculated:
log10 MTTRo = 0.65,
where
log10 MTTRg = t".
Also
F7 = logi0{,
as
TEST METHOD 5 171
t = 10' .
It may be seen that MTTRq is the median time to restore the equip
ment to satisfactory function. The standard deviation of the twenty
(20) corrective maintenance actions is calculated to be <rt« = 5 = 0.85.
Determine if the equipment is meeting its repair time, ERT, require
ment.
Accept the equipment as having met its ERT requirement if
log10 MTTRG < log10 ERT + 0.397<rt»,
0.65 < log10 2.50 + 0.397(0.85),
0.65 < 0.3979 + 0.3375,
or
0.65 < 0.7354;
therefore, this equipment is meeting its ERT requirement.
8.8 TEST METHOD 5 - TEST ON CHARGEABLE

MAINTENANCE DOWNTIME PER FLIGHT
8.8.1 CMDT PER FLIGHT
Due to the relatively small size of the demonstration fleet of aircraft,
and the administrative and operational differences between the demon
stration fleet and the fully operational units, operational availability
rate cannot be demonstrated directly. However, a contractual require
ment for chargeable downtime per flight can be obtained from an opera
tional requirement of operational readiness. This chargeable downtime
per flight can be thought of as the allowable time for performing main
tenance given that the aircraft has an associated operational readiness.
The following definitions will be used in this method:
A = availability, or operational readiness,
TOT = total "active time" in hours per day,
DUR = daily utilization rate,
= number of flight hours per day,
AFL = average flight length,
= average flying hours per flight,
NOF = number of flights per day,
1 72 MAINTAINA BILITY ENGINEERING SPECIFICATIONS
DT = downtime, in hours, during which the aircraft

is unavailable for flight,
CMDT — chargeable maintenance downtime, in hours,
during which crews are working
on the aircraft,
NCMDT = nonchargeable maintenance downtime, in hours,
during which the aircraft is unavailable for flight,
but no chargeable maintenance is being performed,
DDT = delay downtime, in hours, such as logistics and
administrative downtime,
a — producer's risk,
Umax = Mi = mi = maximum mean CMDT per flight,
Ho — Mq = required, specified, mean CMDT per flight,
Xa = acceptance critical value,
P = consumer's risk,
a = true standard deviation of the parameter
{CMDT per flight) being tested.
Note that "active time" is that time during which an aircraft is

assigned to an organization for the purpose of performing the organi
zational mission. It is the time during which:
1. The aircraft is flying or is ready to fly.
2. Maintenance is being performed.
3. Maintenance is delayed for supply or administrative reasons.
Nonchargeable maintenance downtime, NCMDT, could include
any of the following situations:
1. Correction of maintenance or operational errors not attributable
to technical orders, contractor furnished training or faulty design.
2. Miscellaneous tasks such as record-keeping, or taxiing, or towing
the aircraft to or from the work area.
3. Repair of accident or battle damage.
4. Modification tasks.
5. Maintenance caused by test instrumentation.
TEST METHOD 5 173
The required CMDT per flight is obtained using the following

CMDT TOT - A(TOT) - NCMDT - DDT
(8.6)
NOF NOF
where
CMDT
= CMDT per flight,
NOF
or
CMDT 24(AFL) A(24)(AFL) NCMDT DDT
NOF DUR DUR NOF NOF'
(8.7)
EXAMPLE 8-8
An aircraft has a required operational readiness of 75%, with an
average daily usage of 2 hours per day and an average flight length of 4
hours per flight. The nonchargeable maintenance downtime per flight
is 0.2 hours per flight and the delay downtime is 1 hour per flight. Find
the chargeable maintenance downtime per flight, cj!f^p ■

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

Given a producer's risk. a. and a consumer's risk. fi. the number of
actions to be demonstrated can be calculated by applying the Central
Limit Theorem, on the assumption that the expected distribution of
the means approaches the normal distribution.
Let .V be a random variable denoting the chargeable maintenance
downtime, and its mean and standard deviation are m and a, respec
tively. But the mean, n, is unknown, the standard deviation, a, is
known from prior estimates, and a is constant for different mean fi.
The test requirement is that if the time /i is equal to or less than
Mo {Mo), the acceptance probability should not be less than 1 - a, and
if n is equal to or larger than fimax (Mi), the acceptance probability
should not be greater than 0. That is
P(X < Xa\n m (to) = 1 - q,
and
P(X >Xa\n = nmaz) = 0.
where
1 n
A', = chargeable maintenance downtimes,

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

X - mo
~JV(0,1).
a/y/n
and
£f£
a/y/n
-mi).
Equating these to their percentiles yields
A'0 - mo _
, i— — za<
a J\Jn
TEST METHOD 5 175
and
Xa -fii ■20.
a/y/n
Then, the test sample size can be shown to be
n= T (8.8)
(«?*)
If n < 50. then a sample of 50 shall be used.
EXAMPLE 8-9
For a requirement of /io = 2.0 hours, the following parameters were
agreed upon by the procuring agency and the contractor:
a = 0.10,
0 = 0.10,
/ii - no — 0.3 hours.
and
a — 1 hour.
Find the required number, n, for maintainability demonstration.
Since a = 0 = 0.10,
zQ = 1.28,
and
z3 = 1.28.
(1.28 + 1.28)2 6.57
n = (0-3/1)2 = 72.8,
0.09
or
n = 73.

The decision is arrived at by measuring the chargeable maintenance
downtime, A'j, after each flight and, at the end of the test, the total
chargeable downtime is divided by the total number of flights to obtain
XOF
Z Xi
x= NOF ■ (8.9)
The standard deviation is obtained by
NOF _
E tXi - *)2
t=i
s =
"N NOF - 1 '
or
\Of
s = J] X,2 - (NOF) -D-2
X (8.10)
V (NOF- 1) l i=i
The decision procedure is as follows:

Accept if
zQs
X <hq +
y/NOF'
Reject if
ZgS
X > /i0 +
Vnof'
EXAMPLE 8-10
A prototype aircraft has completed a demonstration test period of 8
flights. The chargeable maintenance time for each flight is given in the
next table. If the required mean chargeable maintenance downtime is 5
hours per flight, has the aircraft met its CM DT requirement? Assume
q =0.10.
Flight CMDT,
number hr
1 3.0
2 12.0
3 1.5
4 5.0
5 3.0
6 6.0
7 8.5
8 2.0
TEST METHOD 5 177

By Eq. (8.9), with NOF = 8,
NOF
Z Xi
" NOF '
3+12 + 1.5 + 5 + 3 + 6 + 8.5 + 2
i
8
41
~~ 8'
or
X = 5.13 hours.
By Eq. (8.10),
NOF
1
S = \ 2 Xf - (JVOF) X2
{NOF - 1)
1 r 8
=
E
\ (8-1) .t=i
Y2 - (8) (5.125)2 i
where
£X2 = (3)2 + (12)2 + (1.5)2 + (5)2 + (3)2

+(6)2 + (8.5)2 + (2)2,
= 9 + 144 + 2.25 + 25 + 9 + 36 + 72.25 + 4.
= 301.5.
Then, Eq.(8.10) becomes
* = î [(301.5) -(8) (5.125)*],
= \/l3.0536,
or
5 = 3.6130 hours.
Since a = 0.10, za = 1.28, and the test for the decision procedure
is
zQ s (1.28) (3.6130)
Ho + 5+
y/NOF " ' y/$
= 5+1.6351,
= 6.6351, or 6.64/ir/ flight.
Then, since
X= 5.13 < 6.64,
the aircraft system has met its target CMDT requirement.
8.9 TEST METHOD 6 - TEST ON MAN-HOUR

RATE
This test for demonstrating the man-hour rate, man-hours per flight
hour, MHR, is based on the total accumulated chargeable mainte
nance man-hours and the total accumulated demonstrated flight hours
obtained in testing. The demonstrated man-hour rate is calculated
from
***•%$. ("«
where
CM M = total chargeable maintenance man-hours,
and
DFH = total demonstrated flight hours.
If the demonstrated MH R value is less than or equal to the re
quired man-hour rate, MH Rq, plus a value of maximum difference,
AMR, then the requirement is said to have been met. The value of
AM R is provided by the procuring agency, usually as a percentage of
the required system man-hour rate. This value is not based on the de
termination of quantitative producer's and consumer's risk levels, but
is based 011 prior experience with similar systems.
The decision procedure is as follows:
Accept if
MHR< MHR0 + AMR. (8.12)
Reject if
MHR> MHRo + AMR. (8.13)
EXAMPLE 8-11
During testing of a new aircraft system, a total of 1.500 flight hours
are accumulated. Also, 7,560 hours of chargeable maintenance down
time are incurred during the testing. If the required maintenance man-
hours for the system is 5 man-hours per flight hour, with a AMR of
10%, has the aircraft met the man-hour rate requirement?
TEST METHOD 7 179

Given are
CMM = 7, 560 hours,

DFH = 1,500 hours,
and
MHRo = 5 man-hours/flight hour.
Calculate AMR by
AMR = 0.10- MHRo,

= 0.10-5,
or
AMR = 0.50 man-hours/flight hour.
Calculate MHR by Eq.(8.11):
CMM
MHR
DFH '
7,560
1,500'
or
MHR = 5.04 man-hours/flight hour.
Since, by Eq. (8.12),
MHR < MHR0 + AMR.

5.04 < 5 + 0.50,
5.04 < 5.50,
the aircraft system passes the test.
8.10 TEST METHOD 7 - TEST ON MAN-HOUR

RATE USING SIMULATED FAULTS
This test is used to demonstrate the man-hour rate (man-hours per
equipment operating hour). It is based on (a) the predicted total
failure rate, A7, of the equipment as determined in Column 9 of Table
8.1, and the associated MTBF = I/A7, and (b) the total cumulative
chargeable maintenance man-hours and the total cumulative simulated
demonstration operating hours, T. The demonstrated man-hour rate
is then calculated from

_ , Total chargeable maintenance man-hours
Man-hour rate =
Total operating time
r Xa + (ps)
i=l
(8.14)
T
where
Xd = man-hours for corrective maintenance Task i,
n = number of corrective maintenance tasks sampled,
which shall not be less than 30,
MTBF b MTBF of the unit =1/AT, where AT is the value
in Table 8.1, Column 9,
(PS) = estimated total man-hours required for
preventive maintenance during a period of
operating time equal to n • (MTf?F)hours,
and
T = total operating time = n ■ (MTBF)
8.10.1 TEST PROCEDURE

The man-hour rate, MHR, requirement is specified, and a producer's
risk, q, is chosen. The 30 or more corrective maintenance tasks are
sampled (Table 8.1 may be used), and their duration, Xd, are recorded.
Then,
n
Jixci
xc = '=' n
and
,1/2
£ XI - n(Xc)
ffXc = dc =
n- 1
are calculated.
Table 8.1 is used to determine the total equipment failure rate, Aj,
and the MTBF from 1/AT.
The specified preventive maintenance tasks that will be required to
be performed in operating time,
T = n- (MTBF)
TEST METHOD 7 181
hours, are performed in a simulated manner, or are estimated, to obtain

(PS).
8.10.2 DECISION CRITERION

If
Xc < MHR • (MTBF) - — + za-^=,

n y/n
accept the equipment as having met the MHR requirement, and the
producer's risk cannot exceed a.
Reject otherwise.
8.10.3 DECISION CRITERION DERIVATION
tXa + PS j
MHR = Xn-{MTBF) = MTBF {*c + ITJ '
where all quantities except Xc can be taken to be constants. Using

the central limit theorem with n large it may be assumed that Xc is
normally distributed, with variance
4< = (£) • I
If Xc is normally distributed, it can be shown that
MTBF \Xc+ n)
is also normally distributed, around the mean of the MHR with
variMiee = \ \mTbf) ■
Consequently,
„„n . 1 A» PS\ 1 d
MHR = ** * MTSF (Xc + Vj " Za7^MTBF-
Rearranging yields
MJ7JZ • (MTBF) >XC + — - za-=.

n y/n
Solving for Xc yields the decision criterion

PC d
Xc < MHR ■ {MTBF) + za-=.
n y/n
EXAMPLE 8-12
In a specific equipment with a designed-in MTBF of 200 hours, 30
corrective maintenance actions, sampled per Table 8.1, are simulated.
The corrective maintenance man-hours expended for each action are
recorded. The average man-hours per corrective maintenance task is
calculated to be
30
_ £ xci
Xc = — = 2.5 man-hours,
30
and the standard deviation of the man-hours expended for the correc
tive maintenance tasks is calculated to be
d = 0.55 man-hours.
It is estimated that in a time period of
T = n- {MTBF) = 30 • (200),
or
T = 6, 000 hours,
the average total man-hours that will be required for all preventive
(scheduled) maintenance tasks would be
PS = 85 man-hours.
The producer's risk is chosen to be a = 5%.
Determine if this equipment has met its man-hour rate, MHR,
requirement of MHR = 0.050 man-hours per operating hour.
The decision criterion for Test Method 7 is the following:
If
PS d
Xc < MHR ■ (MTBF) + za-=,
n y/n
accept the equipment.
TEST METHOD 8 183
In this case
85 0 55
2.5 < 0.050(200)- — + 1-645-^=,
2.5 < 10-2.833 + 0.1652,
or
2.5 < 7.332.
Consequently, the equipment is accepted because it has met its MHR
requirement.
8.11 TEST METHOD 8 - TEST ON A COMBINED

MEAN/PERCENTILE REQUIREMENT
This is a constant probability ratio sequential test. In this test either
(1) the mean time to restore the equipment, t, or the MTTR (which
is close to the 61% value of a lognormal times-to-restore distri
bution) and the maximum time to restore for a maintainability
of90%(iA/mai = 90%),or
(2) the mean time to restore the equipment, t, or the MTTR and the
maximum time to restore for a maintainability of 95% {tMmax =
95%) are specified.
It may be seen that through this test a duality of requirements are
met simultaneously, as it is required that for an accept decision an
accept decision has to be reached on both t and tMmax ■
The method is based on a maximum possible consumer's and pro
ducer's risk of 16%.
The test constraints are the following:
1. 10 minutes < *Specineci < 100 minutes.
2 tM1pai < 3
It is asserted that most maintainability demonstrations comply with

these restrictions.
1. If the test plan is that of t and tMmax = 90%, then Table 8.4
(Plan A\) is used in conjunction with Table 8.5 (Plan B\).
2. If the test plan is that of t and t\fmax — 95%, then Table 8.4
(Plan A\) is used in conjunction with Table 8.6 (Plan i^)-
When one plan yields an accept decision, attention to that plan

ceases and the remaining plan is continued until a decision is reached
for it. The equipment is rejected when a reject decision is reached on
either plan.
To accept the equipment both plans must result in an accept deci
sion.
If no accept or reject decision is reached after 100 equipment restora
tion demonstrations, the final decision shall be made according to the
following rules:
1. Plan A\\ Accept only if 29 or fewer restorative actions exceed t.
2. Plan B\: Accept only if 5 or fewer restorative actions exceed
3. Plan B?.: Accept only if 2 or fewer restorative actions exceed
These plans are illustrated in Figs. 8.7 and 8.8.
8.11.1 RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH PLANS Au Bj AND B2

PIAN Ax
Producer's Risk, a = 6% at k < 0.22.

Consumer's Risk, /9 = 6% at k > 0.39.
Here
HA) . . ,. -
k = = proportion ol repair times exceeding t,
r(A) = number of repair times exceeding t,

and
Nc = number of corrective maintenance tasks performed in the
test.
Note that t is the specified mean corrective maintenance downtime.
PLAN Bx

Consumer's Risk, (3 = 10% at k > 0.10.
TEST METHOD 8 185
TABLE 8.4- Test Method 8, Table 1, Plan Al

Observations exceeding the value of the mean, t
(or 61st percentile value)
# of Tasks # of Tasks
OBSR (N) Accept Reject OBSR (N) Accept Reject
5 5 55 12 20
6 6 56 13 20
7 6 57 13 21
8 6 58 13 21
9 7 59 14 21
10 7 60 14 22
11 7 61 14 22
12 0 7 62 14 22
13 0 8 63 15 23
14 0 8 64 15 23
15 1 8 65 15 23
16 1 9 66 16 23
17 1 9 67 16 24
18 1 9 68 16 24
19 2 9 69 17 24
20 2 10 70 17 25
21 2 10 71 17 25
22 3 10 72 17 25
23 3 11 73 18 25
24 3 11 74 18 26
25 4 11 75 18 26
26 4 12 76 19 26
27 4 12 77 19 27
28 4 12 78 19 27
29 5 12 79 20 27
30 5 13 80 20 28
31 5 13 81 20 28
32 6 13 82 20 28
33 6 14 83 21 28
34 6 14 84 21 29
35 7 14 85 21 29
36 7 15 86 22 29
37 7 15 87 22 30
38 7 15 88 22 30
39 8 15 89 22 30
40 8 16 90 23 31
41 8 16 91 23 31
42 9 16 92 23 31
43 9 17 93 24 31
44 9 17 94 24 32
45 9 17 95 24 32
46 10 17 96 25 32
47 10 18 97 25 33
48 10 18 98 25 33
49 11 18 99 25 33
50 11 19 100 26 33
7
51 11 19
52 12 19
53 12 20
54 12 | 20
BLE 8.5- Test Method 8 , Table 2, Plan Bx.

Observations exceedin 8 4M„., ~ 90th percentile
2 2 52 4
3 2 53 5
4 2 54 5
5 2 55 5
6 2 56 5
7 2 57 5
8 2 58 5
9 2 59 5
10 2 60 5
11 2 63 5
12 2 62 5
13 2 63 5
14 3 64 5
15 3 65 2 5
16 3 66 2 5
17 3 67 2 5
18 3 68 2 5
19 3 69 2 5
20 3 70 2 5
21 3 71 2 5
22 3 72 2 5
23 3 73 2 6
24 3 74 2 6
25 3 75 2 6
26 0 3 76 2 6
27 0 3 77 2 6
28 0 3 78 2 6
29 0 3 79 2 6
30 0 3 80 2 6
31 0 3 81 2 6
32 0 3 82 2 6
33 0 3 83 2 6
34 0 4 84 2 6
35 0 4 85 3 6
36 0 4 86 3 6
37 0 4 87 3 6
38 0 4 88 3 6
39 0 4 89 3 6
40 0 4 90 3 6
41 0 4 91 3 6
42 0 4 92 3 6
43 0 4 93 3 7
44 0 4 94 3 7
45 0 4 95 3 7
46 4 96 3 7
47 4 97 3 7
48 4 98 3 7
49 4 99 3 7
50 4 100 3 7
51 4
TEST METHOD 8 187
BLE 8.6- Test Method 8 , Table 3, Plan B2.

Observations exceedin g **/_„ - 95th percentile
2 2 52 3
3 2 53 3
4 2 54 3
S 2 55 3
6 2 56 3
7 2 57 0 3
8 2 58 0 3
9 2 59 0 3
10 2 60 0 3
11 2 61 0 3
12 2 62 0 3
13 2 63 0 3
14 2 64 0 3
15 2 65 0 3
16 2 66 0 3
17 2 67 0 3
18 2 68 0 3
19 2 69 0 3
20 2 70 0 4
21 2 71 0 4
22 2 72 0 4
23 2 73 0 4
24 2 74 0 4
25 2 75 0 4
26 2 76 0 4
27 2 77 0 4
28 3 78 0 4
29 3 79 0 4
30 3 80 0 4
31 3 81 0 4
32 3 82 0 4
33 3 83 0 4
34 3 84 0 4
35 3 85 0 4
36 3 86 0 4
37 3 87 0 4
38 3 88 0 4
39 3 89 0 4
40 3 90 0 4
41 3 91 0 4
42 3 92 0 4
43 3 93 0 4
44 3 94 0 4
45 3 95 0 4
46 3 96 0 4
47 3 97 0 4
48 3 98 0 4
49 3 99 1 4
50 3 100 1 4
51 3
trun26
cation
29
Accept
-
rNumber
equipment
dof
emsotornosrtations, performed
cmnumber
of
actions
oarintecntainvce
Fig.
Plan
8.7-
Alt
Test
Method
8.
100
performed
mNumber
tasks
be
of
ato
intenance
60
80
40
20
Fig.
Plans
8.8-
Bt
and
B2,
Test
Method
8.
•2^•
s1
§ 8 x<u M 53
--S
U •as
00 CO
PLAN B2

Consumer's Risk, (5 = 10% at k > 0.05.
Here
k - r^
r(5) = number of repair times exceeding tMmax ,

and
*M™„T = maximum corrective maintenance downtime.

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

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

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

TENANCE TIME AND Mmax
This test is used to demonstrate the following:
1. Mean corrective maintenance time, tc = fic.
2. Mean preventive maintenance time, tp = fipm.
3. Mean maintenance time of the combined corrective and preven

tive maintenance actions, tc/p = /ic/p-
4. Maximum time to correctively restore the equipment for a main
tainability of MmaXc = 90% or MmaXc = 95%, t\tmaSc-
The tests to demonstrate t c, tp and tc/p apply to any distribution
of maintenance times as they are based on the Central Limit Theorem,
provided the minimum sample size is 30. No prior knowledge of the
variance of the maintenance times is required.
The test to demonstrate tMmaXc applies to lognormally distributed
corrective maintenance task times.
The order of the sample maintenance tasks shall be selected ac
cording to Table 8.1.

1. Specify any one of Tc,Tp,Tc/P or MâXc with t*Mmaic, or any com
bination of them.
2. Specify the consumer's risk, (3, when the demonstration involves
tc or tp.
3. Decide on a sample size of maintenance actions to be demon
strated for tc,tp or tc/p- The sample size, n, for each equipment
type should be n > 30.
4. Demonstrate the number of maintenance actions chosen accord
ing to Table 8.1, and record the duration of each corrective main
tenance task, td, and each preventive maintenance task, tpt.
5. Calculate the following:
where
tc{ = corrective maintenance times,
and
nc = number of corrective maintenance tasks
demonstrated.
"F
(b) tr> = *P = ^p-,

where
TEST METHOD 9 193
tpi = preventive maintenance times,

and
np = number of preventive maintenance tasks
demonstrated.
W Vp - 4t^>
where
/c = number of expected corrective maintenance
tasks occurring during a representative
operating time T,
fp = number of expected preventive maintenance tasks
tasks occurring during the same
operating time T,
and
fc = XCT and fp = XpT.
Also the following may be used:
E td + E tp,-
1=1 >=1
*c/p =
nc + np
where the td and tpj are determined for the same represen
tative time.
(d) tMmaic = antiloge K + «(*Mm„e)*«i] i
where
<c is calculated from Eq. (5.1), z(t'M ) is obtained from

Table 6.4, and <rp is calculated from Eq. (5.4).
8.12.2 DECISION CRITERIA

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

Accept if?* (specified) > tc + zp^fc-
Otherwise reject.
8.12.2.2 - TEST FOR L

•9
Accept if fp (specified) > tp + zp-7j=-
Otherwise reject.
8.12.2.3 - TEST FOR tc/p
Accept if rc/p (specified) > tc/p + Zfi [^^^ ' ^
Otherwise reject.
8.12.2.4 - TEST FOR tMmaic

Accept if <Mm„c specified > tMmaXc-
Otherwise reject.
EXAMPLE 8-14
For a special, maintainabilitywise vital equipment the following are
specified:
Tc = 5.250 hr,
7* = 1.500 hr,
/? = 0.05 for tc and tp,
t"c/p = 3.000 hr,
and
rMmalc = 12-50 hr' for Mmaxc = 95%.
In a series of maintainability demonstration tests the following are
determined:
nc = 46, tc = 3.595 hr, and a^c = 5.641 hr,
Tip = 60, tp = 1.356 hr, and c^p = 0.375 hr,
tc/p = 2.350 hr, and a^p = 3.135 hr, with fc = 20 and
U = 40,
and
io.95 = 12-08 hr, for MmaXc = 95%.
Determine if the specified requirements have been met by these
maintainability demonstration results.
TEST METHOD 9 195
1. Test for tc
tc + *i3-^= = 3.595 + 1.645^S = 4.963 hr.
Since
t* = 5.250 hr > 4.963 hr,
we accept the equipment as having met the mean corrective main
tenance time requirement.
2. Test for tp.
— SL 0.375
tP + Z(3-^= = 1-356 + 1.645 —= = 1.436 hr.
v/60
Since
t* = 1.500 hr > 1.436 hr,
we accept the equipment as having met the mean preventive
maintenance time requirement.
3. Test for tc/p.
1/2
nP(fc $tc)2 + nc(fp atp)2'
tc/p + *fi
ncnp(fc + fp)2
"60(20 x 5.641)2 + 46(40 x 0.375)2'"I 1/2
= 2.350 + 1.645
46 x 60(20 + 40)2
= 2.809 hr.
Since
rc/p = 3.000 >> 2.809,
we accept the equipment as having met the requirement for the
mean maintenance time of the combined corrective and preven
tive maintenance actions; i.e., the mean of all maintenance ac
tions.
4. Test for tMmaXc.

to 95 was determined, as shown in Example 6-4, Case 5, to be
12.08 hr.
Since
t'Mmaxc = 12.50 hr > 12.08 hr, for MmaXc = 95%,
we accept the equipment as having met the requirement for the

time by which 95% of the corrective maintenance actions should
be completed satisfactorily.
8.13 TEST METHOD 10 - TESTS FOR

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

This method requires the specification of tc,tp,tMmaXc (95th percentile)
or (MmoI (95th percentile), and the selection of one of the following
confidence levels: 75% or 90%.
The sample tasks are selected in accordance with the procedures
of Table 8.1. The duration of each task is compared to the required
value(s) of the specified index or indices (ic,ip,tMmaic and tMmax )>
and are recorded as greater than or less than each index.
8.13.2 ACCEPT/REJECT CRITERIA

The item under test shall be accepted when the number of observed
task times, which exceed the required value of the specified index,
TEST METHOD 10 197
Table 8.7— Acceptance table for ic or L, sample size = 50.
Confidence level
75% 90%
Acceptance level
22 20
Table 8.8- Acceptance table for tMmaXc or thfmax •> sample

size = 50.
Confidence level
75% 90%
Acceptance level
1 0
is less than or equal to that shown in Table 8.7 and/or Table 8.8,
corresponding to each index for the specified confidence level.
EXAMPLE 8-15
The following are specified for a specific equipment:
1. Median value of the corrective maintenance times =
ic = 2.75 hours.
2. Median value of the preventive maintenance times =

tp = 1.35 hours.
3. 95th percentile of the corrective maintenance times =

«Mmoic = <co.es = 3.45 hours.
4. 95th percentile of the preventive maintenance times =

w3p = *po.m = 2-15 hours-
All of these times are to be demonstrated at a 90% confidence level.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Calculate the mean preventive maintenance time from
zl fpi • XPi
tp = //p(actual) = ,"~1
h
E/P.
where
fPi = frequency of occurrence of the ith task in the
referenced period,
k = number of different preventive maintenance tasks
performed,
y^ /p, = total number of preventive maintenance tasks
performed,
XPi = midpoint of the time intervals in which the
different maintenance tasks were performed,
/ip( actual) = actual mean preventive maintenance time
calculated using this formula = tp.
Accept if 7p(/ip) required > tp(np) actual.
Reject iitp(fip) required < tp(nP) actual.
8.14.4 TEST FOR tMmai

*** main
The preventive maintenance tasks are ranked by magnitude (lowest to

highest value). The equipment is accepted if the magnitude of the task
time at the percentile of interest is equal to or less than the required
value of tMmaXp(tpmaz).
EXAMPLE 8-16
1. A specific equipment requires a 40-minute mean preventive main

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

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

nance tasks.
Time intervals, Frequency of preventive
minutes maintenance tasks
0 - under 10 1
10 - under 20 4
20 - under 30 5
30 - under 40 7
40 - under 50 8
50 - under 60 3
TABLE 8.10- Calculations for Table 8.9 data to obtain /xp (ac
tual).
Frequency of
Time preventive Class
interval, maintenance tasks, midpoint,
Class minutes f,i Xpi /, >i " Xpi
1 0 - under 10 1 5 5
2 10 - under 20 4 15 60
3 20 - under 30 5 25 125
4 30 - under 40 7 35 245
5 40 - under 50 8 45 360
6 50 - under 60 3 55 165
t=6 t=6
it = 6 N = £ hi = 28 ■ Xpi = 960
t=i
1. Per MIL-STD-471, Test Method 11, the decision criteria are:

Accept if: y.v (required) > /xp (actual).
Reject if: /zp (required) < //p (actual).
In this case, /ip (required) = 40 minutes.
Now calculate /zp (actual) as follows:
Arrange the data as shown in Table 8.10 and calculate
^p(actual) = x—^ ,
where
/Pi = frequency of occurrence of the ith task in the
referenced period,
k = number of different preventive maintenance
tasks performed,
)] fPt = total number of preventive maintenance tasks
performed,
A'Pl = midpoint of the time interval in which the dif
ferent maintenance tasks were performed,
/ip(actual) = actual mean preventive maintenance time
calculated using this formula.
Therefore, from Table 8.10,
Up (actual) = —— = 34.3 minutes.

28
Since
/ip(required) = 40 min > /xp(actual) 34.3 min,
we accept the equipment as having met this requirement.
2. The 28 maintenance task durations are ranked by magnitude
from the lowest to highest value. The 95th percentile observation
is found to be
(N + 1)0.95 = (28 + 1)0.95 = 27.55.
TEST METHOD 11 203
The 27th ranked value is 55 minutes and the 28th ranked value
is 57 minutes. Consequently, the duration of the 27.55th obser
vation, or of the preventive maintenance task time, is
55 + (27.55 - 27.00)(57 - 55) = 56.10 min.
Since
*A/maxp(re(luired) = 58 min. > tMmaz
maxp factual)
\ = 56.10 min
we accept the equipment.

PROBLEMS
8-1. The mean maintenance time of an equipment is to be demon

strated. The maximum acceptable mean maintenance time is 60
minutes and the desirable maintenance time is 35 minutes. The
consumer's risk is specified as 10% and the producer's risk as 5%.
Do the following:
1. Determine the number of maintenance actions that have to

be demonstrated per MIL-STD-471, Test Method 1, Plan
A, under the lognormal assumption of a prior estimate of
at, - 1.2.
2. Same as in Case 1 but for Plan B, under the distribution-free
assumption of a prior estimate of d = 45 minutes.
3. The maintenance actions required by Plan A are demon
strated and the following results are obtained:
t = 40 minutes,
and
crt = 20 minutes,
where
t = mean time to restore the equipment,
and
at = standard deviation of the times to restore.
Determine if this equipment passed its maintainability demon

stration test according to Plan A.
4. Same as in Case 3, but for Plan B.
5. Find the mean maintenance time to reject the equipment
according to Plan A.
8-2. The mean maintenance time of an equipment is to be demon

strated. The maximum acceptable mean maintenance time is 75
minutes and the desirable maintenance time is 35 minutes. The
consumer's risk is specified as 10% and the producer's risk as 5%.
Do the following:
PROBLEMS 205

be demonstrated per MIL-STD-471, Test Method 1, Plan
A, under the assumption of a lognormal times-to-restore
distribution with a prior estimate of at> = 0.6.
2. Same as Case 1, but for Plan B under the distribution-free
assumption of a prior estimate of d = 30 minutes.
3. The maintenance actions required by Plan A are demon
strated and the following results are obtained:
t — 40 minutes,
and
at ss 10 minutes,
w here
t = mean time to restore the equipment,

and
at = standard deviation of the times to restore.
Determine if this equipment passed its maintainability demon

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

tenance time of the equipment be 35 minutes, and the 95% main
tainability maintenance time not to exceed 55 minutes. The con
sumer's risk is specified as 10% and the producer's risk as 5%.
Do the following:

1-2 log..
2. These maintenance tasks are demonstrated with the follow
ing results:
t = 3.0 logg minutes,
ati = 1.5 logj, minutes,
and
t' = loge t.
demonstrated.
and
ati = 1.4 logg minutes.
PROBLEMS 207


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

0.81Oge.
lowing results:
t' = 3.0 logg minutes,
<7ti = 0. 9 log. minutes,
and
t' = loge t.
demonstrated.
t = 2.9 log. minutes,
and
ati = 0.95 log. minutes.
4. Same as in Case 3, but for the maximum allowable mainte
nance time of 90 minutes.
8-6. It is specified that the critical maintenance time of 20 minutes

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

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

aircraft has an average flight time of 8 hours per flight and an
average daily usage of 6 hours per day. The nonchargeable main
tenance downtime per flight is 0.35 hours per flight and the delay
downtime is 1 hour per flight. Find the chargeable maintenance
downtime per flight.
8-8. A new aircraft system is to be tested. A point of concern for the
maintainability demonstration aspect of the tests is the charge
able downtime per flight. The required mean CMDT per flight,
Ho is specified as 3.5 hours. Do the following:
1. The following parameters were agreed upon by the contrac
tor and the procuring agency:
a = 0.05,
0 = 0.10,
Hi — Ho = 0.5 hours,
a — 0.75 hours.
Find the required number of flights, n, for the maintainabil
ity demonstration.
2. Using the results of Case 1, n demonstrations were made.
The average chargeable maintenance downtime per flight,
X, was found to be 3.77 hours. The standard deviation was
found to be 0.29 hours. Determine if the aircraft system has
met its CMDT goal.
8-9. A new aircraft system has accumulated 5,000 flight hours during
testing. During this time, 8,100 hours of chargeable maintenance
downtime is accumulated. The required maintenance man-hours
for the system is 1.5 hours, and the AMR is specified as 7.5%.
Has the aircraft met the man-hour requirement?
PROBLEMS 209
8-10. If a prototype aircraft system has accumulated 3,500 hours of

test time and 7,800 hours of chargeable maintenance downtime,
what is the minimum value of AMR for the system to meet a
required maintenance man-hour goal of 1.2 hours?
8-11. An equipment's ERT is specified as 16 hours. Twenty corrective
maintenance tasks are performed in accordance with the proce
dure outlined in MIL-STD-471, or Table 8.1. Using the times to
repair from the tasks, the following are calculated:
log10 MTTRG = 0.82,
and
at„ = 0.40.
Determine if the equipment is meeting its ERT requirement.
8-12. A prototype radar system has a designed-in MTBF of 400 hours.
25 corrective maintenance actions are sampled^ per Table 8.1.
The average man-hours per corrective action, Xc, is calculated
to be 4.2 man-hours. The standard deviation, d, is calculated to
be 0.7 man-hours. It is estimated that in a time period of
T = n ■ (MTBF) = 25 • (400),
or
T = 10,000 hours,
the average total man-hours that will be required for all scheduled
preventive maintenance tasks will be
PS = 120 man-hours.
If the producer's risk, a is specified as 5%, has the radar sys
tem met its MHR requirement of 0.075 man-hours per operating
hour?
-13. It is specified that the maintainability of the equipment be demon
strated on a dual requirement basis: (1) A mean time to restore
of 30 minutes. (2) A time for a maintainability of 95% of 45
minutes.
Do the following:
1. Draw the sequential Test Plan Aj of MIL-STD-471, Test

Method 8.
2. If 25 maintenance tasks were demonstrated, determine how

many of these tasks should exceed 30 minutes in duration
for an accept decision.
4. Draw the sequential test Plan B2 of MIL-STD-471, Test
Method 8.
5. If 25 maintenance tasks were demonstrated, determine how
many of these tasks should exceed 45 minutes in duration
for an accept decision.
7. If the test on the mean time and the test on the 95% main
tainability time both resulted in an accept decision, deter
mine whether you would accept or reject the equipment.
8. If the test on the mean time resulted in an accept decision
and on the 95% maintainability time resulted in a reject
decision, determine whether you would accept or reject the
equipment.
9. If the test on the mean time resulted in a reject decision
and on the 95% maintainability resulted in an accept de
cision, determine whether you would accept or reject the
equipment.
10. Same as in Case 2, but for 100 demonstrated maintenance
tasks.

sumer's and producer's risks are specified as 5%.
Do the following:

0.95 log,..
lowing results:
t = 3.5 log. minutes,
Ot> — 1.1 logj minutes,
and
PROBLEMS 211
t' = loge*.
demonstrated.
3. At the conclusion of the required maintenance tasks the
t = 3.1 log,, minutes,
and
oti = 1.0 logg minutes.

sumer's and producer's risks are specified as 10%.
Do the following;

0.95 log^
lowing results:
a? = 1.1 logg minutes,
and
t' = loge*.
demonstrated.
3. At the conclusion of the required maintenance tasks the
and
at> = 1.0 logj minutes.
8-16. For a special, maintainabilitywise vital equipment the following

are specified:
7* = 4.3 hr,
rp = 1.0 hr,
(3 = 0.10 for tc and tp,
t*c/p = 3.5 hr,
and
«*-,« - 15 hr, for Mmaxc = 95%.
In a series of maintainability demonstration tests the following

are determined:
nc = 51, tc = 2.985 hr, and ct?c = 6.158 hr,
np = 55, tp = 1.980 hr, and a?p = 0.275 hr,
tc/p = 1.050 hr, and d£? = 4.005 hr, with/c = 19 and fp = 45,
and
*o.95 = 13 hr, for MmaXc = 95%.
Determine if the specified requirements have been met by these

maintainability demonstration results.
8-17. The following are specified for a specific equipment:
1. Median value of the corrective maintenance times =
ic = 4.25 hours.
2. Median value of the preventive maintenance times —
ip = 2.85 hours.
3. 95th percentile of the corrective maintenance time =
*Mm0xc = ^.95 ■ 4-95 hours.
4. 95th percentile of the preventive maintenance time =
iMmaip = tpoM = 3.65 hours.
All of these times are to be demonstrated at a 90% confidence

level.
Forty maintenance tasks are to be performed in accordance with
the procedures of Table 8.1.
PROBLEMS 213
Table 8.11- Duration and frequency of preventive mainte

nance tasks for Problem 8-18.
Time intervals, Frequency of preventive
minutes maintenance tasks
0 - under 10 2
10 - under 20 3
20 - under 30 6
30 - under 40 10
40 - under 50 7
50 - under 60 5
Similarly, forty preventive maintenance tasks are to be performed

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

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

OF THE FORMULAS OF SAMPLE
SIZE, n, FOR TEST METHODS
GIVEN IN MIL-STD-471
APPENDIX 8A - TEST METHOD 1
The time to restore, X, is lognormally distributed, and the follow
ing values are given:
Mo = design goal of the mean time to restore = tn ,
Hi = required mean time to restore or acceptable MTTR = tui,
a = producer's risk ,
/3 = consumer's risk ,
Xa = acceptable critical value of X,
and
d = the standard deviation of X.
The test hypothesis is
HQ : E(X) = mo,
and
IT, :£(*)« Mi-
For given a and /?, if the hypothesis Ho is true, then the probability
that the equipment passes the test should be
P(X <Xa\E(X) = Ho) = l-a, (8A.1)
and if the alternate hypothesis Hi is true, then the probability that
the equipment passes the test should be
P(X<Xa\E(X) = ni) = P- (8A.2)
Equation (8A.1) may be put in the form
l-a = r| < \E{X) = Mo (8A.3)

ax ax
By the central limit theorem, the sample mean,_X, is approximately
normally distributed for large n with mean E{X) and variance o^.
Hence, if the hypothesis Ha is true, then E(X) = mo> °x do/y/ii,
and
X - Mo _ -X" - Mo
#(0,1). (8A.4)
9j[ do/y/n
From Eq. (8/1.3),
Xa - Mo
= za, (8A.5)
do/y/n
where za is the (1 — a)th percentile of the standard normal distribution.

Rearranging Eq. (8A.5) yields
Xa = Mo + za{d0/yfii). (8i4.6)
Similarly, Eq. (8/1.2) yields
X. = mi - *fi{dxl^/n). (8A.7)
Equating Eqs. (8/1.6) and (8A.7) yields
î ~ A*o = (zp di + za d0)/y/n. (8A.8)

Dividing both sides by (/j,i - Mo), multiplying both sides by yfn, squar
ing both sides and solving for n yields
(za d0 + 20 di)7
n = l^SZ^ , (8A.9)
(A*l - Mo)2
the Test Method 1 sample size.
Test Plan A
For Test Plan A, since X is lognormally distributed,
E(X) = eM+*'/a (8A.10)
and
a^ = ê*2 - l)1'2, (SA.ll)
where fi and cr denote the mean and standard deviation of log X.
For E{X) = /x0, from Eq. (8A.11)
do = M^2 - 1)1/2, (8A.12)

and for E(X) = ft\,
d\ =/ii(«**- 1)1/2- (8A.13)

Substitution of Eqs. (8A.12) and (8A.13) into Eq. (8A.9) yields
n m (Jajio + zzgl s - 1). (8A.14)

(a»i -Mor
APPENDICES 217
Test Plan 5
For Test Plan B
d\ = do = d (8A.15)
where d is the prior estimate of the standard deviation of the mainte
nance time. Substitution of d for do and di in Eq. (8A.9) yields
. 2
za + zp '
n= (8A.16)
mzpL
d
APPENDIX 8B - TEST METHOD 2

The time to restore, X, is lognormally distributed and the following
are given:
Xp = (1 — p)th percentile of the distribution of X,
To = design goal the (1 - p)th percentile value = II,
T\ = required (1 — p)th percentile value = tu,
/? = consumer's risk,
Xpa = acceptance critical value of Xp,
and
X* = loge Xpa .
Hq : E(XP) = To,
and
Hx:E(Xp) = Tl.
According to the hypothesis for given a and /?, if hypothesis Ho is
true, the probability that the equipment passes the test should be
P(XP < Xpa\Ho) = 1 - a, (85.1)
and if the alternate hypothesis H\ is true, the probability that the
equipment passes the test should be
P{Xp < Xpa|ffi) = /3, (85.2)
where Xp stands for the MLE of Xp. Taking the logarithm of both
sides of the inequalities in Eqs. (85.1) and (85.2) yields
P(logeXp<loge^pa|50) = l-a, (85.3)
_.l
and
P(\ogeXp<\ogeXpa\H1) = 0, (85.4)
also
p ( logeXp-5(logeXp) < X*-E(\ogeXp)lIL ] = i_ o

loge Xp loge Xp
(85.5)
and
loge Xp - E(\oge Xp) X" - E(loge Xp)

< \HA = /?. (85.6)
loge Xp loge Xp
It can be shown that loge Xp is approximately normally distributed

when n is large, then
loge Xp - E(\oge Xp) ^ ^

(85.7)
Since X is lognormally distributed

(85.8)
where /z and ct is the mean and standard deviation of logeX, respec

tively, and zp is the (1 — p)th percentile of the normal distribution.
Then
loge Xp = n + zp cr, (85.9)
and the MLE of loge Xp is
n- 1
log£ Xp = Y + zp S (85.10)
where
Y = ±±logeX„
S> = -±-£(\ogeX>-Y)\
n — 1 .—;
APPENDICES 219
and Xi,X2... Xn is a random sample. Then,
E(\oge Xp) = E(Y) + hJl-lE(S). (85.11)

n
In Eq. (8A.11)
E(Y) = /x, (85.12)

and if n is large
E(S) a a [1, pp. 137-139], (85.13)
and
n-l
=* 1.0. (85.14)
n
Therefore
E(\ogeXp)^f, + Zpa. (85.15)
For the variance of loge Xp,
log«A'
~ =Var F + z,
V n
Since F and 5 are independent
• Var(S). (85.16)
l°ge A'p n
Also if n is large, then
„2
Var(5) S< — [1, pp. 137-139], (85.17)
and
n- 1
= 1.0. (85.18)
Therefore, Eq. (85.16) becomes
log**? n p 2n (85.19)
From Eqs. (85.5), (85.6) and (85.7)
X* = E(logeXp\H0) + zaalog^F, (85.20)
_l.
and
X' = EQDg.Xp\Hi) - zfi alogJj>, (85.21)
Since
5(loge XP\H0) = loge T0, (85.22)
and
E{\ogeXp\n1)=\ogeT1, (85.23)
from Eq. (85.19)
(\ n 1 \1/2
a. ? = <r - + zl — . (85.24)
Substitution of Eqs. (85.22), (85.23) and (85.24) into Eqs. (85.20)

and (85.21) yields
1 V/2
X' = togeTo
x* logeT0 + zaai-
zQ a Q +
+4^
z;i 2> (85-25)
and
X* = ]0B.ri-*»(i+jjJL) . (85.26)
Equating the right hand side of Eqs. (85.25) and (85.26) yields
log.Ta - logeT0 = (za + zp) a ( - + ^ J . (85.27)
Rearranging Eq. (85.27) yields
»=fl
\ + ^V2(i
2) ^g tV-
Viogeri-ioge7oy v(8^.28);
REFERENCE
1. Duncan, Acheson J., Quality Control and Industrial Statistics, Richard
D. Irwin, Inc., 992 pp., 1974.
APPENDIX 8C - TEST METHOD 3
If X\, X2, . . . , Xn is a random sample indicating a series of main
tenance actions,
0, if the maintenance action is completed before
A',- = ^ the specified maintenance time, T",
1, otherwise,
APPENDICES 221
i= l,...,n, (8C.1)
and
P(Xi = 0) = l-p, P(Xi = l) = p. (8C.2)
Then x — Z) Xi is the number of maintenance actions that failed to be

»=i
completed before T* in n trials, x 1S binomial distributed, consequently
V
p(x=k)=r)pk(i-p)n-k, (8C.3)
£(x) = "?. (8C4)

and
Var(x) = np(l-p). (8C.5)
Ho : T = XPo ,
and
Jff1:r = XPl,(p1>p0).
It is equal to the hypothesis
#o : P = Po = Mu,
and
E\'.p — Pi — Ml.
Considering the second hypothesis, the test problem changes to
finding the sample size n and the acceptance value c which satisfy the
p(f>,<c|po) =1-q, (8C.6)

V» = l
and
p(j2Xi<c\Pl) =/?. (8C.7)

\i=i
(1) If n is large and 0.20 < Po < Pi < 0.80, then according to the
Central Limit Theorem, then
c—n pq
In po(l-Po)
/ T,Xj - n po c- n p0
yn po (1 -po) \A po (1 -po), J v/2lr
= l-a, (8C.8)
and
<:-" Pi
V" Pi (J -Pi)
p I S-Y, -npi < c-npi
V\/npi (1-Pi) ~ \/npi (1-Pi)/ y V27F
— oo
ft, (8C.9)
that is
c — n p0
= zn (8C.10)
s/n pa (1 -p0)
and
c — n pi
= -Z0, (8C.11)
s/npi (1-pi)
Rearranging Eqs. (8C.10) and (8C.11) yield
c = n po + 2a^/n po (1 - p0), (8C.12)

and
c = npi - zpsjnp! (1-pi). (8C.13)
Subtracting Eq. (8C.12) from Eq. (8C.13) yields
"(Pi - Po) = f zayjn po (1 - Po) + zpy/n Pi (1 - Pi) J - (8C.14)
Dividing both sides by ^/n yields
y/n (Pi - Po) = za\/po Qo + zp\/Pi Qu (8C.15)

where Qi = 1 -p, (i = 0, 1). Dividing both sides by (pj -po) and then
squaring both sides yields
ZaVPO Qo + zpVPl Q\
n = (8C.16)
Pi -Po
Equation (8C.16) gives the sample size needed. Substitution of Eq.
(8C.16) into Eq. (8C.11) and rearranging Eq. (8C.11) yields the ac
ceptance critical value, c, as
Z0 PoVPlQl + Za Ply/poQo
c= n (8C.17)
Za\/PoQo + Zfiy/piQi
APPENDICES 223
(2) If n is large, but po < 0.20, then the normal distribution is

not used to approximate the binomial distribution, but the Poisson
distribution. Then, from Eq. (8C.8),
(8C.18)
r=0
and
(8C.19)
r=0
Solving Eqs. (8C.18) and (8C.19) yields the sample size n and the
acceptance critical value c.
APPENDIX 8D - TEST METHOD 4
If the underlying distribution of the corrective maintenance task
time, X, is lognormal, and X\yX^ •••,JST„e is a random sample from
X, then Y = logA is normally distributed and y\ — logA"i,$/2 —
log Xi , • • • , ync = log Xnc is a random sample from Y .
Define
(nc \ */"c
II ^' )
and
ERT = specified equipment repair time.
Then
log10 MTTRG = ^- £ log10 Xi = ~ J> L F, (8D.1)

nc £J ?£,
and
5= -lite-!/)2. (80.2)
1 1=1
Assume
}' = log10 A ~iV(/i, a2), (80.3)
then
iV(0,l), (80.4)
r/v/n
i_
^--X'K-I), (80.5)
a2
and
Y-fi , ncS2
—7—7= and —=— are independent.
Consequently,
Y-M — _
/ atg 5
1)
is Student's t distributed.
Here
H = log10 ERT, (8D.7)
therefore
log10MTTRG-\ogwERT
T=-^ 1 212 L_V/^TT „ t(nc _ !). (82).8)
If the test criterion is a probability of 0.95 of accepting an equip

ment or system as a result of one test when the true geometric mean
time to repair is equal to the specified equipment repair time, ERT,
it is then desired to find a value, Tb.05, which satisfies the probabilistic
equation
P(r<To.O5,nc-i) = 0.95, (80.9)
where T0.o5,nc-i is the (1 — 0.05)th percentile of the "Student's t" dis
tribution with (nc — 1) degrees of freedom. Entering the Student's t
distribution tables with degrees of freedom = (nc - 1) = 19 yields
T0.o5,nc-i = 1-729. (80.10)
Substitution of this value into Eq. (8C.18) yields
login MTTRG
-212 <± - log10
212 ERT v/l9<
r— 1.729, (80.11)
or
log10 MTTRG < log10 ERT + 0.397(5). (80.12)
APPENDICES 225
APPENDIX 8E TEST METHOD 5

Given
A = availability,
TOT = total active time in hours per day,
DUR = daily utilization rate,
= number of flight hours per day,
AFL = average flight length,
= average flying hours per flight,
NOF — number of flights per day,
DT = downtime,
CMDT — chargeable maintenance downtime,
NCMDT = nonchargeable maintenance downtime,
DDT = delay downtime,
q = producer's risk,
M = maximum mean CMDT per flight,
Mq — required mean CMDT per flight,
P = consumer's risk,
a = true standard deviation of the parameter
(CMDT per flight) being tested.
TOT is that time during which an aircraft is assigned to an orga
nization for the purpose of performing the organizational mission. It
is the time during which
(1) the aircraft is flying or is ready to fly,
(2) maintenance is being performed, and
(3) maintenance is delayed for supply or administrative reasons.
DERIVATION OF CMDT PER FLIGHT

It is known that
TOT = Uptime + Downtime, (SEA)
and
Uptime _ TOT - Downtime _ DT
(8E.2)
TOT TOT ' TOT'
But since
DT = CMDT + NCMDT + DDT, (8JE.3)
CMDT + NCMDT + DDT

A=l- (SEA)
TOT '
Multiplying both sides of Eq. (SEA) by TOT and then rearranging

yields
CMDT = TOT - A{TOT) - NCMDT - DDT. (8J3.5)
Dividing both sides of Eq. (8J5.5) by NOF yields
CMDT _ TOT - A{TOT) - NCMDT - DDT
(8£.6)
NOF ~ NOF '
where
CMDT
CMDT per flight.
NOF
Since
n _ Total flight time in hours per day
Average flight length in hours
and
Total flight time in hours per day = TOT ( J , (8E.8)
then
Substitution of Eq. (8£.9) into Eq. (8J5.6) yields
CMDT _ 24{AFL) _ A(24)(AFL)

NQF ~ DUR DUR
NCMDT DDT , „ s
—Noi^-NOF- (8£-10)
SAMPLE SIZE DETERMINATION
X is a random variable denoting the chargeable maintenance down
time, and its mean and standard deviation are fi and a, respectively.
But the mean, fi, is unknown, the standard deviation a is known from
prior estimates, and a is constant for different mean, fi.
The test requirement is that if y. is equal to or less than Mo, the
acceptance probability should not be less than 1 — a, and if p is equal
to or larger than M\, the acceptance probability should not be greater
than (3. That is
P(X < A'a|/i = Mo) = 1 - a, (8J57.11)
APPENDICES 227
and
P(X<Xa\n = M!) = P, (825.12)
where
1 n
n = sample size
and
Xa = acceptance critical value.
Considering the alternative forms of Eqs. (8JE.11) and (822.12):
P —Tl=~ ^ 7-7=— A* = M> = 1 - a, (825.13)

\ cr/y/n a/y/n I
and
Pl±Z*L<*!LlM1\li = Ml)=0,
(8jB.14)
c/y/n a/y/n
If n is large, according to the Central Limit Theorem,

X-M0
#(0,1), (825.15)
cr/y/n
and
X-Mx
JV(0,1). (825.16)
cr/y/n
Equating Eqs. (822.13) and (825.14) yields
Xa - Mo
= zn (825.17)
cr/y/n
and
Xa-Mx
= -Zfi. (825.18)
a/y/n
Rearranging Eqs. (825.17) and (SEAS) yields
a
Xa = M0 + za—7=, (825.19)
y/n
__L_
and
X. = Mi - ^4=- {BE. 20)
Subtracting Eq. (8J5M9) from Eq. (8J5.20) yields
Mj - M0 = {za + zp)-^= , (8£.21)
Then, the test sample size, from Eq. (8£.21), becomes
/Mi-MpV
APPENDIX 8F - TEST METHOD 7

Define
Total chargeable maintenance hours
Man-hour rate =
Total operating time
n
£ Xc, + {PS)
i=l
(8F.1)
T
where
A'c, = man-hours for corrective maintenance task t,
n = number of corrective maintenance tasks sampled,
n shall not be less than 30,
MTBF = MTBF of the unit,
(PS) = estimated average total man-hours which would
be required for preventive maintenance during
a period of operating time equal to n {MTBF)
hours,
T = operating time = n{MTBF)
and 1 n —
— \^ Xci = Xc — average number of corrective maintenance
man-hours per corrective maintenance task.

Also
£ Xd + {PS) £ Xcl + {PS)
i=i t=i
n {MTBF) MTBF n
(8F.2)
APPENDICES 229
If n is large, according to the Central Limit Theorem, Xc can be con

sidered to be normally distributed. In Eq. (8F.2), MTBF and (PS)
are considered to be constant, therefore
PS
Xc + —
MTBF
is also normally distributed.
If \i and d2 are the mean and variance of Xc, respectively, then,
when n is large,
(8F.3)
*<*'7s
and
1
MTBF L
i.+2 TV .MTBF VM+ n J V»» VMT^fJ. '
(8F.4)
Furthermore assume that /x^j is the required man-hour rate. The pro
ducer's risk is a, and the acceptance critical value is fj.*R, then
(-1 < /*!rIw* = »'r ) = 1 ~ a. (8F.5)

\MT.
MTBF n
Subtracting /ijj from both sides of the inequality of Eq. (8A.F5) and
then dividing by
yields
M MTBF J
xc + ¥ -PR
MTBF
MTBF-fi.
<*Mw PR
MTBF^
= 1-0.
(8F.6)
Since
IvTTFP *c + ^ -Mjj
iV(0,l), (8F.7)
MTBF-J^.
Vr ~ Vr _ _ (8F.8)
MTBFs/Z
Rearranging Eq. (8F.8) yields
"« = "« + i°Mf^V5- <8W»

Therefore, from Eq. (8.F.5), accept if
1 d
MTBF
x«+^> ^^'"MTBFTn' <8F-10>
that is, accept if
P9 d
Xc<fi'R(MTBF)- — + zQ-7=. (8F.11)
71 y 71
Since d is unknown, estimating d by d, and substituting d by d in Eq.

(8F.11) yields
pe d
Xc < v'r {MTBF) + zQ-= (8F.12)
n y/n
where /^ = MHR.
APPENDIX 8G - TEST METHOD 8
Test Method 8 is a constant probability ratio sequential test, n
items are under test, and X is a random variable such that
X = 1, if the item failed to pass the test,
and
X = 0, if the item passed the test.
Assume that
P(X = l) = p, (8G.1)
P(X = 0) = 1 - p, (8G.2)
then
Nn = y. X<
is the total number of items which failed to pass the test, where A',
has a value of either 0 or 1.
H0 : P = P0,
H, :P = P1.
APPENDICES 231
The producer's risk is a and the consumer's risk is /3, therefore,

P (accept|P = P0) = 1 - a, (8G.3)
and
P(accept|P = P1) = /?. (8G.4)
Then, according to the theory of the probability ratio sequential test,
the acceptance criterion is as follows:
Accept Ho if
Nn < cn + d\. (8G.5)
Reject Ho if
Nn> cn + d2. (8G.6)
Continue test if
en + d\ < Nn < en + d-i , (8G.7)
where
n = number of the sequential test,
(8G.8)
logef?
rf1 = (8G.9)
âisar
loge^4
d2 = log P^-Po)' (8G.10)
1-/?
A= (8G.11)
Q
and
5 = 0 (8G.12)
1-Q
If cn+d\ is a negative number, no acceptance value exists, (cn+di )

takes on the next smaller integer value and (en + dj) takes on the next
larger integer.
1 - FOR PIAN At
Producer's risk: a = 0.06 at k < 0.22. Consumer's risk: /3 = 0.06
at k > 0.39.
Here
k — = proportion of repair times exceeding t,

r(A) = number of repair times exceeding t,
Nc = number of corrective maintenance tasks performed
in the test,
and
t = specified mean corrective maintenance downtime.
H0:P = 0.22 (P0 = 0.22),
and
#! : P = 0.39 (Pi = 0.39).
In this case
0 94
l0g^ = 1°Ô6=2-75'
l0g^ = l0ge^ = ~2J5'
- . 0-39(1-0.22) - 0.82 - U"5U°'

luoe 0.22(1-0.39)
A
dl ~2'75
= ~0M= *«
~3-35'
and
d2 = %£ = 3.35.
0.82
The acceptance test criteria are the following:
Accept if
A^„ < 0.305 n - 3.35. (8G.13)
Reject if
Nn > 0.305 n + 3.35. (8G.14)
APPENDICES 233
Continue test if
0.305 n - 3.35 < n < 0.305 n + 3.35. (8G.15)
2 - FOR PIAN Bi AND PLAN B2
For Plan Bx
a = 0.10,Po = 0.02,
p = 0.10^ = 0.10,
therefore
loge A = logee ^
0.10 = 2.20,
0.10
loge B = lo6 = -2.20,
0.90
log 1-0.10
lu6e 1-002 0.085
c = = 0.050,
W 0.02(1-0.10)
lu°e °-10(1-0-02) 1.69
-2.20
di = T-=r = -1.30,
1.69
and
2.20
= 1.30.
1.69
Accept if
Nn < 0.050n- 1.30. (8G.16)
Reject if
Nn > 0.050n + 1.30. (8G.17)
Continue test if
0.050n - 1.30 < n < 0.050n+ 1.30. (8G.18)
For Plan B2
a = 0.10,Po = 0.01,
/? = 0.10, Pi = 0.05,
therefore
loge A = 2.20,
logeP = -2.20,
log
IU6e lô°i
i_o
05 0.041
i -0.01
0.05(1-0
= 0.025,
10Se 0.0l(l-0
1.651
05
-2.20
dy = = -1.33,
1.651
and
Accept if
Nn < 0.025n- 1.33. (8G.19)
Reject if
Nn> 0.025n + 1.33. (8G.20)
Continue test if
0.025n - 1.33 < n < 0.025n + 1.33. (86.21)
APPENDIX 8H - TEST METHOD 9

This method is used to demonstrate the maintainability indices
Hc,Hpm,HP/c and Mmax, where
/ic = mean corrective maintenance time,
Hpm = mean preventive maintenance time,
/ip/c = mean maintenance time which includes preventive
and corrective maintenance actions,
and
*Mm„x = 90tn or 95th percentile of the repair time.
TESTS FOR fic,Lirm AND fip/c
The tests for /xc,/ipm and /ip/c are based on the Central Limit The
orem.
Assume that X is a random variable with mean /j. and standard
deviation d. X\,X2, ■ • . , An is a random sample from A', then
A = if>\. (8H.1)
If n is large
If the mean value is specified as fis, it is required that

P(X < Xa\ft - p,) s 0, (8JL3)
APPENDICES 235
where
Xa = acceptance critical value.
Subtracting fi, from both sides of the inequality in Eq. (8G.10) and
dividing both sides by dfy/n yields
(8HA)
From Eq. (817.4)

Xa - M
(8#.5)
d/y/n = -*fi,
where zp is the corresponding value for 1 — a = @ found in Table 6.4.
Consequently, the critical value, Xa, is
Xa = /is - zp d/y/n, (8J7.6)
Since d is unknown, estimating d by d from
d= (8H.7)
n — 1 f~7
\ 1=1
and substituting d by d in Eq. (817.6) yields
Xa = fis - zp d/y/n. (8H.8)

Then, the accept and reject criteria become the following:
Accept if
Ms>X + zp d/y/n. (8H.9)
Reject if
n,<x + Z0 d/y/n. (8H.10)

Test for \xc
Accept if
/ic(specified) > Xc + (8H.ll)

y/nc
Reject if
j
/ic(specified) < Xc + -4=? (8tf.l2)
Test for fj.pm

Accept if
/xpTn(specified) >Xpm + ^^. (85.13)
Reject if
/ipm(specified) <Xpm + ^^ (85-14)
Test for /xp/c

Since
A = fcXc + fpmXpm, (8/7.15)
where fc and fpm are the number of corrective and preventive mainte
nance actions, respectively. Then
Xp/c=fcXcf+/p.mXj,m, (8//.16)
Jc i Jpm
and
(fc + fpm)2 \Jcnc 71 pm
The estimate of Var(ATp/c) is
and the estimate of the standard deviation of A'p/C is
ii _ «.
^
Substitution of Eqs. (8/T.16) and (8/7.17) into Eqs. (8//. 9) and

(87/. 10) yields the following accept and reject criteria:
APPENDICES 237
Accept if
d2
fiEc + ipm d2 '
n bs.
/Vc(specified) > Ap/c + zp*
^ (/c + fpm) 2 \ r* ^c n.
"pm
(8J5T.20)
Reject if
d2 d2 '
/ip/c(specified) < Xp/c + zp,
Mic+fr^yy'n 'P">,
'pm
(8J5T.21)
Test for tMn
In this test it is assumed that the underlying distribution of the
corrective maintenance task time, A'c, is lognormal, and the pdf of Xc
is
f(Xc) = — j=e al . J (8JT.22)

Xc a v2tt
Then Y = loge Xc is normally distributed with mean /z and standard
deviation a.
Mmax is the (1 - a)th percentile of the distribution, or
P(Xe<tMm„) = l-a. (8J5T.23)
Taking the logarithms of both sides of the inequality in Eq. (8#.23),
subtracting \i from both sides and then dividing both sides by a yields
loge Xc - fi loge
">€■ iM,
'"moi
< (877.24)
*)-!-.
Since
loge Ac - n
#(0,1), (8/J.25)
then
loge '««, " A<
(8J/.26)
Rearranging Eq. (82/. 26) yields

loge (Mmi = P + z<*°~i {8H.27)
or
*AW = antiloge (/x + zaa) = e^+z° »>. (8/7.28)
Equation (8/7.28) says that if Xc has a distribution as defined by
Eq. (8/7.22), then its (1 - a)th percentile is equal to antilog (fi + zaa).
Estimating \i and a by
1
M = -£logeX„ (8/7.29)
and
* -^-t £ flog, X{ - - J2 loge Xi ) , (8/7.30)

and substituting /x and a by their estimators in Eq. (877.28) yields
'Afmai =
(têXi A
antiloge i=l
+ Zo ^TE(^x,.-lEiogcxl.)
V
(877.31)
tMmai <<Mmoi (specified),
and the acceptance criteria are the following:
Accept if
*A/max(sPecified) ^
/ n
Y ^ge A',
E
1 " /
antiloge 1= 1
n
+ Zq\ ^1 ^ V°ge A'! " n1 £
"
l0ge *
(877.32)
APPENDICES 239
Reject if
*Mmoi(sPecified) <
t'=i
antiloge
n \ t=i \ t=i
\
(877.33)
APPENDIX 81 - TEST METHOD 10

This method is used to test that the median (the 50th percentile),
or the 95th percentile maintenance times are equal to or less than
the specified values, n maintenance actions are performed and their
duration is recorded as ti,<2> • • •>*»»■ <a is the specified percentile main
tenance time either for the 50th percentile (median) or the 95th per
centile.
Define a new random variable, X, such that
f 1, if U > ts,
l' \0, if *,-<*„
i= 1,2, ...,n. (8/.1)
If the hypothesis
77q : tp = t3, (87.2)
is true, where tp is the percentile value of the maintenance distribution,
then P(Xi = 1) = 0.50 for the test for the median if the tp stands for
the 50th percentile, or P(X{ = 1) = 0.05 for the test for the 95th
percentile if the tp stands for the 95th percentile.
So, the test for the median and the 95th percentile is changed to
test the hypothesis
Ho : P = Po, (87.3)
where the value of Po is equal to 0.50 for the test for the median, or is
equal to 0.05 for the test for the 95th percentile.
If hypothesis (87.3) is true considering
r-E*. i=\
(87.4)
then Y is a binomial distributed random variable with mean, n P0,

and standard deviation \Jn Pq{\ — Pq).
Denoting the acceptance value by C\ for the 75% confidence level,
and by C2 for the 90% confidence level, then for the 75% confidence
level
P \E,Xi < Ci|P = Po] = 0.25, (87.5)
and for the 90% confidence level
P r£ Xi < C2\P - ft ) = 0.10, (87.6)
Test for the median

For large n, according to the Central Limit Theorem, since Pq =
0.50,
£Xi-n P0
i=i
JV(0,1). (87.7)
y/tl P0(l - P0)
Ci - n P0
= -^0.25, (87.8)
y/n P0(l - 7>o)
and from Eq. (87.6)
C2 - n P0
= -*0.10. (87.9)
v/n P0(l - 7b)
Substitution of the values of 20.25 an^ ■Zo.io into Eq. (87.8) and Eq.
(87.9) respectively, yields
Cx = n P0 - 0.67^/nP0(l-Po), (87.10)
and
C2 = n 7b - 1.28^/n P0(l - P0). (87.11)
Substitution of n = 50 and P0 = 0.50 into Eqs. (87.10) and (87.11)
yields
CSS 22.63, (87.12)
and
C2 = 20.47. (87.13)
But the acceptance level should be the next smaller integer of C\ and
C2, hence the following table:
APPENDICES 241
Confidence level
75% 90%
Acceptance level
22 20
Test for the 95th percentile

For large nx since P0 = 0.05 < 0.20, the Poisson distribution gives
a good approximation of the binomial distribution. Then from Eq.
(8/.5)
-I
(87.14)
r=0
and from Eq. (87.6)

£ '- F'',° f°'r < 0.10.
(87.15)
r=0 f*
Entering the tables of the cdf of the Poisson distribution with n P0 =

50 x 0.05 = 2.5 yields C\ = 1 and C2 = 0, hence the following table:
Confidence level
75% 90%
Acceptance level
1 0
Chapter 9
PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE
AND ITS QUANTIFIED
ADVANTAGES
9.1 PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE

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

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

AGE REPLACEMENT - POLICY I
If a unit is replaced preventively whenever Tv hours of operation are
accumulated, without a failure; and if the unit fails before Tp hours are
accumulated it is repaired or replaced correctively, and replaced pre
ventively again after it accumulates another Tp hours from the previous
corrective maintenance action, such maintenance is called preventive
maintenance by age replacement, Policy I. Then, the following situa
tions may prevail:
1. , , ,
0 T. 2T
or
2. r T. T.
"1 Age of
t.+Tp t,+2 Tp
equipment
where tx < Tp,

or
3. r*i Tn -*KV T.
"i
0 M-T, t2+t3+2 Tr
where Z2 < Tp; t3 < Tp,

and the *'s are failures.
AGE REPLACEMENT POLICY 245
Failures reduced
Fig 9.1 - Effect of good preventive maintenance on the re

liability bathtub curve of equipment.
NF(t1) = NA1 = I
J
0
N(t)A.(t)dL
ea
'3
pc-
Age, T, hr
Fig. 9.2 - Effect of poor preventive maintenance on the re

To derive the reliability function, define a time period t as follows:

t = jTp + r,
where
j = 0,1,2,---,
0 < t < Tp,
and
j = number of preventive maintenance actions.

Let Rrp{t) be the reliability of a unit preventively maintained every
Tp hours. The reliability for a mission of t duration with preventive
maintenance every Tv hours would then be given by
RrP(t) = RTp(j Tp + r) = [R(TP)Y R(t). (9.1)
The mean life of an equipment consisting of units undergoing such
a sequence of preventive replacements is given by
MTp = J RTp(t) dt,

or
~ /(J+1) Tp
(9.2)
through piecewise integration. Equation (9.2) can be put in a compu

tationally tractable form by changing the variable t to r, where
t=jTp + T.
Then,
dt = dr,
t = j Tp when r = 0,
and
t = (j+l)Tp when t = Tp.
Now, Eq. (9.2) becomes
mtp = E fTplR(Tp)Y R(T) *".
or
MTp = J2lR(Tr)Y R(T)dT- (9-3)

>=0
Recalling that
1 = 2°° xJ f°r x < 1»
if we take
then,
■ r=vs-J3***- (9-4)
Substituting Eq. (9.4) into Eq. (9.3) yields
or
Mr = ggftg. (9.6)
0(7,0
The equations for Ajv(0 an<^ ATrp apply for any component, or
equipment, as long as the R(TP) and consequently R(t) can be formu
lated. It applies for example to equipment with parallel or standby
redundancy when preventive maintenance may be exercised every Tp
hours without aborting the mission.
EXAMPLE 9-1
Consider an equipment consisting of two parallel, constant-failure-
rate units. Find (1) its Rtp and (2) its Mjp.

1. With no maintenance
R(t) = 2e"Al- e~2 A *.
With maintenance
RTp(t) = [R(Tp)Y R(t),
or
RTM) = (2e-XT>-r-2XT>V
e " " -*Y (2 e"A T - e~A
-2 A T),
T\ (9.7)
where
t = jTp + r, i = 0, 1, 2, - - • , andO<T<Tp.
Assume each unit has a constant failure rate of A = 0.01 fr/hr,
or a mean-life of m = 100 hr.
For Tp -¥ oo, or with no preventive maintenance, j = 0,
RTpôo(t) = R(t) = 2 e -0.01 t _ -0.02 t
(9.8)
and 0 < t < oo.
For Tp = 150 hr, or with preventive maintenance every 150 hr,

*TP=i50 hrW - [2 e-(°°1)(150) " e-(°02)(15°)]J'
•(2e -0.01 t _ e-0.02 tr),

(9.9)
with
; = 0, 1,2, • • ; 0 < r < 150 hr, and
t = j 150 + r, and 0 < t < oo.
For 3}, = 10 hr, or with preventive maintenance every 10 hr,
*r,=io hrW = [2 c-(°-01«10) - e-PW)]'

t _ e-0.02 tr),
(2e-0.01 (9.10)
with
j = 0, 1,2,---; 0<r<10hr, and
t = j 10 + t, and 0 < i < oo.
The reliabilities given by Eqs. (9.8), (9.9) and (9.10) are plotted
in Fig. 9.3.
1.0 •
0.9 -
V-,.
/- Tp=10hr
0.8-
0.7-
tf 0.6 ■
reliability,
Mission
HOiI
*
o
w .~-Tp = 50hr
0.2"
i \ \ N^-^^Tp =
i \
1 >^s
0.1- Tp-~»^ ■ Tp= 150 hr
- T . hi
' 1 11 1 H 1 1 1
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Mission time, t, hr
Fig. 9.3 - Reliability versus mission duration plot for a two-

unit parallel system maintained every Tp hours
and nonmaintained, with A = 0.01 fr/hr for each
unit.
Observations on Fig. 0.3:

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

equipment, while it undergoes preventive maintenance every Tp
hours by age replacement, is given by
/0T" R(t) dr £»(2 e-001 T - e"002 T) dr

MTv" = 1-R(T„) i _ 2 e-o.oi Tp + e-o.02 TP ' (9.11)
or
150 + 50 e-°-02 T? - 200 e"001 T"
Tp~ 1-2 e-°-01 tp + e-°02 tp
For
°° ; -Wjp = 150 hr = 1.5 m,
Tp = 150 ; MTp = 179 hr,
Tp = 10 ; MTp = 1,097 hr,
and for
Tp = 0 ; MT = oo.
These Mtp values for various Tp periods have been plotted in Fig.
9.4.
T ,
p T
p
hours hours
10 1097
50 504
100 208
150 179
150
200 - -
150 hours ->
p*
150
Preventive maintenance time, T , hours

P
Fig. 9.4 - Mtp versus Tp plot for a two-units-in-parallel

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

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

UNIT SUBJECTED TO PREVENTIVE MAIN
TENANCE
Let us see what happens in the case of a single unit which is exponen
tial; i.e., has a constant failure rate. Then,
R{t) = e~x * (9.12)
with no maintenance, and with preventive maintenance every Tv hours

RTv(t) = [R(Tp)]j R(t), (9.13)
where
t-jTp + T.
Then, from Eq. (9.12)
RTp(t) = (e-XT")j e~Xr>
or
RrAt) = e-^T^\ (9.13')
therefore,
RtM) = e"A ' = R(t)\ (9.14)
In other words the reliability of the unit with preventive mainte
nance every Tp hours is not any different than that with no preventive
maintenance, if the unit has a constant failure rate!
If the single unit has an increasing failure rate there will be an
improvement in its reliability with preventive maintenance, because
then,
RtM) = [R(TP)Y R(r) > R(jTp + r). (9.15)
age never is greater than Tp age at end of mission.
For a Weibullian unit, with /? > 1, for example, its reliability for a
mission of t duration with preventive maintenance every Tp hours is
given by
Rr,(t) = rM a^y (9.16)
and without preventive maintenance is given by
R(t) = e V
(i aasaV
■ ) . (9.17)
It may be seen that
RTp(t)>R(t).
When /3 > 1 the Weibullian unit exhibits an increasing failure rate
characteristic with increasing operating time, hence the benefit of pre
ventive replacement every Tp period of operation.
Let us find Mtp for a single exponential unit. Then, from Eq. (9.5),
!lvR{r)dT Tp m-\
/( dT
'"'* - l-R(Tp) 1-- e-^ *»
I(l-e-^p)
1 _ e-Arp
MTp = -r = m! (9.18)
In other words the same as when there is no preventive maintenance,

or the same as when the unit is replaced as it fails!
We can prove by renewal theory that [2]
1
At„ = (9.19)
MT|)'
or the long range failure rate of a unit approaches the reciprocal of

its mean life with preventive replacements every Tp hours, as shown
in Fig. 9.5. The average, stabilized corrective failure rate of the unit
which undergoes preventive maintenance every Tp hours according to
Policy I of age replacement is given by
1 1 - SjT,)
Ac = ATp = (9.20)
Mt> IoR(r)dT.
As the unit's failure rate is constant, on a stabilized basis, its stabilized

reliability is then given by
RrJt) == ee MTP = fi-\c t = p-\T t

*p = e = e (9.21)
It is this Ac that should be used in the MTTR expression for equip
ment subjected to both corrective and preventive maintenance. A good
estimate of the reliability of a unit or equipment undergoing such pre
ventive maintenance is obtained by using Eq. (9.20) to calculate its
corrective failure rate, Xtp, and then Eq. (9.21) to calculate its relia
bility, RjAt), for a mission of t duration.
EXAMPLE 9-2
A bearing is operating in an equipment. It has a Weibull times-to-
failure distribution with the following parameters:
/? = 2.0, r) = 2, 000 hr, and 7 = 0 hr.
1. Find the reliability of this bearing with no preventive mainte
nance for 10, 100, 500, or 1,000 hr of operation.
2. Find the reliability of this bearing with preventive maintenance,
assuming that the bearing is replaced preventively every 10, 100,
or 500 hr.
3. Find the mean life of this bearing with no preventive mainte
nance.
Fig. 9.5 - Effect of good preventive maintenance on the re

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

every 10, 100, or 500 hr of operation.
1. The Weibull times-to-failure probability density function is
^' .T-,),
-(-
*>-€(=?)
and the reliability function is
i T —Mfl
R(T) = e-(V>.
Substitution of the given parameters yields
#(T) = e~^335o> .
For T = 10 hr
/ jo \"
R(T = 10 hr) = e"^,oo0; =0.999975,
for T = 100 hr
J2(T = 100 hr) = e^ôoj = 0.997503,
for T = 500 hr
/_500_\20
J?(T = 500 hr) = e"^ *™) =0.939413,
and for T= 1,000 hr
I 1,000 \20
#(T =1,000 hr) = e~Uoo0; - 0.7788007.
2. The reliability of this bearing, with preventive maintenance is

RTp(t) = [R(TP)Y R(r),
where
and
•(*)'
RtM = e w .
For this bearing
For Tp = 10 hr
• I 10 \20 / r \^°
■Rrp=io(0 = e u,00c" e ^•°00'' .
These -Rrp=io(0 values are given in Table 9.1 for 0 < r < 10 and
j = 0, 1,2 and 3, and are plotted in Fig. 9.6.
For Tp = 100 hr
_, /.lOO,^20 _(_r_\i0
RTp=ioo(t) = e K2fi0° ' e UoooJ .
These i?Tp=ioo(0 values are given in Table 9.2 for 0 < r < 100
and j = 0, 1,2, and 3, and are plotted in Fig. 9.7.
For Tp = 500 hr
■ / 500 \20 I r \i0
RTp=50o(t) = t 3 ^2.000 ; e UoooJ .
These RTp=50o(t) values are given in Table 9.3 for 0 < r < 500
and j = 0, 1,2, and 3, and are plotted in Fig. 9.8.
These #rp(<) values for Tp = 10, 100 and 500 hr are shown plot
ted together in Fig. 9.9. A study of Tables 9.1, 9.2 and 9.3, and
of Figs. 9.6 through 9.9 indicates the substantial improvement in
the mission reliability of these bearings with preventive mainte
nance, or replacement, every Tp = 10, 100 or 500 hr. The smaller
the Tp the greater the reliability improvement.
Table 9.4 gives the reliability of these bearings with no preven
tive replacement in Column 4, with preventive replacement every
Tp = 100 hr in Column 5, and using the approximate Eq. (9.21)
in Column 6. A comparison of the results in Columns 4 and 5
brings out the great improvement of bearing reliability with pre
ventive replacement. A comparison of the results in Columns 5
and 6 brings out the fact that after about the third preventive re
placement of these bearings their reliability is well approximated
by Eq. (9.21) with at least a three-decimal-place accuracy. Fig
ure 9.10 illustrates the difference in the bearing's reliability as
calculated from Eqs. (9.21) and (9.16). It may be seen that
the two equations give essentially the same reliability value, with
five-decimal-place accuracy, at mission times that are a multiple
of rp. The values deviate from each other at other mission times
with a maximum deviation of 0.000616 for t > 3 Tp.
TABLE 9.1 - Values of -ftrp=io(<) for Example 9-2 where

0 < r < Tp, t = j Tp + t, and Tp = 10 hr.
#TP=lo(0
T i=o i=i i = 2 J = 3
0 1,00000000 0.99997500 0.99995000 0.99992500
1 0.99999998 0.99997498 0.99994998 0.99992498
3 0.99999775 0.99997275 0.99994775 0.99992275
5 0.99999375 0.99996875 0.99994375 0.99991875
9 0.99997975 0.99995475 0.99992975 0.99990475
10 0.99997500 0.99995000 0.99992500 0.99990000
TABLE 9.2 - Values of #rp=ioo(0 for Example 9-2 where

0 < r < Tp, t = j Tp + r, and Tp = 100 hr.
-Rtp=ioo(0
r j = 0 J = l 3 =1 J = 3
0 1.00000000 0.99750312 0.99501236 0.99252796
15 0.99994378 0.99744692 0.99495653 0.99247225
30 0.99977502 0.99727859 0.99478855 0.99230476
45 0.99949388 0.99699814 0.99450880 0.99202571
60 0.99910040 0.99660565 0.99411729 0.99163518
75 0.99859474 0.99610125 0.99361415 0.99113323
90 0.99797705 0.99548510 0.99299954 0.99052021
100 0.99750312 0.99501236 0.99252796 0.99004983
c 1.00000
0.99990 -
Mission time, t * j T„ ♦ t, hours
Fig. 9.6 - Reliability versus mission time plot for the bear
ing in Example 9-2 maintained preventively ev
ery Tp = 10 hr.
1.000
w 0.999 -
a.
fr
ee 0.998 -
0
u
1
m 0.997 ■
c
to 0.996 '
■
>
0.995 *
>a
a 0.994 '
0.993 '
>*
0.992 "
0.991
0.990 -
I —I—
100 200 300 J00
Mission time, t = j T + x, hr
ery Tp = 100 hr.
500 1000 1500 :ooo

Mission time, t = j T + x, hours
ery Tp - 500 hr.
mExample
9-2
aibearing
in
the
for
plot
ntime
mission
RtFig.
e9.9
alivneardb-siulsity
hour*
T-
10■
(hr.
no500
100,
pnrmooeaorivevery
Tp
10, =netatinvedl)y
T
J
hour*
tia*.
I
Ion
Mis*
•t,p
1.000
R(t)
0.987
Mission time, t ■ j T • T , hours

P
ery Tp = 100 hr.
TABLE 9.3 - Values of RTp=5oo(t) for Example 9-2,

where t = j Tp + t, and Tp = 500 hr.
RTp=50o(t)
T j=0 i= i J =2 j = 3
0 1.00000000 0.93941306 0.88249684 0.82902912
50 0.99937520 0.93882605 0.88193861 0.82851102
100 0.99750312 0.93706740 0.88029252 0.82695902
150 0.99439080 0.93414364 0.87754590 0.82437880
250 0.98449644 0.92484875 0.86881417 0.81617610
300 0.97775124 0.91851222 0.86286156 0.81058413
350 0.96983919 0.91107955 0.85587921 0.80402482
400 0.96078944 0.90257809 0.84789370 0.79652231
450 0.95063509 0.89303896 0.83893252 0.78810406
500 0.93941306 0.88249684 0.82902912 0 .77880067
3. The mean life of a nonmaintained unit, or for Tp = oo, is given

by
t=7+7?rG+1)-
For this bearing
f = 2,000 rQ + i),
T = 2,000 T(1.5),
f = (2, 000) (0.88623),
or
f = 1, 772.46 hr.
4. The mean life of a unit maintained preventively every Tp hours
is given by
Tp 1 - R(TP) '
and for this bearing, it is

Jo > e--<*>'rfr
MTp
1 - e K i '
rleirevaeb-nitlivtey using
without
Rwith
bearings
pand
TABLE
of
e0.4 p100
Tv
when
also
and
hr,
the
laevery
=cement
1.0 0 0 0.9 8751 0.9 7504 0.9 6259 0.9 5015 0.9 37 2 0.9 2531 0.9 1292 0.9 0 54 0.98 818 0.987584 0.982560 0.975320
ê~*^>
R(t)
6
[*W*M
%(0=
1.0 0 0 0.9 9375 0.9 7503 0.9 68 0 0.9 5012 0.9 4390 0.9 2528 0.991908 0.9 0 50 0.989431 0.987567 0.982652 0.975309
5
equation,
(0.21).
aEq.
p roximate
e-^)P
R(T)
=
1.000000 0.9 9375 0.9 7503 0.9 4391 0.990050 0.984 96 0.97 751 0.969839 0.960789 0.950635 0.939413 0.884700 0.7 8 01
4
3 T,
hr 0 50 100 50 100 50 100 50 100 50 100 100 100
0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 9-10

2 J 0 0 1 2 3 4
G-7
Mission duration 1,000
•
1 T,
i= hr 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 700
NO
For Tp = 10 hr it is
^tp=io hr ~
_fv^: dT ( 10 \i
1—e 2>°°°
The numerator may be evaluated by numerical integration, using
Simpson's Rule for example. This method yields
9.99994441
M,rP=io hr x _ 0.99997500'
or
MT =10 hr = 399, 998 hr.
Similarly, for Tv = 100 hr
/*>-«» e-<*fer>" <fr

M.rp=ioo hr _( 199 }20
\ — g » 2,000 '
99.91672914
M.r„=ioohr i_o.99750312'
or
^rP=ioohr = 40»°17hr.
Finally, for Tp = 500 hr
/1>-MV<1*J>" dr
M.Tp=500 hr — 500 \i n
1 — g-' 2,000
489.775803
M,Tp=50ohr ": 1-0.93941306'
or
^rB=5oo hr = M84 hr.
These and additional values are shown plotted in Fig. 9.11, to

gether with the mean bearing life with no preventive mainte
nance. It may be seen that the mean life of the bearing increases
substantially with preventive maintenance, as Tp decreases, over
that with no preventive maintenance when Tp = oo. Hence, the
great benefits that result through preventive maintenance at reg
ular prechosen periods of operation of units which have an in
creasing failure rate characteristic with increasing operating time,
like that exhibited by this bearing with /? = 2.0 > 1.
160,000-,
150,000-
140,000-
Tp,
130,000-
hours
V
hours
120,000-
10 399.998
25 160,004
110,000"
50 80,008
100 40,017
100,000-
300 13,383
90,000- 500 8,084
1,000 4,171
80,000
- 1,773
70,000-
60,000-
50,000
Mean tine between failures when the
bearing is subjected to preventive
40,000- maintenance every Tp hours .
30,000- Mean time between failures when the

bearing is not maintained preventively.
20,000-
10,000
1,772.46 •
V- -1
100
1
200
1
300
1
400
I
500
1
600
1
700
1
800
1
900
1
1000
Preventive maintenance time, T_, hours

P
Fig. 9.11 - Mtp versus Tp plot for the bearing in Example

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

PREVENTIVE REPLACEMENT RATE
FOR POLICY I
To determine the spares needed for corrective and preventive mainte
nance, and to optimize the preventive maintenance schedule of a unit
undergoing preventive maintenance, its corrective failure rate and its
preventive replacement rate need to be known.
The term
/ R(t) dr
Jo
gives the mean time between both preventive replacements and correc
tive failures. The total replacement rate, Aj, is therefore given by
XT = —= = Ace-r
+ Ap.
«p. (9.22)
/o " W) ^
Also
Q(TP) + R(TP)
*T = —„t . . '
So"R(T)dT
since
Q(TP) + R(TP) = 1.
Then,
Aj1 = Ac + Ap = —rp 1—7p (9.23)

g'R{r)dr £'R{T)dT
consequently, since
Q(TP)
^c ~ 7T, (9.24)
So" *00 ^
then,
V ^R{r)dr' (9.25)
where
Ac = corrective failure rate, fr/hr,

and
Xp = preventive replacement rate, prp/hr.
EXAMPLE 9-3
Given is the system of Fig. 9.12 which is subjected to preventive

maintenance every 1,000 hr according to Policy I. Its various failure
rates are given thereupon.
XlE= 1,500 fr/hr

X^= 1,800 fr/hr
X,Q= 200 fr/hr
2 A,E= 200 fr/hr
^swo= 10 fr/hr
1 ^Q= 50 fr/hr
kSWE= 100 fr/hr
Fig. 9.12- Standby system subjected to preventive mainte

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

2. What is the MTBFTp of this system?
3. What is its stabilized preventive replacement rate?
4. What is its stabilized corrective failure rate?
1. The reliability of this standby system for a mission of t duration,

and without preventive maintenance, can be obtained from
R(t) = e~XlE * e~XsE * e~Xswo '
Jti=o
. e-*SE t e~^SWE (lc) g-AsWO («-'l) ft
+ AlF e-(^2E + ^SE + ^SWo) * g-^SWB (lc)
e-(*>lE+*7Q-*2E+*SWQ-*SW0) h fa.
or
Lo
+Aif e~(x*B+XsE'*'Xswc'} ' e~XswE

I _ e-(^lE + îQ-^2E+^SWQ-^SWo) <
AlE + A2Q - A2£ + Aswq - Aswo
Substitution of the failure rate values yields
R(t) = e"000171 ' - 24.9975 e"000201 ■ (l - e000006 ') . (9.26)
The reliability for a mission of t duration with preventive main

tenance every Tp hours is given by
RTp(t) = [R(Tp)YR(t),
1
or, using Eq. (9.26),

RTP{t) = [e"000171 T" - 24.9975 e"000201 r" (l - e000006 T")]j
• [e-000171 T - 24.9975 e"000201 T (l - e000006 T)] .
2. The mean time between failures can be obtained from Eq. (9.5),
or,
M £'R(T)dT \
MT> 1 - R(TP) '
where, using Eq. (9.26), yields

IrT.PR(r)dr= /Pe-o.oomr
rT,
Jo Jo
-24.9975 e"000201 T (l - e000006 T) dr,
= 967.46 - 584.80 e-000171 T"
+ 12,436.57e-0•0020l:^',
- 12,819.23 e-000i95T", (9.27)
and
1 - R(TP) = 1 - L"000171 T" - 24.9975 e -0.00201 Tp
. (l _ e0.00006 Tp\
(9.28)
For Tp = 1,000 hr, Eq. (9.26) yields

JrTp /-l.OOO
' R(T) dr = R(t) dr = 704.20445,
o Jo
and Eq. (9.28) yields
1 - R(TP) = 1 - E(1,000) = 0.6120199.
Therefore,
fi'000 R(t) dr 704.20445 ,mmmm.
MTV = T—n/t »n»\ = «.<M1M = 1. 150.623 hr.
3. The stabilized preventive maintenance, or replacement, rate is

given by Eq. (9.25), or
R(Tv)
P "" r'I\
!o"R(r)dr
From Case 2,
R(TP) = £(1,000) = 1 - [1 - £(1,000)]
= 1 - 0.6120199 = 0.3879801,
and
r 1,000
/ R(r) dr = 704.20445,
Jo
therefore,
0.3879801
0.000551 rp/hr,
704.20445
or
Xp = 551 rp/106 hr.
4. The stabilized corrective failure rate is given by Eq. (9.24)
Q(TP) __ l-fl(Tp)
Ac~ "A
ti>R(T)dT SoPR(r)dr
Substitution of the values from Case 2 yields
0.6120199 = 0.000869
A„ = =r^r?-?z _ nnna„n fr/hr,
. ..
704.20445
or
Ac = 869 fr/106 hr.
9.5 TOTAL AVERAGE NUMBER OF SPARES

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

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

maintenance for t hours of operation of the equip
ment,
then, from Eqs. (9.22) and (9.23)

A tQ(Tp) tR(Tp)
S?'R(T)dT fiPR{T)dT
or
t
Nsp =
f?*R(T)dT
The number of total spares with an assurance, or confidence, level of
CL = 1 - a is obtained by solving Eq. (9.29) for k, which is the actual
number of spares, or
CL = £e-*»&£. (9.29)
9.6 MINIMUM COST PREVENTIVE MAINTE

NANCE PERIOD, Tp, FOR POLICY I
The total cost of preventive plus corrective maintenance for a period
of operation t, Cj, is given by
cr., = cP-^L + Cc-^-, (9.30)

lJ'R(T)dr £'R{r)dT
where
Cp = cost of each preventive replacement, or maintenance, action,

and
Cc — cost of each corrective replacement, or maintenance, action.

The Cp and Cc costs may include parts, labor, supplies, overhead,
cost of money and downtime costs.
The total maintenance cost per operating hour, or for t = 1, is
Ct~' = rT, „! ; : [C" Wr) + Cc Q(TV)\. (9.31)
From Eq. (9.31) the minimum cost preventive maintenance schedule,

or period, T" can be found by differentiating it with respect to Tp,
equating the result to zero, and solving for Tp, which is the optimum
BLOCK REPLACEMENT POLICY 275
d(C-
rp, or T;-, i.e., by solving ffif = 0 for Tv. This is not easy to do
analytically, hence computer and/or graphical solutions are used. Cr-i
is calculated for various values of Tp, over a range that includes T" or
the minimum value of Cf _7, as shown in Fig. 9.13. A minimum will
exist only if Cp < Cc. If Cv > Cc then the minimum cost policy is that
of no preventive maintenance at all!
It must also be ascertained that the equipment's mission reliability
is at least equal to, if not greater than, the reliability goal allocated to
it with the just found value of T* , or that
RTf(t) = e -Act > Rgoal- (9.32)
If the reliability goal is not met, then Tp should be adjusted to the left,
or to a lower value, to obtain a Ac which satisfies the requirement of
Eq. (9.32). This is usually possible without altering the Cj_j very
significantly, because the Ct-I versus Tp curve usually has a shallow
bottom in the minimum cost region, whereby a change in Tp does not
change the Ct-i value significantly, as may be seen in Fig. 9-13 in the
region of Tp.

BLOCK REPLACEMENT-POLICY II
In Policy II the unit subjected to preventive maintenance is replaced
preventively every Tv hours if it does not fail; and correctively if it fails
before Tp, and is replaced again preventively when Tp operating hours
are accumulated by the equipment in which the unit is functioning,
from time zero, or
0 2T„
2.
2T„
where the x's are failures.
This policy is used when maintenance schedules are based on equip
ment operating time rather than unit, component or part operating
total
the
and
sFig.
Tp,
Rmpcost
between
9.13
cearilhenatvedi-nuoanltcsiehv,iep T*,
Tp,
also
is
of
plus
optimum
The
Cj-i-
mcpoariorernvtcetniatvniecve,
hours
T,
smPacrihenvtednuatlnicve,
shown.
T-MIN.
$
CT,
°ri
1 c 2I« E II U
«
C
O
i* oHo
i°
to s
time. Then, the preventive replacement rate is given by
A -±
AP ~ m t (9.33)
and the corrective replacement rate is determined by Eq. (9.22) into

which Eq. (9.33) is substituted. Then,
1 1
(9.34)
/o " W?) dr
and
Ac = ;1 Tp - f^ [1 - Q(t)) dr
±p (9.35)
tiPR(T)dr Tp TpJ?'R{T)dT
Simplifying Eq. (9.35) yields
IoPQ(r)dr
Ac = (9.36)
TpfpR(r)dr'
But this is the lower bound of Ac because if no fai ures occur before Tv
then it is the same case as the corrective failure rate for Policy I.
Therefore,
Io"Q(r)dr
< Ac7/ < om (9.37)
TpS?'R(T)dT ti*R(r)dT
' v ' " v '
Ac lower bound Ac for Policy
for Policy II I and upper
bound for Pol
icy II
Using these Ap and Ac values the necessary spares can be calculated
as before. Also the preventive maintenance period can be optimized.
The total cost will now be
1 Q(TP)
Ct-ii = CjP X + CCc rT,
, (9.38)
So"R(r)dT
Then, to optimize Tp set
d(CT-n)
= 0,
d(Tp)
and solve for Tp which is T*, the preventive maintenance schedule

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

440 hours, and Unit 3 every 300 hours, what is the stabilized
average corrective failure rate of each unit for Policy II?
2. What is the stabilized average preventive replacement rate of
each unit for Policy II?
3. What is the subsystem's stabilized MTTR (Mean Time to Re
pair) for Policy II if the mean corrective repair times of the sub
system, dm, when the i'th unit fails, are as follows:
dm = 0.55 hr,
d2R - 0.75 hr,
and
d3n = 0.33 hr,

and if the mean preventive replacement times, <*,p, of the units
are as follows:
t'iP - 0.25 hr,
i'2p = 0.35 hr,
and
r3P = 0.15 hr ?
4. What is the stabilized MTBF of the subsystem with corrective

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

for a 10-hr mission?
7. Compare the result of Case 6 with that found in Case 5 and give
reasons for the difference.
8. What is the reliability of the subsystem without any maintenance
for a 10-hr mission when the mission starts at the equipment age
of 500 hr?
9. Compare the result of Case 8 with that of Case 5 and give reasons
for the difference.
1. The stabilized average corrective failure rate of each unit for Pol
icy II is given by Eq. (9.35), or
c"~ff>R(t)dt
^crr — t;
For Unit No. 1i

yiP1
fTD, R(t) dt = |15°
(-150 [0.25 e"00003 ' + 0.75 e"^25] dt,
/ R(t) dt = 0.25 / e"00003 « dt + 0.75 / e~^^ dt,

Jo Jo Jo
JrTPl=150 o 95
*(*)<** = 777^(1 -0.9559975) + 0.75 (142.799),
o 0.0003
where
/ e-(3oo) ' dt = 142.799,
using Simpson's Rule with 16 intervals. Then,

TP1=150 0.25
*(0 dt = TT^; (! - 0.9559975) -I- 0.75 (142.799) = 143.768,
I
o 0.0003
and
"« = mm- m -«"«"*/4

For Unit No. 2

JTn R(t) dt = r° [0.25 e-0-0006 ' + 0.75 e"<lfc>"] dt,
rTn r440 r440 , , ,ss

/ R(t) dt = 0.25 / e"0-0006 ■ A + 0.75 / c"^) A,
Jo Jo Jo
/■Tp2=440 n oe
Jo R{t) dt = 0B06 (1 " 0J6797) + 0J5 (387'25)'
where
//■440
r44U e~(™)3i dt = 387.25,
Jo
/■rP2=440 o 05
/ *W * = fTSnnfi (1-°-76797)+0-75 (387.25) = 387.115,
and
1 1
Xa = 00^11C - 777^ = 0.000310 fr/hr.
387.115 " 440
For Unit No. 3
| W fl(i) * = //■3O0 [0.25 e"000045 ' + 0.75 e^)' '5] dt,
/T"3 i?(i) A = 0.25 fn e"000045 ' dt + 0.75 /3°° e~^^ dt,

Jo JO JO
/•Tp,=30o o 25
/ R(t)dt = —^r- (1-0.873716) + 0.75 (286.1135),
where
/ e-tjBo) ' dt = 286.1135,
Jo
/■Tp,=300 Q 95
/ #(t)dt = ——^ (1 -0.873716) + 0.75(286.1135) =284.743.
and
A-,
C3 = 284.743 rrr
300 = 0.000179 fr/hr.
'
2. The stabilized average preventive replacement rate of each unit

for Policy II is given by
Jp.
For Unit No. 1,
APl = —— = —— = 0.006667 preventive replacements/hr,

lpi 150
for Unit No. 2,
apj — m~ = -Tjf. — 0.002273 preventive replacements/hr,

P2 44U
and for Unit No. 3,
^P3 = 7f~ = 7^ = 0.003333 preventive replacements/hr.
3. The subsystem's stabilized MTTR for Policy II is given by
N
E(AC, diR+Xpt ftp)
MTTR = i^—^ ,
E(ACl+APi)
where, from previous results,

N=3
r
J2 (Acj diR + APt. t'iP) = (0.000289) (0.55) + (0.006667) (0.25)
i
+ (0.000310) (0.75) + (0.002273) (0.35)1
+ (0.000179) (0.33) + (0.003333) (0.15)

= 0.003413,
and
N=3
H ( Ac + APl ) = (0.000289) + (0.006667) + (0.000310)
i=i
+ (0.002273)+ (0.000179)+ (0.003333)
= 0.013051.
_ _I
Therefore,
0.013051
4. The stabilized MTBF of the subsystem with corrective and pre

ventive maintenance for Policy II is given by
MTBF = TV
' '
MTBF = l
(0.000289) + (0.000310) + (0.000179)'
or
MTBF = 1, 285.35 hr.
5. The stabilized reliability of the subsystem, with corrective and

preventive maintenance, for a 10-hr mission for Policy II is given
by
R(t = 10 hr) = e'TTTBT = e"1.2"-35.
Then,
R(t = 10 hr) = 0.992250, or 99.2250%.
6. The reliability of the subsystem, without any maintenance, for a

10-hour mission is given by
N
R(t) = nRi(t),
i=l
R(t) = fo.25 e-0"0003 ' + 0.75 e'dfe)"
• 0.25 e"0-0006 ' + 0.75 e"( ô f
. 0.25 e-°-00045£ + 0.75 e-(T5o)"3 ,(9.39)
R(t = 10 hr) = (0.999099) (0.998504) (0.998877),

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

found that the reliability for a 10-hour mission without any main
tenance is greater than that for a subsystem with corrective and
preventive maintenance! This is because the mission is too short
in duration for any preventive maintenance to be exercised. The
stabilized MTBF is lower than that with no preventive mainte
nance \it «TPi. See Case 8.
8. The reliability of the subsystem without any maintenance, for a
10-hour mission, when the mission starts at the equipment age
of 500 hr is given by
R{T + t)
R(T,t) =
R{T) '
ig(500 + 10)
#(500) '
or
#(510 hr)
R(T,t)
#(500 hr)'
Using Eq. (9.39),
R(T + t = 510 hr) = 0.024194,
and
R(T = 500 hr) = 0.027045.
Therefore,
0.024194
R(T = 500 hr,/ = 10 hr) =
0.027045'
or
R(T = 500 hr,i = 10 hr) = 0.894600, or 89.4600%.
The reliability for a 10-hr mission after an age of 500 hr, without
any maintenance, from Case 8, is 89.4600%, which compares with
the reliability for the subsystem with corrective plus preventive
maintenance found in Case 5 of 99.2250%. This difference is due
to the increasing failure rate of the subsystem in Case 8 with age,
and preventive maintenance being exercised in Case 5 to reduce
this increase in the failure rate. Hence, the great improvement in
the reliability of this subsystem through preventive maintenance
is an increase from 89.4600 % to 99.2250 %, or approximately a
10-percentage point improvement.

REPLACING GROUPS OF PARTS
It would be advantageous if groups of parts having similar life char
acteristics are replaced preventively simultaneously. Figure 9.14 illus
trates this case where Group 1 of three units, in the same equipment,
have approximately the same Tp, , because their wear-out life starts at
about the same age. Group 2 of four units, in the same equipment,
have approximately the same TP2, because their wear-out life starts
at about the same age. If the units have an increasing failure rate
throughout their life, then the Tpi and TP2 should be so chosen that
they can be accessed simultaneously, and satisfy the reliability goal re
quirement of the equipment while yielding the minimum corrective and
preventive maintenance cost. This would substantially reduce equip
ment downtime, and increase its availability for use or production.
Assume that an equipment consists of n parts, of which 5 parts are re
placed preventively every Tp\ hours, k parts are replaced preventively
every TP2 hours, and the remaining parts, n — (k + s) = h, are replaced
only correctively; that is, whenever they fail. The long-term, stabilized
equipment failure rate, if all of these parts functioned reliabilitywise in
series, may be approximated by
»-(*+») isi fc 1
Aes= £ ^+S^t^)+S^w- (9-40)
where
mh. = / Rh{t) dt,
Jo
or the regular MTBF of parts h,
"^(Tpi) = MTBF of s parts which are maintained preven

tively every Tp\ hours,
£» R{(r) dr
>
or
Tpl £*> R,(t) dr
foPlQi(r)dr
depending on which bound is used, and

mj{Tp2) = MTBF of the k parts which are preventively
maintained every TP2 hours,
"
T2
for
Range
p2max
p2min
Fig.
for
of
Bathtub
9.14
two
parts.
cu—rves
groups
plmax
plmin
hours
T,
Age,
•a
to (X
£~RjiT)dT
Qj(TP2)
or
^Tp2^R,(r)dT
" Io"2Q:(r)dr
An estimate of the long-term stabilized reliability may then be obtained
from
The choice of Tpl and Tp2 affects both the reliability and the overall
equipment maintenance cost. The optimum Tv\ and Tp2 should then
be chosen to minimize this cost and yet meet the equipment's target
reliability requirements. The total corrective and preventive mainte
nance cost per hour of operation of the equipment would then be given
by
n-(k+s) ,
CT-II= fc.1
£ (Ch—
m>>
)+£
,=1
Cpi rp
Tpi
+ Cct
" mi{Tp{)
k
+ EiCpJ 7^~ + CCJ —^—}, (9.41)
fr{ JP2 rrij (Tp2)
using Policy II. A similar equation can be written for Policy I also. The
optimum Tpj and T*2 can be obtained now by piecewise optimization,
or by plotting the terms ^2 and J2 separately, versus Ct-ii for various
«' j
values of Tp and separately finding T*j and T*2, as shown in Fig. 9.15.
Usually, further savings would be obtained by making Tp2 an integer
multiple of Tpi. Tpi may then become a minor overhaul and Tp2 a
major overhaul, preventively. Again, it should be checked to see that
the equipment's reliability goal is being met with these Tpl and T*2
preventive maintenance schedules.
If all components in the equipment are reliabilitywise in series, then
N
t'=l
but the ages of all components in the equipment at the beginning of

every mission need to be known to be able to evaluate the equipment's
Preventive maintenance schedule, T„, hr

P
Fig. 9.15 - Optimum preventive maintenance schedule for

two groups of components.
TABLE 9.5 - The corrective and preventive mainte

nance costs for Example 9—5.
Unit Corrective Preventive

maintenance maintenance
cost, cost,
Cc-$ Cp-$
1 75.00 10.00
2 145.00 35.00
3 80.00 12.00
reliability for the next mission, if the equipment is under corrective

and preventive maintenance, as well as its respective times-to-failure
distributions.
EXAMPLE 9-5
Given is the subsystem of Example 7-2. Do the following:
1. Determine the minimum-cost, preventive maintenance schedule
for each one of the three units using Policy II. The cost for each
corrective and preventive maintenance action is given in Table
9.5. Plot the total cost of corrective plus preventive maintenance
for each unit versus its preventive replacement period, Tp.
2. Show how it is possible to achieve further savings by making Tp2
and/or Tp3 an integer multiple of Tpl.
3. Discuss how you would check to see whether or not the opera
tional reliability, or the reliability goal, of the subsystem is being
met with these minimum-cost preventive maintenance schedules.
1. The preventive plus corrective maintenance cost per hour of op

eration for Policy II is given by
i - R(TP)
Ct-ii = Cp — + Cc
£>R(T)dT
where
Cp = cost of each preventive maintenance action,

and
Cc — cost of each corrective maintenance action.
For Unit 1
Ct-ii = (10.00)
{l - [(0.25) e-(00003) T»> + (0.75) e-<l&H}

+ (75.00) -V-jt -—-- J-J-
/opl [(0.25) e-(°0003) T + (0.75) e"<3oo)2 rfr
For Unit 2
Cr-/I = (35.00) -L
ip2
[l - [(0.25) e-(°0006) rJ + (0.75) e~^3 *] 1

+ (145.00)
Jo"2 [(0.25) e-(0-0006) r + (0J5) e-(55o)35] dr
For Unit 3
Ct-ii = (12.00)
rp3
(80.00) (l- (0.25) e"'000045) T" + (0.75) e"^ *| 1
+ £" (0.25) e-(°00045) T + (0.75) e_l*
MOO ' dr
The costs associated with the various preventive replacement pe
riods, Tpi, are shown in Table 9.6 and are plotted in Fig. 9.16
from which it is found that T*x = 132 hr, T*2 = 285 hr and
T;3 = 213 hr.
2. To achieve further savings, T*2 and /or T*3 can be made an m-
teger multiple of T*t . Since
T'p2 _ 285 hr
= 2.1591,
1 pi 132 hr
and
]a __ 213 hr = 1
,6136.
T,pi 132 hr
pfrmpuplus
of aeof
cThe
total
rnFig.
iov9.16
asaeccost
rtvenitcaon-itcveive
Example
9-5.
each
in
unit
for
smcaihnet dnaunlce ,
Tp,
hr
scmPahrienvtdeunaltniecv,e
T,
tO to
are close to two, further savings are possible if we take 7p"2 and
r;3 to be
Tp2 — 2 Tpj,
and
t;3 = 2t;v
Making T*2 and T*3 integer multiples of T^ will minimize the
number of times the equipment must be down for preventive
maintenance.
3. To check to see whether or not the reliability goal of the sub
system is being met with these minimum-cost preventive main
tenance schedules, calculate the equipment's reliability from
3
REQ(T,t) = l[Ri(Ti,t), (9.42)
and compare Req(T, t) with the reliability goal. If

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

for 8 hours of continuous operation, determine whether or not
this subsystem meets this reliability requirement using the up
per bound of the corrective failure rate and the minimum cost
2. Determine the expected number of corrective (unscheduled) main

tenance actions that will be required for each unit for Policy II,
using the upper bound of the corrective failure rate and the min
imum cost Tpi, for 3,000 cumulative hours of operation.
3. Determine the expected number of preventive (scheduled) main
tenance actions that will be required for each unit for Policy II
for 3,000 cumulative hours of operation using the minimum cost
Tpi.
TABLE 9.6 - The corrective and preventive mainte

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

rPi Ct\ TP2 Ct2 TPs Ct3
hr $/hr hr $/hr hr $/hr
50 0.21467 260 0.19727 150 0.09365
80 0.15625 270 0.19624 200 0.08195
85 0.15130 279 0.19578 205 0.08165
90 0.14722 280 0.19575 210 0.08149
95 0.14389 281 0.19573 211 0.08147
100 0.14120 282 0.19571 212 0.08147
105 0.13906 283 0.19570 213* 0.081461
115 0.13617 284 0.195696 214 0.081462
125 0.13475 285* 0.195695 215 0.08147
130 0.13450 286 0.195698 216 0.08148
131 0.13448 287 0.19570 220 0.08158
132* 0.134472 290 0.19575 250 0.08726
133 0.134473 300 0.19623
135 0.13450 310 0.19712
140 0.13474 320 0.19840
150 0.13580
TABLE 9.7 - Corrective and preventive maintenance

downtimes when the optimum Tp, are used
for Example 9-6.

downtime, downtime,
hr hr
1 0.55 0.25
2 0.75 0.35
3 0.33 0.15
4. Repeat Case 2 for the case when the T*2 and T*3 are made integer
multiples of T*t. Make sure that the reliability goal of R = 0.980
is still met when the adjustments in the T* are made.
5. Determine the total downtime, plus the corrective, plus the pre
ventive maintenance costs for Policy II for 3,000 cumulative hours
of operation, using the downtimes given in Table 9.7 for each unit
with an overall cost of downtime of $10,000 per hour of subsystem
downtime, and the minimum cost 7£.
6. Repeat Case 5 using the adjusted T^ found in Case 4, the correc
tive and preventive downtimes given in Table 9.7, the preventive
downtimes and costs given in Table 9.8, with the same overall
downtime cost of $10,000 per hour of subsystem downtime, for
3,000 cumulative hours of operation.
7. Discuss comparatively the results found in Cases 5 and 6.
1. Using the data of Example 7-2 the reliability model for each unit
is
RX(T) = 0.25 e-(o.ooo3) T + n 75 e-(Aj")

R2{T) = 0.25 e^00006) T + 0.75 e^W* ,
and
Rt(T) = 0.25 c-(000045) T + 0.75 e"*** . (9.44)
TABLE 9.8 - Preventive maintenance downtimes when

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

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

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

the conservative upper limit, or
Qi(Tpt) _ y-> 1 - RjjTpj)

XEQ = t^0IoPiRi(t)dt~t0Io'"Ri(t)dt
Z -7r- (9.45)
Evaluating the reliability of each unit using the minimum cost

Tpi, found in Example 9-5, and Eqs. (9.44) the following values
are found:
MTp\) = 0.899067,
R2(T;2) = 0.863154,
and
#3(r;3) = 0.933958,
where
T*pl = 132 hr,
T*2 = 285 hr,
and
r;3 = 213 hr.

1 - 0.899067 1 - 0.863154 1 - 0.933958
Aro
ÊQ =
128.3045
+272.8430
+
208.8540
(9.46)
= (7.86671 + 5.01556 + 3.16203) 10-4,
or
XEq = 0.00160443 fr/hr.
The subsystem's reliability for 8 hr of continuous operation, using
the minimum cost preventive maintenance schedules, is
Rss = e-x*Q \
RSS{i = 8 hr) = e"0-00160443 <8>,
or
Rss(t = 8 hr) = 0.9872466.
J._
Since,
Rss{t = 8 hr) > Rqoal,
that is
0.9872466 > 0.980,
then the subsystem is meeting its reliability goal using the up
per bound of the corrective failure rate and the minimum cost
2. The expected number of corrective maintenance actions for 3,000
hr of cumulative operation for Policy II using the upper bound
of the corrective failure rate is given by
Therefore,
Nl- L^giSaJ i
f0piR1(T)dr
N,-±iMSLt
VVC2 — ——; I,
fQ»R2(T)dT
and
i-R3(t;3) t
J*c3 — y
Then, using the Xct calculated in Eq. (9.46)

Ncl = (0.000786671) (3,000) = 2.360,
Nc2 = (0.000501556) (3,000) = 1.505,
and
Nc3 = (0.000316203) (3,000) = 0.9486.
3. The expected number of preventive maintenance actions that will
be required for each unit for Policy II for 3,000 cumulative hours
of operation, using the optimum T*,, is
t
Npi = Xpi t = —
^, = ^0 = 22.7273,
3,000
NP2 = -^g- = 10.5263,
and
*.-^ -•"■«•
4. The ratio of T'^/T^, and T^/T^ is found to be approximately 2

from Example 9-5. Since T*x = 132 hr, let T*2 = T*3 = 2 2J, =
2 (132) = 264, therefore the A„- may be calculated from
1 - 0.25 e"Al Ti» - 0.75 e l * '
A„ =
rTpi 0.25 e~x" T + 0.75 e -<£>*] dr'
JO
The calculated values for the new Tp, are

• Acl = 0.000786671 fr/hr,
Ac2 = 0.000411743 fr/hr,
and
Ac3 = 0.00053542 fr/hr.
To make sure that the reliability goal of R = 0.980 is still being

met, Aeq is calculated and is compared with Rgoal as follows:
3
ÊQ = si Kit
t=i
XEq = 0.000786671 + 0.000411743+0.00053542,

or
XEQ = 0.001733834 fr/hr,
and
Rss(T = 8 hr) = e-(A£«) W,
i?55(T = 8 hr) = e-(00001733834) (8) = 0.9862250825,
hence
ii5S(r) = 0.9862250825 > Rgoal = 0.980;
that is, the subsystem is still meeting its reliability goal.
The expected number of corrective actions in 3,000 hours are
Na = (0.000786671) (3,000) = 2.360,
Nc2 = (0.000411743) (3,000)= 1.235,
and
N* = (0.00053542) (3,000) = 1.606.
5. The total corrective, plus preventive maintenance, plus downtime

costs for Policy II, for 3,000 cumulative hours of operation, are
found using data from Example 9-5, Table 9.6, and the minimum
cost T" as follows:
At rp*! = 132, CJ, = $0.134472 /hr,
at r;2 = 285, Cf2 = $0.195695 /hr,
and
at T;3 = 213, CT3 = $0.081461 /hr.
For 3,000 hr of cumulative operation, the Cn are
Cxi = (0.134472) (3,000) = $403,416,
CT2 = (0.195695) (3,000) = $587,085,
and
CT3 = (0.081461) (3,000) = $244,383.
The total corrective plus preventive replacement cost is
Cttotal = CjTl + Ct2 + Ct3,
= $403.416 +$587.085 + $244,383,
= $1,234,884.
The total expected corrective downtime in 3,000 hr of cumulative
operation, using the Nci values found in Case 2, is
3
J2 Nci U = (2.360) (0.55) + (1.505) (0.75) + (0.9486) (0.33),
>=i
or
3
^ Na t< = 2.73979 hr.
The total expected preventive downtime is

3
^NpiU = (22.7273) (0.25) + (10.5263)(0.35) + (14.0845) (0.15),
;=i
or
3
Y,np>;*• = H-47871 hr.
i=i
The total expected corrective plus preventive downtime cost for
3,000 hr of cumulative operation is
(2.73979+ 11.47871) 10,000 = $142,185.
6. Solution 1 - Method 1
The preventive maintenance schedules for Units 2 and 3, T*2 and
Tp3, can be taken as multiples of T*x. Consequently, take
r;2 = t;3 = 2 rp\ = 2 (132) = 264.

The total corrective, preventive, and downtime costs for Policy
II for 3,000 cumulative hours of operation can be found by using
CT = }, Ki (tdd Cd + Cd)
.«=!
+ [-^1,2,3 (Cpl,2,3 + *dl,2,3 Cd)] ,

where
Ct = cost of corrective + cost of preventive actions
on Unit 1 when maintained alone + cost of pre
ventive actions on Units 1, 2 and 3 when main
tained simultaneously,
N\ = number of preventive maintenance actions on
Unit 1 alone during the operating time of 3,000
hr,
-^1,2,3 = number of preventive maintenance actions on
Units 1, 2 and 3 simultaneously during the op
erating time of 3,000 hr.,
Xd = rate of corrective actions for Unit i,
tdd = downtime for corrective actions for Unit i,
Cd = downtime cost, $/hr,
Cd = corrective maintenance cost for Unit i,
Cpi = preventive maintenance cost for Unit 1 alone,
Cpi.2,3 = cost per preventive maintenance action for
Units 1, 2 and 3 simultaneously, $/hr,
td\ = downtime when only Unit 1 is preventively
maintained,
and
<di,2,3 = downtime when Units 1, 2 and 3 are maintained

preventively simultaneously.
From Fig. 9.17 N\ = 11 and JVli2,3 = 11. Therefore
■l
' 3,168
x + o Fig.
replaced
Units
afor
Unit
P11
times
times,
m9.17
2
1,
3.
1
graeinvndtets
en-tainvce
3,000
X + 0 i
1
2,772
X + 0
x
X 2.376
+ 0 i
X
XXX + 1
1 1,980
hours,
taand
also
Units
times.
11
2
3
1,
ogether
nd
+ 0
O
mPtimes
arienvtentaincve
XXX
1,584
+ a l
XXX + 0 1,188
+- 1
•
1
■T1-
792
X
\ + o
X
X
x ■f o
396
'l
1)32
264
X + 0
Unit
1 Unit
2 Unit
3
CO
o
CT = | 0.000786671 [(0.55) (10,000) + 75.00]
+ 0.000411743 [(0.75) (10,000) + 145.00]
+ 0.00053542 [(0.33) (10,000) + 80.00] I (3,000)
+ 1 11 ([10 +(0.25) (10,000)]!
+ 111 [51.50 + (0.50) (10, 000)] },
or
Ct- $111,206.06.
Solution 1 - Method 2
Another way of calculating the total corrective and preventive
maintenance, and the downtime cost would be as follows: The
expected number of preventive maintenance actions for each unit
are:
For Unit 1, Npl = ^ = 22.7273 actions.
For Unit 2, Np2 = ^ = 11.3636 actions.
For Unit 3, Np3 = ^gp = 11.3636 actions.
The preventive actions taken for the whole system will be 11.3636
actions for Unit 1 only, and 11.3636 actions for Units 1, 2 and
3 together. The preventive maintenance can be determined in a
tabular form as given in Table 9.9.
Total preventive maintenance cost = $698.87 + $85, 227
= $85,925.87.
The total corrective maintenance cost for the system is given by
Cc = 2J^C' (tdci Cd + Cd) t.

-: = 1
Substituting the corresponding values yields
Cc = J 0.000786671 [(0.55) (10,000)+ 75.00]

docost,
wntime
Preventive
28,409 56,818 85,227
7 $
operating
mphours
of
the
for
TABLE
Cost
a3,000
9.9
rsystem
ientven-antcieve
Expected downtime,
2.8409 5.6818
6 hr
Dowper
ntime
action,
5 hr 0.25 0.50
mcost,
aintenance
SExample
for
oMethod
2
9-6
1
oluft-io.n Preventive
113.64 585.23 698.87
4 $
Cost
per
action, 10.00 51.50
3 $
Expected of
number
actions 1 .3636 1 .3636
2
the
min
aintenance
iUnits
nvolved
action 1,2,3
1 1
CO
o to
+ 0.000411743 [(0.75) (10,000)+ 145.00]
+ 0.00053542 [(0.33) (10,000) + 80.00] \ (3,000),
or
Cc = $28,029.56.
Then,
Total cost = Total preventive maintenance cost +
Total corrective maintenance cost,
or
Total cost = $85,925.87+ $28,029.56= $113,955.43.
Other combinations of T*t, T*2 and T*2 can be used to calculate
the total cost for preventive and corrective maintenance actions;
e.g.,
r;x = 132 hr, T;2 = 3 r;a = 3 (132) = 396 hr,
and
T;3 = 2 2£, = 2 (132) = 264 hr.
The mean corrective maintenance rate for each unit can be cal
culated using
t».
1 - 0.25 e~x> T" - 0.75 e *T?H
A =
rTpi 0.25 e"A« T + 0.75 e -&<
v*><
JO dr
The calculated values are

Acl = 0.0007866710 fr/hr,
Ac2 = 0.0010945965 fr/hr,
Xc3 = 0.0005354200 fr/hr.
To make sure that the reliability goal of 0.980 is met, Xeq is

calculated using
3
ÊQ = 2^ = Act,
:'=1
\EQ = 0.000786671 + 0.0010945965 + 0.00053542,
or
XEq = 0.0024166875.
Then
RSS(T = 8 hr) = e-*£<? <8),
JRss(T = 8hr) = e-0-0024166875(8),
or
Rss{T = 8 hr) = 0.98085219 > 0.980.
The total cost can be calculated using the equation
CT = >! Ki (tdci Cd + Cd) t + TVi (Cpi + tdi Cd)

«'=1
+ N\* (Cpll3 + tUfl Cd) + Nlf2 (Cpi,2 + t«ft,2 Cd)
+ -^1,2,3 (^1,2,3 + ^1,2,3 Q)-
From Fig. 9.18 Ni = 7, JV1|3 = 8, JVi,2 = 4 and JVlt2,3 = 3.
CT = I 0.0007866710 [(0.55) (10,000)+ 75]
+ 0.0010945965 [(0.75) (10,000)+ 145]
+ 0.00053542 [(0.33) (10, 000) + 80] I (3, 000)
+ 7 [10 + (0.25) (10, 000)]

+ 8 [16.50 + (0.30) (10, 000)]
+ 4 [40 + (0.40) (10,000)]
+ 3 [51.50 + (0.50) (10,000)],
or
CT = $116,707.30.
Another way of calculating the total maintenance and downtime
cost would be as follows: The expected number of preventive
maintenance actions taken for each unit:
Unit 1 Npi = ig|2 - 22.7273,
Unit 2 Np2 = 5g? = 7.5758,

3,168
X XXXX
XXXK
-X X X X ^X X
replaced
taFig.
Units
for
Unit
mPg9.18
times
2
1,
3.
1
7 en-tainvce for
arimes,
ienndvtets a3
tand
Units
2
3,
times,
2,4
1
8
1,
imesnd
3,000
2.772
'-
1
r—I
2,376
792
1,188
1,584
1,980
mParienvtentainvce
hours
times,
T
SaCase
Method
Example
6
2,
1.
9-6,
olndution
1
)
—
1
132
0
396
264
"■'—I
Unit
1 2
Unit 3
Unit
CO
o Cn
3,000
Unit 3 Np3 = 264 = 11.3636.
The preventive actions taken for the whole system will be 3.7879
actions for Units 1, 2, and 3 together, 3.7879 actions for Units
1 and 2 together, 7.5758 actions for Units 1 and 3 together, and
7.5758 actions for Unit 1 only. The preventive maintenance cost
can be determined in tabular form as given in Table 9.10.
From Table 9.10 the total preventive maintenance cost = $547.36+
$75, 759 = $76, 306.36. The total corrective maintenance cost for
the system can be found by
Cc = z2 â {Uci Cd + Cd)
t=i
Substituting the corresponding values we have
Cc = < 0.000786671 [(0.55) (10,000)+ 75]
+ 0.00010945965 [(0.75) (10,000)+ 145]
+ 0.00053542 [(0.33) (10, 000) + 80] 1 (3, 000),
or
Cc = $43,690.80.
Then
Total cost — Total preventive maintenance cost +

total corrective maintenance cost,
or
Total cost = $76,306.36 + $43,690.80 = $119,997.16.
The comparison of the maintenance costs for the two different

preventive maintenance schedules is given in Table 9.11. The
comparison shows that Solution 2 schedules have lower preventive
maintenance but higher corrective maintenance costs than for
Solution 1 schedules. The overall cost for Solution 2 schedules is
about 5% higher. Other combinations can be tried in a similar
way to find the one with the least cost.
docost,
wntime
Preventive
TABLE
pmCost
of
9.10
the
for
hours
operating
ar3,000
system
ienvte-nantcieve 18,940 15,152 22,727 18,940 75,759
7 $
Expected downtime,
1.8940 1.5152 2.2727 1.8940
6 hr
Dowper
ntime
action,
5 hr 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.25
macost,
intenance
Sfor
Case
Method
6,
2,
o2.
lution Preventive
195.08 151.52 125.00 75.76 547.36
4 $
Cost
per
action, 51.50 40.00 16.50 10.00
3 $
Expected number
of
actions 3.7879 3.7879 7.5758 7.5758
2
iin
Units
nvolved the
maintenance
action 1,2,3 1,2 1,3

1 1
CO
TABLE 9.11 - The comparison of the maintenance costs

for the two different preventive mainte
nance schedules.
Solution 1 Solution 2
shedules: shedules:
T;x = 132 hr, T;x = 132 hr,
T;2 = Tp3 = 264 hr. r;2 = 396 hr,
T;3 = 264 hr.
Total preventive
maintenance cost
for 3,000 hr,
Method 2 $ 85,925.87 $ 76,306.36
Total corrective
maintenance cost
for 3,000 hr,
Method 2 $ 28,029.56 $ 43,690.80
Total cost for
3,000 hr,
Method 2 $ 113,995.43 $ 119,997.16
Total cost for
Method 1 $ 111,206.06 S 116,707.30
Reliability 98.62% 98.09%
7. The total cost in Case 5 is higher than the one in Case 6, com
paratively, as follows:
In Case 5 it is $ 143,320.93.
In Case 6, Solution 1 it is $113,955.32 for T;2 = Tp*3 = 2 T*x,

and for Solution 2 it is $ 119,997.16 for T*2 = 3 T'v T^ = 2 T*v
It may be seen that using the preventive maintenance schedules

of
Tp*! = 132 hr, Tp*2 = 264 hr and T*3 = 264 hr,
is more cost effective than using their optimum schedule values
of
TZ. = 132 hr, T;2
lp2 = 285 hr and T_*3 = 213 hr.
The reason is that multiples of one of them decrease the preven

tive maintenance downtime cost which contributes very signifi
cantly to the overall cost.
X1E = 2,000 fr/106hr

X.E = 2,200 fir/106 hr
X,Q= 300 fr/l(fhr
2 AÊ= 300 fr/106hr
1 SE
*- sw
Xswo= 30 fr/106hr
1 ^SWQ= 50 fr/106hr
?W = 200 fr/106 cycles
Fig. 9.19 - System for Problem 9-1.
PROBLEMS
9-1. Given is the system in Fig. 9.19. Do the following:

(1) Derive the expression for its mission reliability when it is
maintained preventively every Tp hours according to Policy
I.
(2) Calculate and plot the reliability found in Case 1 versus mis
sion time for the following preventive maintenance periods:
Tp = 100hr, 500 hr, 1,000 hr and oo hr.
Give all calculations and results in a neat table.
(3) Derive the expression for the mean time between failures,
MTBFf , of this preventively maintained system.
PROBLEMS 311
(4) Plot the MTBFTp found in Case 3 versus Tp for the same
Tp values given in Case 2.
(5) Find the MTBF of this system with no preventive mainte
nance and plot it in the figure of Case 4 for the comparison
purposes. Give all calculations and the results in a neat
table.
(6) Calculate and plot on the figure of Case 2 the reliability of
this system using the expression
Bit) = e'^
using the Mjp value found in Case 4 for Tp = 500 hr. Give
all calculations and results in a neat table.
(7) Comparatively discuss the results of Cases 2 and 6 for Tp =
500 hr.
9-2. Given is the system in Fig. 9.20. Do the following:
(1) Derive the expression for its mission reliability when it is
maintained preventively every Tp hours according to Policy
I.
(2) Calculate and plot the reliability found in Case 1 versus mis
sion time for the following preventive maintenance periods:
Tp = 10 hr, 100 hr, 500 hr, 1,000 hr and oo hr.
Give all calculations and results in a neat table.
(3) Derive the expression for the mean time between failures,
MTBFjp, of this preventively maintained system.
(4) Plot the MTBFtp found in Case 3 versus Tp for the same
Tp values given in Case 2.
(5) Find the MTBF of this system with no preventive mainte
nance and plot it in the figure of Case 4 for the comparison
purposes. Give all calculations and the results in a neat
table.
9-3. Given is a system with three exponential parallel units, each
with a failure rate of 0.002 fr/hr, which is subjected to corrective
maintenance when the system fails and to preventive mainte
nance every 200 hr according to Policy I. Do the following:
(1) Derive the non-maintained mission reliability expression for
this system.
XIE= 1,000 fr/106hr

X2E= 1,200 fr/106hr
X,Q= 100 fr/106hr
XÊ= 200 fr/106hr
U-
^0= 10 fr/106hr
XSWQ= 50 fr/106hr
A.SWE= 100 fr/106 cycles
Fig. 9.20 - System for Problem 9-2 .

PROBLEMS 313
X1E= 1,500 fr/106hr

X^ = 1,800 fr/106hr
X,Q = 200 fr/106hr
Kt= 200 fr/106hr
U-
^wo = 10fr/106hr
X.SWQ= 50fr/106hr
XSWE= 100 fr/106 cycles
Fig. 9.21 - System for Problem 9-4.
(2) Derive the MTBF expression for this system when it is not
maintained preventively.
(3) Calculate and plot the reliability of the maintained system
versus the mission time curve for j = 0 and J = 1 only.
(4) Calculate and plot the preventively maintained system's
MTBF versus preventive maintenance schedule for Tv =
200 hr, Tp = 400 hr and T„ = 2,000 hr.
(5) Superimpose on this plot the MTBF of this system when
it is not maintained preventively.
9-4. Given is the system of Fig. 9.21, which is subjected to preven

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

(2) What is the MTBFTp of this system?
(3) What is its stabilized preventive maintenance rate?
(4) What is its stabilized corrective maintenance rate?
9-5. Solve the bearing problem of Example 9-2 when the parameters
of these bearings' probability density function are the following:
7 = 0.0 hr,
P = 3.0 hr.
and
77 = 3,000 hr.
Plot the reliability function for Tp - 10 hr, Tp = 100 hr, Tp = 500
hr and Tp = 1,000 hr. Then, tabulate your results in the format
given in Example 9-2. Discuss the reliability function's behavior
in detail.
7 = 100.0 hr,
)3 = 2.0 hr.
and
77 = 2,000 hr.
Plot the reliability function for Tp = 10 hr, Tp = 100 hr and
Tp = 500 hr. Then, tabulate your results in the format given
in Example 9-2. Discuss the reliability function's behavior in
detail.
9-7. Given is the system of Problem 7-1, wherein each unit is replaced
preventively. Do the following:
(1) If Unit 1 is replaced preventively every 50 hr, Unit 2 every
200 hr and Unit 3 every 100 hr what is the stabilized average
corrective failure rate of each unit for Policy I?
(2) Same as in Case 1 but for Policy II.
(3) What is the stabilized average preventive replacement rate
of each unit Policy I?
(5) What is the system stabilized MTTR (Mean Time to Re
pair) if the mean corrective repair times of the subsystem,
dm, when the ith unit fails, are as follows:
dm = 0.55 hr;
d2R = 0.75 hr;
d3R = 0.33 hr;
PROBLEMS 315
and if the mean preventive replacement times, f*,-p, of the

units are as follows:
Tip = 0.25 hr;
F2p = 0.35 hr;
r3P = 0.55 hr.
(6) What is the stabilized MTBF of the system with corrective
and preventive maintenance?
(7) What is the stabilized MTBF of the system without any
maintenance?
(8) What is the stabilized reliability of the subsystem with cor
rective and preventive maintenance for a mission of 300 hr?
(9) What is the reliability of the subsystem without any main
tenance for a mission of 300 hr?
(10) Compare and discuss the results found in Cases 6 and 7, and
8 and 9, and draw conclusions as to the merits of preventive
maintenance according to Policy I and Policy II over no
preventive maintenance.
9-8. Given is the subsystem of Problem 7-3 wherein each unit is re
placed preventively. Determine the following:
(1) If Unit 1 is replaced preventively every 150 hr, Unit 2 ev
ery 440 hr, and Unit 3 every 300 hr, what is the stabilized
average corrective failure rate of each unit for Policy I?
of each unit for Policy I?
(5) What is the subsystem stabilized MTTR for Policy I if the
mean corrective repair times of the subsystem, d{R, when
the ith unit fails, are as follows:
d\R — 0.55 hr,
d2R = 0.75 hr,
and
d3R = 0.33 hr,
and if the mean preventive replacement times, t'ip, of the
F1P = 0.25 hr,
¥2p = 0.35 hr,
and
F3P = 0.15 hr?
(6) Same as in Case 5 but for Policy II and for both bounds of
Ac.
(7) What is the stabilized MTBF of the subsystem with cor
rective and preventive maintenance for Policy I?
(8) Same as in Case 7 but for Policy II and for the lower bound
of Ac.
rective and preventive maintenance for a 10-hour mission
for Policy I?
(10) Same as in Case 9 but for Policy II and for the lower bound
of Ac.
tenance for a mission of 10 hr?
(12) What is the MTBF of the subsystem without any mainte
nance?
9-9. Given is the subsystem of Problem 7-3 wherein each unit is re
placed preventively. Determine the foDowing:
(1) If Unit 1 is replaced preventively every 225 hr, Unit 2 ev
ery 450 hr, and Unit 3 every 450 hr, what is the stabilized
(5) What is the subsystem stabilized MTTR for Policy I if the
mean corrective repair times of the subsystem, d,/*, when
the ith unit fails, are as follows:
dm = 0.55 hr,
d2R = 0.75 hr,
and
d3R = 0.33 hr,
F1F = 0.25 hr,
r2p = 0.35 hr,
PROBLEMS 317
and
t'3P = 0.15 hr?

rective and preventive maintenance?
(7) What is the stabilized MTBF of the subsystem without
corrective and preventive maintenance?
rective and preventive maintenance for a mission of 1,500
hr?
tenance for a mission of 1,500 hr?
9-10. Given is the subsystem of Problem 7-3 wherein each unit is
replaced preventively. Determine the following:
(1) If Unit 1 is replaced preventively every 1,200 hr, Unit 2 every
2,500 hr, and Unit 3 every 1,500 hr, what is the stabilized
(5) What is the subsystem stabilized MTTR if the mean cor
rective repair times of the subsystem, d,\R, when the ith unit
fails, are as follows:
dm = 0.55 hr,
diR = 0.75 hr,
and
d3R = 0.33 hr,
F1P = 0.25 hr,
FiP = 0.35 hr,

costs for Problem 9—12.

cost, Cc cost, Cp
$ $
1 65.00 4.50
2 115.00 15.00
3 60.00 6.50
and
t*3P = 0.15 hr?

hr?
9-11. Same as Problem 9-10 but when Unit 1 is replaced preventively
every 300 hr, Unit 2 every 600 hr, and Unit 3 every 500 hr.
9-12. Given is the subsystem of Problem 7-1. Determine the following:
(1) The minimum cost, preventive maintenance period for each
one of the three units using Policy II. The corrective and
preventive maintenance costs are given in Table 9.12. Plot
the total cost of corrective and preventive maintenance for
each unit versus their preventive replacement period, Tp.
(2) Show how it is possible to achieve further savings by making
TP2 and/or Tp3 an integer of Tpl.
PROBLEMS 319

costs for Problem 9-13.

cost, Cc cost, Cp
1 75.00 10.00
2 145.00 35.00
3 80.00 12.00
(3) How would you check to see whether or not the operational
reliability, or the reliability goal, of the subsystem is be
ing met with these minimum-cost preventive maintenance
periods?
one of the three units using Policy II. The corrective and
TP2 and/or Tpz an integer of Tpl.
periods?
9-14. Work out Problem 9-13 again using the lower bound of the cor
rective failure rate for Policy II, and the data given in Tables
9.13 and 9.14 and do the following:
(1) If an average, stabilized reliability goal of R = 0.980 is spec

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

downtimes when the optimum XL are used
for Problem 9-14.

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

tion.
(3) Determine the expected number of preventive (scheduled)
Policy II for 3,000 cumulative hours of operation.
(4) Repeat Case 2 for the case when the TP2 and Tp3 are made
integer multiples of Tp\. Make sure that the reliability goal
of R = 0.980 is met when adjustments in Tpi are made.
(5) Determine the total corrective, preventive, and downtime
costs for Policy II using the lower bound of the corrective
failure rate, for 3,000 cumulative hours of operation, using
the data given in Tables 9.13 and 9.14, and overall downtime
cost of $10,000 per hour of subsystem downtime, and using
the optimum Tp, found in Problem 9-13.
(6) Repeat Case 5 using the adjusted Tpj- found in Case 4, the
corrective and preventive maintenance costs and downtimes
given in Table 9.15 and overall downtime cost of $10,000
hr per hour of subsystem downtime, for 3,000 cumulative
hours of operation.
(7) Discuss comparatively the results found in Cases 5 and 6.
9-15. Do the following:
(1) Summarize the results obtained by each unit for each case
of Problem 9-14.
(2) Comparatively discuss the summarized results for each case.
(3) Which top three preventive maintenance schedules would
you recommend and why? List the following:
PROBLEMS 321
TABLE 9.15 Preventive maintenance downtimes when

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

action
$
When Unit 1 alone
is preventively
When Units 1 and 2
are maintained
preventively
When Units 1 and 3
are maintained
preventively
simultaneously.
j 16.50
0.30
When Units 2 and 3
are maintained
preventively
When Units 1, 2
preventively


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

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

one of the three units using Policy II and the lower bound
of the corrective failure rate. The corrective and preventive
maintenance costs are given in Table 9.16. Plot the total
cost of corrective and preventive maintenance for each unit
versus its preventive replacement period, Tp.
TP2 and/or TP3 an integer of Tpi.
periods?
PROBLEMS 323
9-17. Work out Problem 9-16 again using the upper bound of the
corrective failure rate for Policy II, and the data given in Tables
not this subsystem meets this requirement using the upper
Policy II using the upper bound of the corrective failure
rate and the optimum Tp, for 3,000 cumulative hours of
operation.
(4) Repeat Case 2 for the case when the Tvi and Tp3 are made
of R = 0.980 is met when adjustments in Tp, are made.
costs for Policy II using the upper bound of the corrective
the optimum Tp,- found in Problem 9.16.
(6) Repeat Case 5 using the adjusted Tp, found in Case 4, the
given in Table 9.17 and overall downtime cost of $10,000 per
hour of subsystem downtime, for 3,000 cumulative hours of
operation.
of Problem 9-17.
three units.
TABLE 9.17 - Preventive maintenance downtimes when

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

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


cost, Cc cost, Cp
$ $
1 6.50 4.00
2 23.00 15.00
3 12.00 6.50
(3.3)Number of preventive maintenance actions.

(3.4)Cost of the corrective maintenance actions.
(3.5)Cost of the preventive maintenance actions.
(3.6)Total cost with T*{.
(3.7)Total cost with the top three Tp, combinations which
one of the three units using Policy I. The corrective and
Assume
N ■
and
Nun
= 0.90.
Ni

TP2 and/or Tp3 an integer of Tp\.
periods?
corrective failure rate for Policy I, and the data given in Tables

not this subsystem meets this requirement.
Policy I using the optimum Tp; for 3,000 cumulative hours
of operation.
Policy I for 3,000 cumulative hours of operation.
(4) Repeat Case 2 for the case when the TP2 and TP3 are made
of R = 0.980 is met when adjustments in Tpt- are made.
costs for Policy I for 3,000 cumulative hours of operation,
using the data given in Tables 9.13 and 9.14, and overall
downtime cost of $10,000 per hour of subsystem downtime,
and using the optimum Tp<- found in Problem 9.19.
hour of subsystem downtime, for 3,000 cumulative hours of
operation.
(8) Redo Cases 2 through 7 for 20,000 cumulative hours of op
eration of the subsystem.
of Problem 9-20.
three units.
(3.3) Number of preventive maintenance actions.
PROBLEMS 327
(3.4)
Cost of the corrective maintenance actions.
(3.5)
Cost of the preventive maintenance actions.
(3.6)
Total cost with 7£.
(3.7)
Total cost with the top three Tp,- combinations which
9-22. Given is the subsystem of Problem 7-2 wherein each unit is
replaced preventively. Assume
= 0.10,
Ni
and
= 0.90.

(1) If Unit 1 is replaced preventively every 1,500 hr, Unit 2 every
6,000 hr, and Unit 3 every 2,000 hr, what is the stabilized
(2) Same as in Case 1 but for Policy II, using the lower bound
of the corrective failure rate.
(5) What is the subsystem stabilized MTTR if the mean cor
rective repair times of the subsystem, am, when the ith unit
fails, are as follows:
dm = 0.55 hr,
22r = 0.75 hr,
and
d3H = 0.33 hr,
and if the mean preventive replacement times, <*,p, of the
F1P = 0.25 hr,
¥2p = 0.35 hr,
and
F3P = 0.15 hr?

hr?
one of the three units using Policy II, using the upper bound
versus their preventive replacement period, Tp. Assume
and
N ■
"" = 0.90.
Ni

TP2 and/or TP3 an integer of Tpl .
periods?
-24. Work out Problem 9-23 again using the upper bound of the
PROBLEMS 329


cost, Cc cost, Cp
$ $
1 75.00 10.00
2 145.00 35.00
3 80.00 12.00

rate and the optimum Tp, for 20,000 cumulative hours of
operation.
(4) Repeat Case 2 for the case when the TP2 and Tpz are made
integer multiples of Tp\ . Make sure that the reliability goal
of R = 0.980 is met when adjustments in Tp; are made.
the optimum Tp, found in Problem 9.23.
(6) Repeat Case 5 using the adjusted Tpi found in Case 4, the
hour of subsystem downtime, for 20,000 cumulative hours
of operation.


cost, Cc cost, Cp
$ $
1 75.00 10.00
2 145.00 35.00
3 80.00 12.00

TP2 and/or Tp3 an integer of Tp\.
periods?
9-26. Using the results of Problem 9.25 and the data given in Tables
9.13 and 9.14, do the following:
not this subsystem meets this requirement using the lower
Policy I using the optimum Tpi- for 3,000 cumulative hours
of operation.
Policy I for 3,000 cumulative hours of operation.
integer multiples of Tp\. Make sure that the reliabibty goal
of R = 0.980 is met when adjustments in Tpt- are made.
PROBLEMS 331


cost, Cc cost, Cp
$ $
1 75.00 10.00
2 145.00 35.00
3 80.00 12.00

costs for Policy I for 20,000 cumulative hours of operation,
using the data given in Tables 9.13 and 9.14, and overall
downtime cost of $10,000 per hour of subsystem downtime,
and using the optimum Tp,- found in Problem 9.25.
of operation.

one of the three units using Policy II, using the lower bound
versus their preventive replacement period, Tp. Assume
f=0.20,
and
= 0.80.
Ni

TP2 and/or TP3 an integer of Tp\.
periods?

rate and the optimum Tpi for 32,000 cumulative hours of
operation.
integer multiples of Tpl. Make sure that the reliability goal
of R = 0.980 is met when adjustments in Tp, are made.
the optimum Tpi found in Problem 9.27.
(6) Repeat Case 5 using the adjusted Tpi found in Case 4, the
of operation.

PROBLEMS 333
TABLE 9.22 — Corrective and preventive maintenance


cost, Cc cost, Cp
6.50 4.50
23.00 15.00
12.00 6.50

TP2 and/or Tp3 an integer of Tpl. Show how to calculate
the total cost for the whole subsystem with these integer
multiple Tpt's and compare it with the total cost of the whole
subsystem without multiple rpt's.
periods?
9-30. In Example 9-5 for each unit determine the following:
(1) MTp for Tp = 10 hr up to Tp = oo.
(2) Ac for Tp = 10 hr up to Tp = oo.
(3) R(TP) for Tp = 10 hr up to Tp = oo.
(4) Q{TP) for Tp = 10 hr up to Tp = oo.
(5) Crp for Tp = 10 hr up to Tp = oo.
(6) Plot MTp versus Tp.
(7) Plot Ac versus Tp.
(8) Plot R(TP) versus Tp.
(9) Plot Q{TP) versus Tv.
(10) Plot Q(TP) versus Tp on the same plot as that of Case 8.
(11) Plot CTp versus Tp.
REFERENCES
1 . Bazovsky, I., N. R. MacFarlane, R.L. Wunderman, Study of Main
tenance Cost Optimization and Reliability of Shipboard Machin
ery, United Control Corporation, Seattle, Washington, DDC No.
AD 283428, June 1962.
2. Cox, D. R., Renewal Theory, Methuen, London, 135 pp., 1962.
Chapter 10
PERIODIC REPLACEMENT
POLICIES
10.1 ORDINARY PERIODIC REPLACEMENT

POLICY-POLICY III
In the Ordinary Periodic Replacement Policy (OPRP), or Policy III
[1, pp. 96-97], a unit is replaced with a new one every Tp accumulated
hours of operation; i.e., periodically at times k Tp (k = 1,2,3,...). If
the unit fails before Tp hours of operation, it is minimally repaired so
that its instantaneous failure rate, A(T"), corresponding to its times-
to-failure pdf, f(T), remains the same as it was prior to failure. This
would be the case when only one or a few components, from among
several hundred that comprise the equipment, fail and get repaired or
replaced, as the case may be. This way any change in the repaired or
replaced components failure rate or mean life will not alter perceptibly
the overall failure rate or mean life of the equipment involved. The
minimal repair time is assumed to be negligible and each failure is
detected instantaneously.
The cost function per unit, per hour operating time, is given by
_ Cp + Cmr E[N(TP)]
Ct-III = 7F, 1 (10.1)
where
Cp = cost of the planned preventive replacement,
Cmr = cost of minimal repair,
335
336 PERIODIC REPLACEMENT POLICY
and
E[N(TP)] = expected number of failures followed
by minimal repair actions in an interval Tp.
The expected number of failures in a Tp interval, per unit, is determined
from
E[N(TP)\ = f " X(T) dT, (10.2)

Jo
where
A(T) = instantaneous failure rate function, given by
A(r)=|S, ,10.3)
f(T) = times-to-failure pdf of a unit,
and
R(T) = reliability function of a unit.
Then, the total cost per unit, per unit operating time, is given by
Cp + Cmr £>\{T)dT
Ct-III = ™ • (10-4)
xv
EXAMPLE 10-1
A unit with a Weibull times-to-failure pdf is preventively main
tained under the Ordinary Periodic Replacement Policy. The parame
ters of the Weibull pdf are 7 = 0, /? = 2 and 77 = 30 hr. The cost of the
planned preventive replacement is $5 and the cost of minimal repair is
$30. Find (1) the optimum preventive replacement time, and (2) the
minimal total preventive maintenance cost per unit time of operation.
1. The Weibull times-to-failure pdf is
mmi(£=i)**.-i¥r. (,o.5)
V V 77 )
ORDINARY PERIODIC REPLACEMENT POLICY 337
With 7 = 0 and /? = 2, the following pdf is obtained:
or
Ztf
f(T) = -7T e<*> (10.6)
The instantaneous failure rate is then given by
IT
\(T) (10.7)
r/2
and the reliability function by
R(T) = e~{v> . (10.8)
The expected number of failures requiring repairs for the OPRP,

in an interval Tp, is given by
IfTp x^dT'lfTp2T (T \ 2
iFdT'(V\ (109)
Substitution of Eq. (10.9) into Eq. (10.4), yields the total cost
per unit operating time, per unit, for the OPRP, or
Ie\2
Cp + Cmr(f)
Ct-iii = (10.10)
The minimal total cost per unit time, Cy_//7, and the optimum
replacement time T* can be found by finding the first derivative
of the cost function, given by Eq. (10.10), with respect to the
replacement interval, Tp, setting it equal to zero, and solving it
for Tp. Then,
dCr-III _ _Cp CmT _

rp2 (10.11)
dTr, V
Consequently, the optimal replacement time, T*, is given by
t; = v\[^- (io.i2)
^mr
With J} = 30 hr, Cp =$5 and Cmr =$30, Eq. (10.12) yields
T; = 30 ^ = 12.24745 hr.
2. Substituting Tp* = 12.24745 hr into Eq. (10.10) yields the min

imal total preventive maintenance cost per unit operating time,
per unit; then,
5 + 30(12^145)2
cT-1II - 12.24745
or
cf-/// = $0-8165 /hr.
10.2 MODIFIED PERIODIC REPLACEMENT

POLICY-POLICIES IV, V, VI
One drawback of the OPRP is that the spares needed at a specified re
placement time Tp, are assumed to be always on hand and are provided
instantaneously whenever needed. A Modified Periodic Replacement
Policy (MPRP), Policy IV [2] takes into account the situation that
the spares are not always on hand, and that they can be provided,
only after a spares procurement lead time, by an order. The Modified
Replacement Policy With Constant Lead Time, which deals with this
situation is discussed in this section.
Another drawback of the OPRP policy is its potential wasteful
ness caused by repairing a failed unit just before one of the planned
replacement times. Hence, instead of repairing a failed unit, it can be
replaced by a less costly and "less reliable" unit. The "less reliable"
units could be reconditioned failed units, or second quality spares, but
would nevertheless perform the same function as the failed ones. Policy
V [3, pp. 43-45], presented later, deals with this reconditioned spares
substitution case.
There are situations, however, that if the downtime cost of an
equipment is less than an anticipated corrective action cost, and if a
failure occurs towards the end of the Tp period; i.e., where this down
time is minimum, then it is preferable to leave the equipment idle
until the next planned replacement time Tp. This situation is studied
as Policy VI [3, pp. 48-50] in this section.
MODIFIED PERIODIC REPLACEMENT POLICY 339
'cy
(a)
0 T0 + L
cy
(b) -X-
0 T+L
o virtual time
- L to failure
cy
(c) 4- *
T0 + L T
X Failure followed by a minimal repair.
Fig. 10.1 - Modified periodic replacement policy with con

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

WITH CONSTANT SPARES PROCUREMENT LEAD
TIME-POLICY IV
10.2.1.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE POLICY
A single-unit system is put into operation at time T = 0. If the unit
docs not fail up to a predetermined time T0, a regular order for a spare
is placed at time T0, as shown in Fig. 10.1(a), and the spare is delivered
after a constant lead time L. Whenever the unit fails in the interval
(T0, T0 + L) it is minimally repaired without changing its failure rate
characteristics, and put back into operation. Upon delivery of a spare,
the operating unit is replaced preventively.
If the unit fails before time T0; i.e., in the time interval (0, T0),
as shown in Fig. 10.1(b), an expedited or emergency order is made at
failure time T, the failed unit is minimally repaired and the spare is
again delivered after the constant lead time, L. Upon delivery of the
spare, the operating unit is replaced preventively by the new spare.

If no failures occur in the time intervals (0, T0) and (TD, T0 + L),
a regular order for a spare is made at time T0, and upon delivery
of the spare, the operating unit is replaced immediately, as shown
in Fig. 10.1(c). The cycle, defined as the time interval between two
successive replacements, repeats again.
10.2.1.2 DEVELOPMENT OF THE COST MODEL

The total expected cost per unit time of operation for an infinite time
span is defined by the renewal reward theorem [4, p. 58] as the ratio
of two expectations; namely, (1) the expected cost per cycle and (2)
the expected cycle length. Then,
Total expected cost per cycle
Expected cycle length
The total expected cost per cycle consists of (1) the expected cost of
preventive replacement, (2) the expected order cost, (3) the expected
cost of minimal repairs, and (4) the expected salvage cost for a unit
which is still able to work.
If the unit does not fail up to time T0, a regular order is placed,
and if the unit fails before time T0, an expedited order is placed. Then,
the order cost per cycle is given by
/•oo rT0
Cr / f(T) dT+Ce / f{T) dT = Cr R(T0)+Ce Q(T0), (10.13)
JTo JO
where
T0 = ordering time,
Ce = expedited order cost per cycle,
CT = regular order cost per cycle,
Q(T0) = probability that a unit will fail up to time T0,
and
R(T0) = probability that a unit will not fail up to time T0.
It is assumed that Ce > CT.
Minimal repairs are made whenever a unit fails. The total expected
number of failures consists of the expected number of failures if the unit
fails in interval (0, T0) and the expected number of failures in interval
(TD, T0 + L) if the unit does not fail in interval (0,To).
Then, the total expected cost of minimal repairs, per cycle, per
unit, is given by
rT0 rT+L
C'T.IV-mr = Cmr Ijf ^ X(x) f(T) dx dT
too rT0+L
+ f(T)dT X(x)dx
J la J In
or
rT0 tT+L
Cx-IV-mr — C„ * / X(x) f{T) dx dT
o Jt
T0+L
Jrio+L.
A(i) dx (10.14)
7a
where
Cmr — cost °f a minimal repair action.

It is assumed that Cp < Cmr. Note that in the first term of Eq. (10.14)
the integrand, A(i), of the inner integral after integration becomes a
function of the variable of integration of the outer integral, T. The
limits of integration of the inner integral are (T,T+L), where T varies
between 0 and T0 which are the limits of integration of the outer inte
gral. This may be seen in Fig. 10.1(b).
The expected salvage value per cycle [4, p. 254] is the expected
remaining life value of the unit which is replaced at time (T0 + L), but
is still able to operate. It is determined for the period from the time
of replacement to the virtual time of failure, as shown in Fig. 10.1(c).
Then, the expected salvage value per cycle is given by
Cs r [T - (T0 + L)) f(T) dT

JTo+l
MO
= -Cs / [T - (To + L)} dR(T),
Jt0+l
o ,00 )
= -cA[T-(T0 + L)]R(T) - R(T)dT\,
= Cs r R(T) dT, (10.15)

Jt0+l
where
C, = salvage value per unit time of operation,
and
f(T) dT = -dR{T).
Using Eqs. (10.13), (10.14), (10.15), and adding the cost of pre
ventive replacement, Cp, the total cost per cycle, per unit, is given
by
C'cy = CP + Ce Q(T0) + CT R(T0)
[ ,T„ ,T+L
+ Cmr jf jT X(x)f(T)dxdT
+ R{T0) f ° \{x) dx
J To
-Cs / R(T)dT. (10.16)

JTo+L
Considering possible reahzations of a cycle, as shown in Fig. 10.1,

the expected duration of a cycle can be determined as the sum of the
cycle duration if the unit fails in time interval (0, T0) and the cycle
duration if the unit does not fail in that interval. Then, the expected
cycle duration is
fT0 foo
Tc,= (T + L)f(T)dT+ (T0 + L)f(T)dT,
JO JTo
= f °T f(T) dT + L I ' f{T) dT

Jo Jo
roo roo
+ T0 / f(T) dT + L f(T) dT,
Jt0 Jt0
L+ [ °T f(T)dT + T0R(T0),
Jo
Note that this last equation is the integration by parts of the second
term of
Tcy = L+ R(T)dT. (10.17)
The total expected cost per unit time of operation, per unit, for an
infinite time span can now be determined as
Ct-iv = 1PL, (10.18)

■ley
where C'cy is given by Eq. (10.16) and 7^ by Eq. (10.17).

EXAMPLE 10-2
Units that have a Weibull times-to-failure pdf are preventively
maintained under MPRP with constant lead time. The parameters
of the Weibull pdf are 7 = 0, 0 = 2 and rj = 30 hr. Cp ■ $5, Ce = $40,
Cmr = $30, Cr = $20, L = 10 hr and Cs = $0,001 /hr. Find the mini
mum total cost per unit time of operation and the ordering schedule.
With 7 = 0 and 0 = 2, the pdf is
2 T (T\i 2
> v n '
(10.19)
the failure rate function is
2T
(10.20)
fl(T)=e~('}\ (10.21)
The expected number of required minimal repairs for the MPRP is
rT+L fT+Lo.T /T + LN2

r^-r^'-im-® (10.22)
Substituting Eq. (10.22) into Eq. (10.16), the total expected cost
per cycle becomes
C'^^Cp + CeQiTJ + CrRiTo)
- C, r R{T) dT.
JT0+L
The integral
rir-^'-siv-
f(T) dT,
Jo T
V \V/
rT° \2 l
-L'\7Tm+(vm dT,
= /0'^r/(r)<r+(i)|i-*(r.)].
Since Q{T0) = 1 - R{T0) then,
Ce Q{T0) + CV fl(T0) = C.[l - R(T0)} + CT R{T0)

= c, - (ce - cr) fl(r0).
Consequently,
C^ = Cp + Ce-(C;e-CY)i?(T0)
+c~{(^)'-(i)a^+^rT«r>ff
♦«* >[(w-©i}
roo
- C. / fl(T) dT,
or
C'cy = Cp + Ce-(Ce-CT)R(T0)
-C, /°° R(T)dT. (10.23)
Substituting Eqs. (10.19) and (10.21) into Eq. (10.23), yields the total
expected cost per cycle, or
lSL)2
C'=Cp
■cy — ^P + Ce-(Ce-Cr)e-{
*V.l «*•--<*!» Aii [ToT"e-02dT
■e K i ' +
T)J Tj V4 Jo
"*i T0+L
e_(^) dT. (10.24)
The expected duration of a cycle is determined by substituting

Eq. (10.21) into Eq. (10.17), and is given by
r~ = z+
Lcy
i: R(T) dT= L +
i: e {"> dT. (10.25)
The total cost per unit time of operation is now given by
Ct-iv = if-- (10.26)

■ley
where C is given by Eq. (10.24) and T^ is given by Eq. (10.25).
To minimize the total cost per unit time of operation, the optimal
ordering schedule, T*, should be determined. Due to the complexity of
the total cost per unit time of operation equation, numerical computer
optimization is applied. The results are
T; = 23.5 hr, C'T_IV = $1.7133 /hr and Tcy = 29.4630 hr.
10.2.2 AGE REPLACEMENT POLICY WITH

MINIMAL REPAIR-POLICY V
In this policy operating units are replaced by new ones every Tp time;
i.e., at kTp (k = 1,2,3,...). If an item fails, while in operation, before
a time T0 < Tp; i.e., in interval [(k - 1)TP, (k - l)Tp + T0], it undergoes
minimal repair to be brought back into operation while retaining the
same instantaneous failure rate it had just prior to failure. If a failure
occurs in interval [(k- 1)TP + T0, kTp], the failed unit is replaced with a
less reliable spare having a different times-to-failure distribution. If the
unit fails it is replaced as often as necessary with identical spares until
the next scheduled replacement time Tp, as illustrated in Fig. 10.2.

The total maintenance cost per Tp interval, C'T_V, consists of the
scheduled maintenance cost and the corrective maintenance cost. The
latter is composed of repair and spare replacement costs for which an
estimate can be found as the unit fails stochastically. C'T_V can be
formulated by
C'T_V = C, + C2E [N1[0iTo]] +C3E [N2[ToJp]] , (10.27)
where
C\ = scheduled replacement cost,
Tp
■ffl ® ® 1 V V ED »
(k-DTp T0 kTp
® A minimal repair at failure.

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

the "less reliable spares" replacement-Policy V.
C2 = minimal repair cost at failure,
Cz = cost of the spare plus its labor cost,
and
r?o
E[N1[0tTo]]= I °\(T)dT. (10.28)
E[N2[t0,t ]]> tne expected number of spares failing in interval (T0,

Tp) depends on when the original unit that entered the (T0, Tp) interval,
will fail. This can be found by making use of the expected residual life
equation for a stochastically failing item of age T0 > 0.
Let /*', be the expected residual, or left-over life of a unit having
age T0 up to time Tp, given a residual life, r', as shown in Fig. 10.3.
By definition [6, p. 11]
fjp R(T) dT
it = E(t>) = Jt° ^ . (10.29)
Assuming the spares have a constant failure rate A', then

E[N2[To<Tp]} = E{X'[Tp-(T0 + t')}},
= A' E(TP -T0- t'),
"7—&■
«•" "•"
(k-DTD kT„
Fig. 10.3 - Modified age replacement policy with minimal

repair-Policy V.
or
E[N2[To,tp]} = X[Tp-T0-E(t')]. (10.30)
Substituting E[t'] = y! from Eq. (10.29) yields

flPR(T)dT
E[N2{Tojp]] = A' T
±p —T
-l o — (10.31)
R(T0)
Then, the total cost model for maintenance Policy V, per unit time
of operation , or the total cost rate, assuming an infinite time span, a
constant failure rate for spares, and that at least one failure occurs in
(T0, Tp), is given by
CT-v = Y\Cl+C2J^x^dT
f£R(T)dT
+C3 T -T +1 (10.32)
{* R(T0)
It should be noticed that one in the last term of Eq. (10.32) comes
from the assumption that at least one failure occurs in the interval
(T0,Tp). If the expected number of units failing in that interval is very
small adding one failure assures that at least one failure is accounted
for, conservatively.
EXAMPLE 10-3
Units with a gamma times-to-failure pdf are preventively main
tained under the MPRP, using Policy V. The parameters of the gamma
pdf are (5 = 2 and rj = 200 hr. The scheduled replacement cost is
$15. The minimal repair cost at failure is $70. The spare replace
ment cost at failure is $10 and the constant failure rate of the spares is
X' — 0.05 fr/hr. Find the minimum total preventive and corrective cost
per unit time of operation, Cj_v, the optimum planned replacement
time, T*_v, and the optimum switchover time T*.
Theoretically the optimum cost occurs when ^£ and %£?■ are
equated to zero, and T* and T" are found by solving these two equa
tions simultaneously when the other parameters are known. To solve
for the optimum switchover time T*, T* is obtained first using the
OPRP of Policy III, which is a one-parameter policy. Then, substitut
ing Tp* in Eq. (10.32) with the same 13, C\ and C2, T0* will be found as
the value which minimizes further the total cost rate, Cj-v-
To find the T* from the OPRP of Policy III, the gamma times-to-
failure pdf
™=tm(v) " (10-33)

will be used. With /? = 2 Eq. (10.33) becomes
/(r) = ^r«~i (10.34)
The failure rate is given by
XW = n rH + ty (10-35)
V {V + P )
The expected number of repairs in a Tp period, per unit in operation,
is given by
E[NTp] = j " A(T) dT

Jo
T
dT
Jo V (V + T)
Jo V r] + T,
E[NTp] = S _ loge (l + £) (10.36)
Substituting Eq. (10.36) into Eq (10.1), the total cost per unit time of
operation, per unit, for the OPRP, or Policy III, is given by
Ct-iii = y [Cx + C2 p - loge (l + -)]}• (10-37)
The minimum cost, Cj_jjj, and the optimum planned replacement

time, T*_v, can be found by differentiating Ct-iii with respect to Tp
and setting it equal to zero, or
dCr-m
-dT7--~T}+C2
Ci (i-^)rP-[^-l0^1 + ?)] = 0,
or
n
C2
n
T)(V + TP)
-^ + loge(l + ^) (10.38)
A computer iteration with the given values of C\ , C2 and i) for Policy

III, yields
Ct-iii = $0.1821 /hr and T;_IU = 217 hr.
To find the minimum CT_V and the optimum switchover time, T",
for Policy V, follow the same procedure as in the first part of the
solution; then, from Eq. (10.36), the expected number of repairs in a
T0 period is given by
WiVT4) = J-**.(l + j) (10.39)
The expected residual life, /x', is evaluated from Eq. (10.29) after T0 is
determined, or from
, KRJT)dT
n R(T0)
where
R(T) = eS (l + ^),
which is obtained by dividing Eq. (10.34) by Eq. (10.35). Therefore,
(10.40)
e i
Integration of Eq. (10.40), and simplification yields
^' = ^Tt \To + 2v-e-^ (TP + 2V)]. (10.41)

1 + i0 L J
Substituting Eq. (10.41) into Eq. (10.31) yields the expected number
of spares, or
^2[to,tp]] = v{tp-T0-^
Tp-T0
+ 2 17 - e" (T, + 2i>)]] (10.42)
Finally, substituting the Eqs. (10.39) and (10.42) into Eq. (10.32) and
dividing by Tp yields the total preventive and corrective maintenance
cost per unit time of operation, or
CT-v = y{Ci+C2 [^"loge(1 + ^)]+C3{V{Tp

T0 + 2V-e~lRT^ (Tp + 2t?)]}}
—T —
V + T0 [
+ C3 (10.43)
Using the numerical computer optimization with Tp = T* = 160 hr,

yields the minimum preventive and corrective cost per unit time of
operation, and the optimum switchover time, of
Cf_v = $0.1488 /hr and T0* = 77 hr.
Comparing the minimum cost obtained for OPRP of Policy III with
Policy V, it may be seen that Cf_v = 0.1488 < Cj._//7 = 0.1553.
Therefore, a saving is achieved using Policy V.
* -©- &
(k-DTD
® A minimal repair at failure. X Failure.

□ Scheduled replacement with new items. — Idle time.
Fig. 10.4 — Age replacement policy with minimal repairs and

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

REPAIRS AND SYSTEM IDLE TIME-POLICY VI
In this policy operating units are replaced by new ones every Tp time;
i.e., at kTp(k = 1,2, 3, • • •). If an item fails while in operation before a
time T0; i.e., in the interval p - 1)TP, (k - \)TP + T0] it is repaired
minimally and put back into operation, without any change in its fail
ure rate. If a failure occurs after time [(k — l)Tp + T0] and before the
next kTp, leave the system idle (not operating) until the next scheduled
replacement time, Tp, is reached since the repair cost is higher than
the cost of the anticipated short idle time, r, as illustrated in Fig. 10.4.

Policy VI has a cost model similar to Policy V, developed in Section
10.2.2 and stated in Eq. (10.27). The only difference is the last part of
the equation, where instead of the E[Ni[t0,tp]] term the expected idle
time, E[t], term and its associated unit time cost is used; i.e.,
C'T.VI = Ci + G E{N1[0tTo]} + C3 E(t), (10.44)
where C\ and Ci are as given in Eq. (10.27), and C$ is the cost rate
of idle time.
To find an expression for E[t], the average residual life at T0, //,
is used again. Then,
E(t) = E{Tp-(T0 + t')\, (10.45)
where r' is the time from T0 to the next failure as illustrated in

Fig. 10.4. Then,
E(t) = Tp-T0-E(t'). (10.46)
Substituting E(t'), as given by Eq. (10.29), into Eq. (10.46) yields
flp R{T) dT
E{r) = Tp-T0- JTor{tj - (10-47)
Finally, substituting Eqs. (10.47) and (10.28) into Eq. (10.44) yields
the following total preventive and corrective maintenance cost, per unit
time of operation, assuming an infinite time span, for Policy VI:
Ct-vi = y\Ci+C2 C A(T) dT + C* v ° R(T0)
EXAMPLE 10-4
Rework Example 10-3 with a minimum repair cost at failure of
$30. The units are preventively maintained under the MPRP using
Policy VI. The idle time cost is $5 per hour of idle time. Determine
the following:
1. The minimum preventive and corrective maintenance cost per
unit time of operation, CT_VI, the optimum planned replacement
time, T*VI, and the optimum switchover time, T* .
2. The same as in Case 1 for C'z equal to $5, $10, $20 and $30 per
hour of idle time and plot the total preventive and corrective
maintenance cost, Ct-vi, as a function of the switchover time,
T0, for the values of C'z of $5 and $30 per hour of idle time.
1. To obtain T*_VI follow the same procedure as in Example 10-3,

and substitute the parameters /3 = 2, r] = 200 hr, C\ = $10
and Ci = $30 instead. The minimum total cost per unit time of
operation and the optimum planned replacement time are then
found to be
Ct_jjj = $0.09166 /hr and T*_IH = 315 hr.
To find the minimum total cost, Cf_VI, and the optimum switch
over time, T*, follow the same procedure as in Example 10-3.
The total preventive and corrective maintenance cost per unit
TABLE 10.1 — The minimum preventive and corrective

maintenance cost, Cj_VI, the optimum
planned replacement time, T*_VI, and the
optimum switchover time, T*, for given
values of the cost of idle time, C3, for Ex
ample 10—4, Case 2.
C'z Tp-VI T*
*0 Ct-vi
$/hr hr hr $/hr
5 310 304 0.09078

10 310 307 0.09122
20 310 308 0.09147
30 315 314 0.09152
time of operation for an equipment with infinite life time, is given

by
Ct-vi = -H Ci + C2 [^ - loge (l + ^)] + Cj \tp - T0-
T0 + 2r)-e- v (Tp + 2 r?) (10.48)

V + T0
Using numerical computer optimization, the minimum total cost
of the preventive and corrective maintenance per unit time of op
eration, Cj-_VI, the optimum planned replacement time, T*V},
and the optimum switchover time, T*, are found to be
Cf_v/ = $0.09078 /hr, T*_VI = 310 hr, and T0* = 304 hr.
Comparing the minimum cost which was obtained from the OPRP
with that obtained from Policy VI, it may be seen Cj_VI =
0.09078 < C$_jjj = 0.09166. Therefore, a saving is achieved
using Policy VI.
2. Following the same procedure as in Case 1, the minimum pre
ventive and corrective maintenance cost per unit time of opera
tion, Cj_v7, the optimum planned replacement time, T*VI and
the optimum switchover time, T0, are found as given in Table
10.1. It can be observed from Table 10.1 that as the cost of

idle time, C3, increases the optimum switchover time, T", and
the minimum total preventive and corrective maintenance cost,
C^_VI, also increase but at a very slow rate. When the cost
of idle time increases to $30 per hour of idle time and higher,
then T* approaches T*_VI. As a consequence, idle time, r,, or
the time period when the failed unit is kept out of operation
approaches zero. At the same time Cj_VI approaches Cj'_III.
In this case there is no saving in applying Policy VI, and the
ordinary periodic replacement policy, Policy III, should be used.
Figure 10.5 illustrates the behavior of the total preventive and
corrective maintenance cost function per hour of operation with
respect to the switchover time, as discussed previously.
PROBLEMS
10-1. A unit with a Weibull times-to-failure pdf is preventively main

tained under the Ordinary Periodic Replacement Policy- Policy
III. The parameters of the Weibull pdf are 7 = 0, (3 = 2 and
77 = 400 hr. The cost of the planned preventive replacement is
$5 and the cost of a minimal repair is $30. Find (1) the op
timum preventive replacement time, and (2) the minimal total
preventive maintenance cost per unit time of operation.

tained under the Ordinary Periodic Replacement Policy-Policy
$5 and the cost of a minimal repair is $40. Find (1) the op
timum preventive replacement time, and (2) the minimal total
preventive maintenance cost per unit time of operation.
10-3. Units that have a Weibull times-to-failure pdf are preventively

maintained under the Modified Periodic Replacement Policy-
Policy IV with a constant lead time. The parameters of the
Weibull pdf are 7 = 0, 0 = 2 and rj = 400 hr. Cp = $5, Ce = $40,
Cmr = $30, Cr = $20, L = 10 hr and C3 = $0,001 /hr. Find the
minimum total cost per unit time of operation and the ordering
schedule.

Policy IV with a constant lead time. The parameters of the
WeibuU pdf are 7 = 0, /9 = 2 and r? = 300 hr. Cp = $5, Ce = $30,
CmT = $30, CT = $20, L = 15 hr and Cs = $0,001 /hr. Find the
PROBLEMS
s
&
•a
g
200 220 240 260 28C 300 320 340 360
Switchover time, I, hr
T„ = 304 hr
for C, = S5
Fig. 10.5 - The total preventive and corrective maintenance

cost, Ct-vi, as a function of switchover time, T0,
for the values of idle time cost of C3 = $5 and
C'3 = $30 per hour of idle time.
minimum total cost per unit time of operation and the ordering
schedule.

Policy rV with a constant lead time. The parameters of the
Weibull pdf are 7 = 0 and /? = 2. 77 varies from 300 to 500
hr. Cp = $5, Ce - $40, Cmr = $30, Cr = $20, L = 10 hr and
C, = $0.001/hr. Find the minimum total cost per unit time of
operation, the ordering schedule and the expected cycle duration.

Policy TV with constant lead time. The parameters of the Weibull
pdf are 7 = 0, ft = 2 and 77 = 400 hr. Cp = $5, Ce = $40,
Cr = $20, L = 10 hr and C, = $0.001 /hr. Do a sensitivity anal
ysis of the total cost per unit time of operation if the cost of a
minimal repair, Cmr, varies from $30 to $50.
10-7. Units with a gamma times-to-failure pdf are preventively main

tained under the Modified Periodic Replacement Policy-Policy
V. The parameters of the gamma pdf are /? = 2 and 77 = 200 hr.
The scheduled replacement cost is $10. The minimal repair cost
at failure is $50. The spare replacement cost at failure is $40 and
the constant failure rate of the spares is A' = 0.05 fr/hr. The
planned replacement time is Tp = 140 hr. Find the minimum
total preventive and corrective maintenance cost per unit time
of operation, Cj-_v, and the optimum switchover time T*.

V. The parameters of the gamma pdf are (3 = 2 and 77 = 200 hr.
at failure is $50. The spare replacement cost at failure is $40 and
the constant failure rate of the spares is A' = 0.05 fr/hr. The
planned replacement time is Tp = 350 hr. Find the minimum
total preventive and corrective maintenance cost per unit time
of operation, C^_v, and the optimum switchover time T*.

VI. The parameters of the gamma pdf are fi = 2 and 77 = 100
hr. The scheduled replacement cost is $10. The minimal repair
cost at failure is $30. The idle time cost is $2 per hour of idle
time. Find the minimum preventive and corrective maintenance
REFERENCES 357
cost per unit time of operation, Cj_VI, the optimum planned

replacement time, T*_VI, and the optimum switchover time T*.
VI. The parameters of the gamma pdf are /3 = 2 and 77 = 40
hr. The scheduled replacement cost is $10. The minimal repair
cost at failure is $30. The idle time cost is $2 per hour of idle
time. Find the minimum preventive and corrective maintenance
cost per unit time of operation, Cj_VI, the optimum planned
replacement time, T*_VI, and the optimum switchover time T*.
REFERENCES
1. Barlow, R. E. and Proschan, F., Mathematical Theory of Reliability,
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 256 pp., 1965.
2. Kaio, N. and Osaki, S., "Optimal Planned Policies with Minimal Re
pair," Microelectronics k Reliability, Vol. 28, No. 2, pp. 287-293,
1988.
3. Eraclides, S. T., "A Survey and Applications of Alternative Cost Saving
Preventive Maintenance Policies," Master's Research Report submitted
to Dr. Dimitri B. Kececioglu at The University of Arizona, 113 pp.,
1984.
4. Ross, S.M., Applied Probability Models with Optimization Applications,
Holden-Day, San Francisco, 234 pp., 1970.
5. Crk, V., "Optimal Preventive Maintenance Schedule and Spare Provi
sioning Policies," Master's Research Report submitted to Dr. Dimitri
B. Kececioglu at The University of Arizona, 147 pp., 1991.
Chapter 11
MODIFIED BLOCK
REPLACEMENT POLICIES
11.1 ORDINARY BLOCK REPLACEMENT

POLICY-POLICY VII
In the ordinary block replacement policy (OBRP), a unit is replaced
at predetermined time intervals k Tp (k = 1,2,3,...), and at failure
by a new one with an identical times- to-failure distribution. The total
preventive maintenance cost for a period Tp , or for one replacement
period only, for the OBRP, is given by
Ct-vii — Cp + Cc H0(TP), (11.1)
where
Cp = planned replacement cost,
Cc = corrective, or failure, replacement cost,
and
H0(TP) = expected, or mean, number of failures in a period (0,TP),
defined as the ordinary renewal function (ORF) [1, pp. 45-46]. By
definition of an ORF
H0(T) = jC-1H0(s), (11.2)
where
lis)
H0{s) = (11.3)
359
360 MODIFIED BLOCK REPLACEMENT POLICIES
and
/(«) = C[f(T)\ = Laplace transform of f{T). (11.4)
f(T) is the times-to-failure pdf of the unit. Assuming an infinite time
span, or life, of the equipment, the average cost per unit time of oper
ation is given by
Ct-vij = ^r{Cp + Cc H0(TV)}. (11.5)
EXAMPLE 11-1
A unit has a gamma times-to-failure pdf with (3 = 2 and 77 = 200
hr. The unit is preventively maintained under the ordinary block re
placement policy. The planned replacement cost is $10. The corrective
replacement cost is $50. Find the minimum total preventive cost per
unit time of operation for the OBRP and the optimum replacement
time.
With fi = 2, the gamma pdf becomes
f(T) = -2e-~*, (11.6)

T
and its Laplace transform is
'">=(57TIF (u'7)
The Laplace transform of H0{T) is
H0{s) =
5 [1-/00]'
1
•11-^1'
or
H0{s)= l (11.8)
T? sz (77 s + 2)
and its inverse is

MODIFIED BLOCK REPLACEMENT POLICY 361
The expected number of replacements in a Tp interval is given by

tp , i _2 a i
ô(rp) = ^ + - e- - (11.10)
2 77 4 4
The total preventive plus corrective maintenance cost per unit time of
operation, Cr, assuming an infinite time span for OBRP, and using
Eqs. (11.1) and (11.10), is given by
Ct-vii = 7f{Cp + Cc H0(TP)} (11.11)
or
c— £{c'+c-(£+r-'*-i)}- (1112)
The optimum T^ time and the minimal total cost CT_vn can be ob
tained by taking the partial derivative of Cj-vn with respect to Tp,
^f-, setting it equal to zero and solving for T*. Due to the complexity
of the Ct~vii expression, the use of computer optimization will yield
the sought values for T* and CT_VII. The results are
Ct-vii = $0.11874 /hr and T* = 300 hr.
11.2 MODIFIED BLOCK REPLACEMENT

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

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

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

The expected cost per unit time consists of (1) the expected replace
ment cost per unit time, (2) the expected inventory cost per unit time,
and of (3) the expected ordering cost per unit time.
The expected replacement cost per unit time consists of the pre
ventive replacement cost and of the corrective replacement cost due to
failure. Using Eq. (11.5), the expected replacement cost per unit time
for N units is
Cp + Cc H0(TP)
N (11.13)
TP
where H0(TP) is the expected number of failures in period (0, Tv). Each
replacement time Tp, is an ordering time as well. The stock of spares
is raised to a level 5, so that the effect of a random demand, which can
cause the shortage of spares, is minimized. If the demand of spares in
the replacement interval Tp is normally distributed with mean, //, then
H = N II0(TP), (11.14)
and variance
a2 = N Var[H0{Tp)}. (11.15)
The stock level S is now determined by

rS
f
j —<
g(x) dx = 1 - a, (11.16)
where
g(x) = distribution of spares demand,
and
1 - a = assurance level of spares provisioning,
or
S-ft'
$ 1-a. (11.17)
Then, the stock level S is given by

5 = H+ Zl-a <J, (11.18)
where z\-a is obtained from the standard normal distribution's area
tables and the desired assurance level (1 — a).
The inventory cost consists of (1) the holding cost per unit time
of the average level of spares in the stock, (2) the holding cost of the
excess stock due to overstocking of spares, and (3) the backorder, or
shortage, cost per unit time due to understocking of spares.
Suppose that at the beginning of each interval, H0{TP) units are
available, as quantified by Eq. (11.10), then the function of the ex
pected number of replacements at any point in time is given by
H0(TP)-H(T). j (11.19)
Then, the average level of the stock, in time interval Tp, is given by
fp[H0(Tp)-H(T)]dT
(11.20)
and the holding cost of the average level of spares per unit time of
operation for N units is given by
NCh [Tp[H0(Tp)-H(T)]dT,
(11.21)
Jo
where
Ch = holding cost per unit time of operation per one unit.
Excess stock due to overstocking appears when the actual demand

for spares in a cycle is less than the stock level S. Then, the expected
holding cost of the surplus, or excess, stock of spares is given by
Ch / (S - x) g(x) dx. (11.22)

Jo
Similarly, a shortage of spares occurs when the actual demand of spares
in a cycle is higher than the stock level S. Then the expected shortage,
or backorder, cost per unit time of operation is given by
CbJ (x - S) g{x) dx, (11.23)
where
Cb = shortage, or backorder, cost per unit time of operation
per one unit.
If the expected order cost per cycle, Co, is independent of the num
ber of spares ordered; then, the expected ordering cost per unit time
is given by
^- (11-24)
The total cost per unit time is the sum of the costs given by
Eqs. (11.13), (11.21), (11.22), (11.23) and (11.24), or
Cp + Cc H0(TP)
Ctm-viii-\ = N
+^ [Tp[H0(Tp)-H(T)]dT
Jp Jo
+ Ch f (S-x) g(x) dx
Jo
+ Cb (x-S)g{x)dx + -=±,
Js J-v
Cp + Cc H0(TP)
= N
+V^ /"[Ho(Tp)-H(T)}dT
lp Jo
fS rS
+ Ch S g(x) dx -Ch x g(x) dx
Jo Jo
+ Cb xg(x)dx-CbS g(x)dx+^,
JS JS in
cP + cc n0(TP)
= N
NCh [Tp[H0(Tp)-H(T)}dT
+
Jo
+ Ch S - Ch S g(x) dx - Ch x g(x) dx
JS Jo
f°° roo
+ Cbj xg(x)dx-CbSl g(x)dx + Co
T '
Cp + Cc H0{TP)
= N
N Ch £P[H0(Tp)-H(T)]dT
+
+ Ch S — Ch S g(x) dx
Js
-Ch U- / x g(x)dx\
TOO »oO (-<
+ Cb xg(x)dx-CbS g(x)dx+^-,
JS JS in
Cp + Cc H0(TP)
= N
N Ch f'Pr
+-~J0 [H0{Tp)-H{T)}dT
+ ChS-(Ch + Cb) S J g(x) dx-ChU

+ Ch xg(x)dx + Cb Xg(x)dx + ^,
Js Js i»
or
Cp + Cc H0{TP)
Ctm-viii-i = N
N Ch f2?,
+ ~^T~ L \HoiTP)-H{T))dT
+ Ch(S-n)- (Ch + Cb)Sa
#00 c
+ (Ch + Cb) xg(x)dx + -?. (11.25)
Js lv
11.2.1.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE MULTI-PERIOD MODEL-POLICY

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

The replacement related costs per unit time of operation remain the
same as in the single-period model and is given by Eq. (11.13). The
spares are ordered once in k Tp replacement intervals and the distribu
tion of spares demand, g(x), is assumed to be normal with mean
pk = k N H(TP), (11.26)
and variance
a\ = k N Var[H(Tp)], (11.27)
where
k = number of replacement intervals for which the
spares are ordered,
and [1, pp. 45-60]
Var[H(Tp)} = H(Tp)-[H(Tp)]2+2 f " H(Tp-u) h(u)du.(U.28)

Jo
To meet the demand for spares in k Tp replacement intervals at the
desired assurance level, the number of spares, Sk, in stock at the begin
ning of each ordering interval is now determined by using Eq. (11.18),
and is given by
Sk = Vk + Zl-a °k- (11.29)
The average number of spares in interval k Tp is the sum of the average
number of spares in each of k intervals, or
^ I7" X>' Ho(TP) - B(T)\ dT, (11.30)

where j ss 1, 2, • • • , k. Then, the holding cost of the average number of

units in kTp period is
NCh rT *
fY}jH0{Tv)-H{T)]dT. (11.31)
kT„
The holding cost of the excess stock and the backorder cost per unit
time are determined by substituting Eq. (11.29) into Eq. (11.22) and
(11.23), or
Ch lf * {Sk - x) g{x) dx, (11.32)

Jo
and
#O0
Cb / (x - Sk) g(x) dx. (11.33)
Jsk
Since the order for spares is made once in kTp intervals, the ordering
cost per unit time is given by
Co
(11.34)
kT„
The total cost per unit time is the sum of the costs given by Eqs.
(11.13), (11.31), (11.32), (11.33) and (11.34), or
Cp + Cc H0(TP)
Ctm-viii-2 = N
rTB±_
+irr f"'tîH o(TP)-H(T))dT
rc ip Jo J=1
+ Ch (Sk - x) g(x) dx
Jo
#oo
+Cb / (x - Sk) g(x) dx
Jst
Co
+ kT„ (11.35)
As in the single-period model, simplification yields
'Cp + Cc H0(TP)
Ctm-viii-2 = N
+tt^ [T'it\jn.(Tr)-n(T)}dT
K 1-p JO .j
+ Ch(Sk-Hk)-(Cb + Ch)Ska
+ (Cb + Ck)J°°xg(x)dx + ^r. (11.36)
EXAMPLE 11-2
100 units with gamma times-to-failure pdf's are put into operation
at time T = 0. They are replaced according to the OBRP on failure and
at a predetermined time interval Tp. The parameters for the gamma
pdf are (3 = 2 and 7/ = 100 hr. The preventive replacement cost is
Cp = $5. The corrective replacement cost is Cc = $80. The shortage
cost per unit time of operation per one unit, is Cb = 20 $/hr per unit.
The holding cost per unit time of operation per one unit is Ch = Si
/hr. The ordering cost is C0 = $100 /order. It is assumed that the
desired assurance level is 95%. (1) If the order for spares is made every
Tp hr, find the minimal total cost per unit time of operation and the
optimum preventive replacement schedule. (2) Repeat Case 1 when
the order for spares is made every 37^ hr.
From Example 11-1 the expected number of replacements in a Tp
interval is given by Eq. (11.10), or
H^) = T-^\e~2^-\- (1L37)

The mean of the spares demand distribution, g(x), for the multi-period
model, for N units is
*-**(£+k,*-j)- <u-38>
To find the variance of g(x), we have to find the renewal density, h(t),
which is the first derivative of H(t). Then,
*W-yj;(i -«■"*). (1L39)
Substituting H(TP - u) and h(u) into the integral of Eq. (11.28) yields
T 1 fT"\ 1 (T Ax1 "2^ 11 N 2»1 A
I = 2t]Jo
/ [2t}K(Tpp - u)' + -e
4 i 4\ I 1 — e i J du,
1 e -*£
•» ti (r,-«) a»
2r]Jo 2 77 4 4 2 7/ 2 7?
_2 i -2 (Tp~M)
e * e '
+ —r-+ : (fat,
or
7= r2p 3 - —re
+— 3 _2Ii Tp e _22i
•> - —— " . (11.40)
8 r?2 4 17 16 16 8 7?
Substituting Eq. (11.40) into Eq. (11.28), yields the variance of the
spares demand distribution, g(x), or
rp , g 2 " 1
*-»&+*?-* 27? 2 t? 4 4
-aS
+2
4 77 + tt-
e 1
8 t?2 16 16
ê"2 . (11.41)
8 7?
The holding cost per unit time of operation for the multi-period
model can be determined using Eqs. (11.31) and (11.37), or
NChX [T, T e~2« 1

Cm
or
kT,p iml U 7 I 2 77 + 4 4/ 2t? 4~ + 4
dT,
NCh gw-o-ô- »+*?.■*•

CH =
kT,p i=i
T/ 2^ _ ^
+ 8e (11.42)
8
Finally, substituting Eqs. (11.37) and (11.42) into Eq. (11.36), the total
cost model per unit time of operation for N units, and the multi-period
model, is
I--*
Cp + Cc(£, + ie
Ctm- VIII-2 = N
J)
| NCh^ T2
kTp i=\ 4 77
D-f(i-l)
•J
T v 4 8' 8J
+ Ch(Sk-»k)-(Cb + Ch)Ska
MO (~>n
x g(X) ax -t- ■ Co
+ (Cb + Ch)Js xg(x)dx + ¥lr. (11.43)
To get the equation for the single-period model substitute k = 1

into Eq. (11.43). The minimum cost occurs at g%M equal to zero. Due
to the complexity of the Ctm-viii-2^ expression numerical computer
optimization is used to solve for CTM-V/7/-2 anc^ ^j»* ^he resu^s f°r
the single-period model and the multi-period model are the following:
1. For the single-period model
Ctm-viii-i = $36.0846 /hr and IJ = 34 hr.
2. For the multi-period model, with k = 3,
Ctm-viii-2 = $40.0954 /hr and T* = 25 hr.

WITH RECONDITIONED SPARES USE-POLICY IX
11.2.2.1 DESCRIPTION OF POLICY IX
Replace operating items every Tp time; i.e., at k Tp(k = 1,2,3, • • •); if
operating items fail before a time T0\ i.e., in the interval [(/c-1) Tp, (k —
1) Tp + T0)} they are replaced with new identical items; if the failures
are after T0\ i.e., in the interval [(k— 1) Tp + T0,k Tp] then replace with
less reliable reconditioned spares, as illustrated in Fig. 11.1. The total
cost per Tp interval, Ct-ix, is given by
C't-ix = C,+C2 E[N1[0<To]] + C3 E[N2[ToJp]], (11.44)

where
£[JVi] = expected number of failures of new components,
E[N2] = expected number of failures of reconditioned
components.
C\ = planned preventive replacement cost,
C2 = failure replacement cost with a new component,
and
C3 = failure replacement cost with a used component.

The expected number of failures in a (0,TP) period is the sum of the
mean number of failures in (0,To), £[^Vi[o,r«,]]> an°l tne number of fail
ures in (T0,TP), E[N2[To,tp]]-
E[Ni[0,To]\ can be found by using the ordinary renewal function
(ORF), H0, since from r = 0 to r = T0 we have an ordinary renewal
process; i.e., upon failure items are replaced with fresh ones having
identical failure time characteristics. Then,
Wi[o,To]] = H0(T0), (11.45)
where H0(T0) has been defined by Eq. (11.2). E[N2[To,tp]] can be found
by introducing the forward recurrence time (FRT), Vj\
The FRT, Vj, is defined as the time measured forward from T0
to the next renewal. In other words, Vj is the residual life of the
component in use at time T0, as illustrated in Fig. 11.2 (a).
To find the pdf of Vj we have to consider the following: For Vt
that lies in the interval (t',t' + At') either (1) the first component
has failure time in the interval (T0 + r',T0 + ri + Ar'), or (2) for
some u, a renewal occurs in the interval (T0 — u,T0 — u + Au), and
the component that is introduced has a failure time that lies in the
interval (u + t',u + t' + At'), as shown in Fig. 11.2(b).
Therefore, the pdf oi Vt is given by [1, p. 63]
g(VT) = f(T0 + t')+ ( ° h0{T0 - u) /(« + r') du, (11.46)

Jo
where
f(T0 + t') = failure time distribution of the new
components,
_ 1
—^ © © 1 *? E$3-
(K-l)Tp T0 KTp
© Failure replacement with new component, cost Ci

r*f"l Planned replacement with new component, cost C2
\^ Replacement with reconditioned component, cost Cj
Fig. 11.1- Modified block replacement with reconditioned

spares use, for Policy IX.
h0(T0 — u) = renewal density of an ordinary renewal

process defined by [1, p. 54]
and
C~1{ho(s)} = ho(r) in the r time domain.
Another way of defining the ordinary renewal density (ORD), h0(r),
is noting that Eq. (11.47) can be written as
h0(s) = f(s) + h0(s) /(«), (11.48)
and using the fact the Laplace transform of a convolution is the product
of the separate Laplace transforms; then, Eq. (11.48) can be converted
to obtain
Mr) = f(r) + r h0(r - u) /(«) du, (11.49)

Jo
where /(r) and h0(r) are as defined above.
The usefulness of the FRT in the model is that a mean value for
the operation of reconditioned components can be obtained, because
ul
VT r'
■—( Au
ib)
o T0 dt1
a
x Denote renewals .
Fig. 11.2- (a) Forward recurrence time, Vt, for Policy IX;
(b) Parameters and variables used in the deriva
tion of the pdf of Vt for Policy IX.
the pdf of Vt has been established. Here an assumption is also made

that the reconditioned components have a higher but a constant failure
rate, A. This being the case, the number of reconditioned failures can
be estimated using the expectation properties, or
3*PUU1 = A eFp ~ (Vr + To)],
= A {Tp - T0 - E[VT}}, (11.50)
where
E[VT}= I "~ V[/(r' + T0)

Jo
+ / °h0(T0-u)f(u + T')du}dT'. (11.51)
Jo
Substitution of Eq. (11.51) into Eq. (11.50) yields
E[N2[W) = |l + A JTP - T0 - j*'~T° t' [/(r' + T0)
+ j\0(T0-u)f(u + r')du dr'jV (11.52)

assuming an additional reconditioned component is needed for the first

failure of a new component in the period (T0,Tp).
Now, substituting Eqs. (11.52) and (11.45) into Eq. (11.44) yields
the total expected maintenance cost per unit time of operation, assum
ing an infinite time span, or
Ct-ix = Y)Cl + °2 [//o(To)] + ^ {l + A {Tp - T0

rTp-To
- I r' [f(r> + r.)
Jo
+ J ° h0{T0-u) f(u + T')du]dr'}\\. (11.53)
EXAMPLE 11-3
New units have a gamma times-to-failure pdf with 8 = 2 and
rj = 200 hr. The units are preventively maintained under MBRP with
Policy IX. The planned replacement cost is C\ = $10. The failure
replacement cost with a new component is Ci = $50. The failure re
placement cost with a used component is Cj, = $10. The constant
failure rate of the reconditioned units is A' = 0.002 fr/hr. Find the
minimum total preventive and corrective cost per unit time of oper
ation, the optimum planned replacement time, T", and the optimum
switchover time T*.
If the new units have a gamma times-to-failure pdf with 8 = 2,
then
T _x
HT): (11.54)
From Example 11-1

1
/(«) = (11.55)
" (*M+1)2'
Therefore,
h0(s)
i
(n 5+1)2
" 1 i
U> s+1)2
or
1
h0(s) (11.56)
T\ S (7/ 5 + 2)'
Then,
h0(T) = £-1h0(s) = ^-(l-e-2S), (11.57)
and
/l0(T0-«) = -L[l-e-2iZ^].
(11.58)
2 7?
Also, if we substitute T = u + r, we get
/(u + r) = — (« + r) e •> (11.59)
Substituting h0{T0 - u) and f(u + r) into the integral of Eq. (11.46)

yields
rT0 1 _2Oi=i). 1 (M-r')
e " ) — (u + r) e n du,
1 fT°r 2 (T°-"> , [gtzb
= 2^3 7o [1 " e *•](« + r') c - dtl, (11.60)
or
T0 r'
<,. -£.-*{,.-* —+-+1
7/ f? }
U+—+e a
(11.61)
Substituting Q into Eq. (11.46) yields
g(VT) = f(T0 + T') + Q. (11.62)

Subsequently, substituting g(Vx) into Eq. (11.51) yields
£[VT]= [P~ V[/(r' + ro) + Q]dr',

(11.63)
JO
Equation (11.63) can be split up into two integrals, or

/•Tp-To (t'+:t0)
E[Vt)= / rV + ê-^T-V
Jo
-— / T'e i { 2e i + r' + l
2 Wo I
l + - + e" (11.64)
G-0]}*-
Finally,
i -a ^
£[W] = — e~ ! p« - Tp T0 + 7/ (2 Tp - T0 + 2 r,)o]
1 (Tp-r0) (Tv - T0)
+ -e n j i, + 1
+e~'n-l
+ 2(TP - T0) + 2 t?] [e-^-1 } (11.65)
Substituting Eq. (11.65) into Eq. (11.50), the mean number of recon
ditioned unit failures in (T0,TP) can be found from
£[JV2M],ATrr0
1 -Iri
H— e Tp2 - Tp ro + 77 (2 Tp - T0 + 2 9)]
(Tp-To)
e (Tp - To)
+1
2 e •» + «""•» - 1
(T, - r0)2
f 2 (T, - T0) + 2 7?
e * —1 + 1. (11.66)
'»
Finally, substituting Eqs. (11.66) and (11.45) into Eq. (11.44), the
total expected maintenance cost per operating period Tp can obtained,
or
c™-i{c.+*(.-HSH£-i)+c,{Mr,
- T0 + - e'% [rp2 - Tp Ta + r? (2 T, - Tc + 2 r;)]
(iV-r,,)
2 c" +e
h2(T,-T.) + 2ij
[e- — !]']} + l}}- (11.67)
Theoretically, the minimum cost is found when ^f acz are set

BCi and |^£
equal to zero, and the two equations are solved simultaneously for the
optimum switchover time T*. T* will be obtained first using the OBRP,
which is a one parameter policy; then, substituting T* in Eq. (11.67)
with the same 0, C\ and Cj, T* will be found as the value which
minimizes further the total cost rate, Ct-ix- The explicit procedure
and the results are the following:
1. Find the T' using the OBRP, as in Example 11-1, and obtain
Ct-vii = $0.1187 /hr and Tp" = 300 hr.
2. Find the optimum switchover time, and the minimum total pre
ventive and corrective maintenance cost per unit time of opera
tion, and obtain
!
Ct-ix = S0.0998993 /hr and T*0 = 20.92567 hr.
3. Comparing the minimum cost obtained from the OBRP with

that obtained from Policy IX, we find that Cj_vn = 0.1187 >
Ct-ix ~ 0-1094. So a saving is achieved when using Policy IX.
_£=£ Q Q «. £=£__
(K-l)Tp T0 KTp
Q Failure replacement x Failure
r~f~l Planned replacement Idle umc
Fig. 11.3- Multiple block replacement with less reliable

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

WITH IDLE TIME COST-POLICY X
11.2.3.1 DESCRIPTION OF POLICY
This policy is similar to Policy IX in that it also has two time parame
ters: T0, the switchover time and Tp, the regular planned maintenance
time. However, instead of switching over to a less reliable substitute
towards the end of the (0,TP) interval as in Policy IX, the equipment
is left idle until Tp, the planned replacement time. It is assumed that
the idle time cost is less than the corrective action cost. Policy X can
be stated as follows:
Replace operating item by new ones every Tp time; i.e., at k Tp(k =
1,2,3, • • ■); if operating items fail before time T0; where (k - 1) Tp <
T0 < k Tp, then replace with new identical ones; if components fail
after T0\ i.e., in the interval [(k - 1) Tp + T0; k Tp], the equipment is
left idle; i.e., no corrective maintenance action is undertaken until the
scheduled Tp replacement time, as illustrated in Fig. 11.3.

The total maintenance cost per period Tp, Ct, consists of the planned
replacement cost C\, the corrective replacement cost per failure, C2,
and the system idle, or downtime, cost per unit idle time, C3, or
CT-x = C, + C2 E[N[0J]] + C3 E[rt), (11.68)
where
r, = idle time, and {Tp — T0) > r,-.
Fig. 11.4- Idle and forward recurrence times for Policy X.
Note that from time k Tp to (k Tp + T0) ordinary renewal process

takes place, similar to the one discussed in Section 11.2.2, since at
failure a new unit of zero age is substituted which is identical to the
failed one. The expected number of failures E[N[0 «] can be found
using Eq. (11.45), or
E[N[q,to]] = H0(T0), (11.69)
where H0(T0) is the renewal function already defined in Eq. (11.2).
To obtain the expected idle time, £[r,], note that it corresponds to
the mean left over time from the first failure in (T0, Tp) to Tp, or
E[Ti] = E[Tp-T'}, (11.70)
as illustrated in Fig. 11.4.
t' was named the forward recurrence time, or residual life of the
component at T0, or Vf in Policy IX; then,
E[Ti} = E[Tp-r'-T0),
= TP-T0-E[rl
or
E[Tt} = Tp-T0-E[VT]. (11.71)
^[Vj] was derived in Section 11.2.2 and given by Eq. (11.51) as
E[VT] = fTp~T° r> [ f(rf + T0) + fT° h0(To - u)
Jo Jo
•f{u + T')du]dT'. (11.72)
Thus, the expected idle time per period Tp is given by
rTp-T0
E[r,} = TP-T0- f{r' + T0)
Jo
+ j\0(T0-u)f(u + T')du] dr'. (11.73)

and the total-cost model per unit time of operation, Ct, assuming an
infinite time span, is given by
CT-x = Y}Ci+ °2 Ho{To) + Cz {Tp ~ T°
- I T> W + To)
Jo
+ J ° h0{T0 - u) /(« + r') du } dr'\ I. (11.74)
EXAMPLE 11-4
Work out the same problem as in Example 11-3, but when the
units are preventively maintained under MBRP with Policy X, and (1)
the idle time cost is $5 per hour, and also when (2) the idle time cost
is $50 per hour.
Following the same procedure as in Example 11-3, the total pre
ventive and corrective maintenance cost per unit time of operation, for
an equipment with infinite life time of operation, is
T0 1,.. — 22'">
â
Ct-x = =r { Ci + C2 (1 - e i )] + C3|j
*{<
- T0 + - e~* [Tp2 - Tp T0 + r, (2 Tp - T0 + 2 V)}
V
1 (TP-T0) ( I
~2e" " {r)l(TP-T0)- + l}
- [1 (T, - T0)2 + 2 (Tp - T0) + 2 r?
■ £ - m (11.75)
The T* and the Cj_VII using the OBRJP, as was done in the Ex
ample 11-1, are
Ct-VU = $0.11874 /hr and T* = 300 hr.

PROBLEMS 381
The optimum switchover time, T*, and the minimum total preven
tive and corrective maintenance cost per unit time of operation are the
following:
(1) C3 = $5 per hour, C?_x = S0.10926 /hr and T0* = 293.75 hr.
(2) C3 = $50 per hour, Ct-x = $0.11874 /hr and T* = 300 hr.
Comparing the minimum cost obtained from the OBRP with that
from Policy X (with the idle time cost $5 per hour), we find that
Cf-vn - 0.11874 > C?_x = 0.10926. So a saving is achieved when
using Policy X. It must be pointed out that there may be no such
savings if the cost of idle time, per hour of idle time, is substantially
large and T0 < Tp. It can be seen that when the idle time cost is $50
per hour the switchover time is equal to the planned replacement time.
That means Policy X can't apply. Therefore the units are actually
maintained under the OBRP.
PROBLEMS
11-1. A unit has a gamma times-to-failure pdf with /? = 2 and rj =

100 hr. The unit is preventively maintained under the Ordinary
Block Replacement Policy. The planned replacement cost is $10.
The corrective replacement cost is $50. Find the minimum total
preventive maintenance cost per unit time of operation for this
policy and the optimum replacement time.
11-2. A unit has a gamma times- to-failure pdf with /3 = 2 and 17 =
50 hr. The unit is preventively maintained under the Ordinary
Block Replacement Policy. The planned replacement cost is $10.
The corrective replacement cost is $50. Find the minimum total
preventive maintenance cost per unit time of operation for this
policy and the optimum replacement time.
11-3. 100 units with gamma times-to-failure pdf's are put into opera
tion at time T = 0. They are replaced according to the Ordinary
Block Replacement Policy on failure and at a predetermined time
interval Tp. The parameters for the gamma pdf are (3 = 2 and
r) = 100 hr. The preventive replacement cost is Cp — $5. The
corrective replacement cost is Cc = $80. The shortage cost per
unit time of operation per one unit, is C\> = $20 /hr per unit. The
holding cost per unit time of operation per one unit is Ch = $1
/hr. The ordering cost is C0 = $500 /order. It is assumed that
the desired assurance level is 95%. (1) If the order for spares is
382 MODIFIED BLOCK REPLACEMENT POLICIES
made every Tp hours, find the minimal total cost per unit time
of operation and the optimum preventive replacement schedule.
(2) Repeat Case 1 when the order for spares is made every 4 Tp
hours.
11-4. Work out Problem 11-3 again but for rj = 200, r) = 100 hr and
t] — 50 hr. (1) Find the optimal number of replacement intervals
which minimizes the total cost per unit time of operation. (2) For
each solution of Case 1 determine the number of required spares,
Sk, in stock at the beginning of each interval.
11-5. 100 units with gamma times-to-failure pdf's are put into opera
tion at time T = 0. They are replaced according to the Ordinary
Block Replacement Policy on failure and at a predetermined time
interval Tp. The parameters for the gamma pdf are (3 — 2 and
77 = 100 hr. The preventive replacement cost is Cp = $5. The
corrective replacement cost is Cc = $80. The shortage cost per
unit time of operation per one unit, is Ct = $20 /hr per unit. The
holding cost per unit time of operation per one unit is Ch — $1
/hr. The ordering cost is C0 = $100 /order. It is assumed that
the desired assurance level is 95%. (1) If the order for spares is
made every Tp hours, find the minimal total cost per unit time
of operation and the optimum preventive replacement schedule.
(2) Repeat Case 1 when the order for spares is made every 5 Tp
hours.
11-6. Work out Problem 11-5 again for the desired assurance levels of
90% and 99%. (1) Find the optimal number of replacement in
tervals which minimizes the total cost per unit time of operation.
(2) For each solution of Case 1 determine the number of required
spares, Sk, in stock at the beginning of each interval.
11-7. New units have a gamma times-to-failure pdf with (3 = 2 and 77 =
200 hr. The units are preventively maintained under Modified
Block Replacement Policy-Policy IX. The planned replacement
cost is C*i = $10. The failed unit's replacement cost with a new
component is Ci — $50. The failed unit's replacement cost with
an used component is C3 = $20. The constant failure rate of
the reconditioned units is A' = 0.05 fr/hr. Find the minimum
total preventive and corrective maintenance cost per unit time of
operation, the optimum planned replacement time, T*, and the
optimum switchover time T*.
1 1-8. New units have a gamma times-to-failure pdf with (3 = 2 and 77 =
100 hr. The units are preventively maintained under the Modified
Block Replacement Policy-Policy IX. The planned replacement
REFERENCES 383
cost is C\ — $10. The failed unit's replacement cost with a new

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

- POLICY XI
12.1.1 INTRODUCTION
In Chapter 9 block and age preventive replacement policies were dis
cussed. There may be some situations, however, in which neither of
these policies may be applied. For example, the age-based preventive
replacement policy can not take advantage of periods when replace
ment is particularly cheap, and it may be difficult to schedule several
replacements at the same time. Also, after an in-service failure, the
block policy may result in the replacement of a nearly new component.
To overcome these disadvantages, Woodman [1] proposed a method
by which the drawbacks of both policies can be avoided. In fact the
policy that is developed includes the age and the block replacement
policies as its special cases. The improvement is brought about by
the simple expedient of replacing a component after a failure, but not
always replacing it when other replacement opportunities occur. Such
policies, where replacement is not obligatory at every opportunity, are
called Optional Replacement Policies. There are many industrial sit
uations in which optional policies are relevant. For example, a plant
is frequently operated on a semi-continuous basis with regular shifts
provided for maintenance; these present opportunities for preventively
maintaining due components. An Optional Replacement Policy is re
quired under these conditions since it would rarely be economical to
replace all components at every maintenance shift, because not all of
385
386 ADDITIONAL MAINTENANCE POLICES
them will have reached and/or exceeded their prespecified replacement

age.
General results about the best optional policies have been obtained
for components that deteriorate as they age [1]. It is found that the
best policy is to replace the component if its age reaches or exceeds a
preventive replacement age, otherwise to defer replacement. This result
applies, whether an age-based policy is being considered where planned
replacements occur at random or are entirely regular.
By examining two models in detail, optimal replacement rules have
been obtained for situations where the interval between replacement
opportunities, Tro, has a negative exponential distribution, or is en
tirely regular; i.e., constant.
12.1.2 POLICY PRINCIPLE

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

REPLACEMENT POLICY AND BLOCK, AGE AND
PURE CORRECTIVE REPLACEMENT POLICIES
1. The Block Replacement Policy, regular or random, corresponds
to an Optional Replacement Policy with a preventive replacement
age of zero, or Tp-xi = 0. This is the case when the component
fails before the arrival of, but very close to, the next replacement
opportunity, keeping in mind that in block replacement Tp is the
equipment's operating time whereas here it is the equipment's
age.
2. The Pure Corrective Replacement corresponds to an Optional
Replacement Policy with a preventive replacement age of infinity,
or Tp-xi = oo.
3. The Age Replacement Policy corresponds to a limiting case of the
Optional Replacement Policy when times between opportunities
approach zero (very frequent replacement opportunities), because
the Age Replacement Policy requires that the replacement oppor
tunity is always available at its preventive replacement age.
Opportunities
Residual life
<— after crossing the
— threshold age, Tpxi
Operating time
Fig. 12.1- Realization of an Optional Replacement Policy

with an age threshold, Tp_x/, for preventive re
placement.
i
12.1.4 ASSUMPTIONS FOR THE COST MODEL

The foUowing assumptions need to be made to develop the cost model
for the Optional Replacement Policy [1]:
1. Although the system to be maintained can consist of many com

ponents, it is assumed that a failure and the costs associated with
failure and replacement are independent of other component fail
ures. This condition is sufficient to ensure that each component
can be considered in isolation.
2. The failure of any component causes a system failure. Sys

tem with standby components or with built-in redundancy are
thereby excluded. In addition, a system which has to be in
spected to check whether or not it is still operational is also
excluded.
3. Both corrective and planned preventive replacements are made
with statistically identical components or by repair to the "as
good as new" condition, and their durations are negligible as
compared to the system operating time.
4. The population of replacement components and those in service
are homogeneous with an increasing failure rate.
5. The state of a component is specified only by its age which is

always known.
12.1.5 COST MODEL WHEN THE INTERVAL BETWEEN

OPPORTUNITIES IS EXPONENTIALLY
DISTRIBUTED
In practice, opportunities for replacement may arise from many inde
pendent sources. For example, some might arise from breakdowns of
other parts of the plant, or be the natural production breaks between
batches. The superimposition of several such independent sources gives
rise to intervals between opportunities which can be represented by a
negative exponential distribution, or the opportunity process follows a
Poisson process.
When the interval between replacement opportunities, TT0, is expo
nentially distributed with a constant appearing rate, u, the expected
replacement cost per unit time, C(Tp_x/), is
, mean total cost in one renewal cycle
p~ mean length of one renewal cycle
where
mean total cost in one renewal cycle
= mean total corrective replacement cost before Tp-xi is reached
+mean total preventive and corrective replacement cost
after Tp_x/ is reached,
or
mean total cost in one renewal cycle
= N Ce + [(1 - u I) Ce + % • J-Cp],
and
mean length of one renewal cycle
= mean time to the preventive replacement age
-f mean time the component remains above the
preventive replacement age,
or
mean length of one renewal cycle
= L + l,
and
Cp = preventive replacement cost,
Cc = corrective replacement cost,
Tp-xi - prescribed threshold age, or preventive replacement
age,
N — mean number of failures before the preventive
replacement age, Tp-xi, is reached,
or
1 - R(Tp.XI)
N = (12.1)
R(TP-xi) '
L — mean time to the preventive replacement age,
or
fo>-x'R(t)dt
I = (12.2)
R{TP-xi) '
/ = mean time the system remains above the preventive
replacement age,
or
and
u ■ I — (mean number of preventive replacements above Tp-xi) ,
< l(at most 1).
Then, the mean total replacement cost per unit time of operation,
C(Tp-xi), is given by
C(TP_X/) = [N-Cc + (l-u- l)Cc + u-l- CP}/(L + I). (12.4)
Equation (12.1) can be derived as follows:
The number of trials to reach the specified preventive replace
ment age Tp-xi is a geometric process with the success probability
of R(Tp-xi) and the failure probability of 1 — R(Tp-xi) f°r each trial.
Note that the last trial is always a success trial preceeded by several
failure trials. Each one of these preceeding failure trials consists of a
failure event occurring prior to age Tp followed by replacing the failed
unit by a fresh one. The success trial always ends up with a unit still
surviving at age Tp. The mean number of failures before a specified
age Tp-xi is reached, N, is given by
N = f^k{[l-R(Tp_Xj)]kR(Tp-xi)},
00
= j>[l- XiT,-xi)]k RP^xi),
jt=i
or
N = R{Tp-xi) [1 - R(TP.XI)] ]T k [1 - R(TP-XI)] k-\

k=l
Since
1 - R{Tp.Xi) = F(Tp-xi),
then
oo
TV = R(TP.XI) F{Tp-xi) X> [F{Tp_XI)]k-\
k=\
= R(Tp.xi) F(Tp-xi) Jtjj^J -JF(TP-X])]h,
£J dF{Tp-xi)
A I
= R{TP.XI) F{Tp.xl) dF{Tp_xi) [Y,[F(Tp.XI)}k
F{TP.XI)
= R(TP.XI) F(TP_XI)
dF(Tp.XI) 1 - F(TP,XI)
1-F(TP-XI) + F(TP.XI)
= R(TP.XI) F(TP.XI)
[1 - F{TP.XI)Y '
= R(TP.XI)[1-R(TP.XI)} l
[R(Tp-xiW
or
1 - R(TP.XI)
N =
R(TP.XJ)
Equation (12.1) can also be derived directly as follows:
The mean number of trials to reach the preventive replacement
age Tp_x/ is the mean of the geometric distribution with the success
probability of R(Tp^Xj) for each trial, or
1
R(Tp-XiY
Since the last trial in a geometric process is always a success trial,
then the mean number of failures before the preventive replacement
age Tp-Xi is reached, N, is given by
N = 1 -i,
R{TP-Xi)
or
1 - R(TP.XI)
N
R{TP-xi) '
The time for the component to reach the preventive replacement
age Tp-xi, starting at age of zero, is the so-called first passage time.
The mean time to reach the preventive replacement age Tp-Xi, L, is
the sum of the mean time of the first N failure trials and the length of
the success trial (the last trial) which is always Tp-Xj; i.e.,
L = (mean number of failures before the preventive
replacement age Tp-Xi is reached) x (mean
conditional life for each failure trial) + Tp-Xj,
1 - RjT^xi) [Jop-XITf(T)dT
+ TP ■XI,
R{TP-Xi) 1 - R(TP.XI)
..i. _
or
fop-XI T f(T) dT
L = + Tp-xi-
R(Tp-xi)
The term for the mean conditional life is actually the mean life of the
truncated time-to-failure distribution or f(T) truncated at Tp-xi- But
/ T f(T) dT = T d[-R(T)]
Jo Jo
Integrating by parts yields
'rT, T d[-R(T)] = -T R(T) P + / R(T) dT,
o ° Jo
or
/ " X' T f(T) dT = -Tv.xi ■ R(Tp-xi) + [ '"*' R(T) dT.
Jo Jo
Therefore,
_ -Tp.xi ■ R(Tp-xi) ± I0p-XI R(T) dT
L = + TtP-xi,
R(Tp-xi)
-Tp-xi ■ R{Tp-xi) + Tp-xi • R(Tp-xi) + Jop-XI R{T) dT
R{Tp-xi)
or
fr-XI R(T) dT
L =
R{Tp.xi) '
After the preventive replacement age Tp-xi iS reached, the com
ponent will be replaced either correctively whenever it fails, or pre
ventively once the opportunity occurs, whichever comes first. This
replacement process can be considered as a "reliabilitywise-in-series"
process with the "component failure" and the "opportunity arrival"
as its "components." Then, the process reliability in a mission time t,
after the preventive replacement age Tp-xi is reached, is given by
R(Tp_xi ± t) -u t
R process w- R(Tp-xi)
where e~u ' is used for the residual (conditional) life reliability of the
opportunity, since the exponential distribution is assumed for the time-
to-opportunity arrival.
Therefore, the mean time the component remains above the pre
ventive replacement age, /, is given by
MO
/ = / -%>rocess(0 dt,
or
-l R(Tp-xi + t)
R(TP-xi)
e~u ' dt,
I = jH R(Tp.Xi + t) e"u ' dt /R(TP.XI)
EXAMPLE 12-1 [1]
The time to failure of a component follows a gamma distribution

with a shape parameter /3 = 10. Then,
1 fT\P~l t
1 e ■»,
VT(10) \v r
or
TV-
f(T) — I e i .
r?(9!)
The time between preventive replacement opportunities, TT0, is expo

nentially distributed with an appearing rate of u. Do the following:
1. Analyze the behavior of the Optional Replacement Policy by
varying the ratio of preventive replacement age to the mean time
to failure, Tp_x//m, and letting the mean interval between pre
ventive replacement opportunities, J, be equal to the mean time
to failure, or
- = 0 « = 10 ».
u
2. Determine the effect of different replacement opportunities on
the best preventive replacement age.
!
3. Discuss the results.
__.!___
Cost with no planned replacements
Ratio of preventive replacement age to mean time to failure
Fig. 12.2- Performance of an optional policy with exponen

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

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

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

OPPORTUNITIES IS ENTIRELY REGULAR
Regular replacement opportunities could arise in practice when main
tenance has to be carried out at weekends or other regular intervals,
for the convenience of operation or production. When the interval
between replacement opportunities, TT0, is regular, then
TT0 = constant.
To quantify the replacement cost between two adjacent replacement
opportunities, assume that the initial age of the component at the
beginning of an opportunity interval is To- Then,
C{Tp-xii To) = expected replacement cost per unit time,
expected replacement cost in one opportunity interval
expected length of one opportunity interval
or
nlrr rj, v Cc ■ H(TTO\T0) + Cp ■ PTro{Tv-xi\To) moo
C{-Lp-xi,-io) = ™ , 1.12.0J
■Lto
where
H(Tto\Tq) = expected number of failures in interval Tro, with
immediate replacement, starting with a
component of age To- H{Tt0\Tq) can be
generated by the following recurrence
relationship:
H{TT0\TQ) = *g$lH(TT0 - 1|T0+ 1)
{ H(0\To) = 0, for all To > 0,
(12.6)
and
Pxro(y|To) = probability of a component having an age of Y
at the end of an interval of length Tro given
that it had an age To initially. Pjro(y|To) can
be generated from the following recurrence
relationship :
PTro(Y\To) = PTro-i(Y\TQ + l)2$$-
+PTro.l(y|0)ôô±ili
0,
« = {«:
Po(Y\T0) =
otherwise.
(12.7)
EXAMPLE 12-2 [1]

Repeat Example 12-1, but with a constant time between opportu
nities, TT0.
1. Figure 12.3 shows, as Fig. 12.2, the average cost rate for an Op
tional Replacement Policy expressed as the ratio of the cost of
implementing the optional replacement policy to that with no
planned replacements at all (pure corrective replacements). A
major feature of Fig. 12.3 is the step at a preventive replacement
age ratio of 1.00. This occurs because consecutive replacements
are prevented when the preventive replacement age exceeds the
interval between planned replacements.
Comparing Fig. 12.3 with Fig. 12.2 yields the following conclu
sions:
(a) The costs are lower when the replacement opportunities are
regular and the same preventive replacement age is in force.
(b) The best preventive replacement age for any cost ratio when
the replacement opportunities are regular is lower than that
for the case when replacement opportunities are exponen
tially distributed.
2. The effect of different frequencies of replacement opportunities on

the best preventive replacement age is shown in Table 12.2. The
format is exactly the same as that for Table 12.1 in Example
12-1. The table was not extended to cover the more frequent
replacement opportunities since the same pattern is obtained as
in Table 12.1 of Example 12-1. The general conclusions about
the factors which affect the best preventive replacement age are
unchanged. Perhaps the most striking aspect of the comparison
is that the results are so similar.
i _
Cost with no planned replacements
Ratio of preventive replacement age to mean time to failure
Fig. 12.3- Performance of an optional policy with regular

opportunities of Example 12-2, where Cr = 1.
TABLE 12.2- The effect of replacement opportunity frequency

on the ratio of preventive replacement age to the
inherent mean life of the component, Tp-xi/m,
when the replacement opportunity is regular, for
Example 12-2.
Cp/Gc
Ratio C*Ht 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.05 0.01
0.25 0.90 0.70 0.60 0.50
0.40 0.20 0.10 0.05 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.00 0.96 0.58 0.42 0.25 0.21 0.17
0.46 0.25 0.17 0.06 0.02 0.00
0.05 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
f Cr = ratio of mean time to failure to the constant interval

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

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

The following conditions are required for the optimum policy's exis
tence [1]:
1. Cc/Cp > 1.
2. The failure rate function of the component increases with age.
12.1.8 SPARES REQUIREMENT MODEL

For any given operating time period, (0,<), the total average number
of spares of the component initially aged To, Nsp, required for both
corrective and preventive replacements in operating period t of one
component can be determined as follows [2]:
l
1. If TT0 is exponentially distributed, then

operating time
NSp =
average length of one renewal cycle
X (average number of corrective plus
preventive replacements in one
renewal cycle),
or
Nsp= (jjj) (N + l). (12.8)
2. If Tro is a constant, then

N sp — (number of opportunity intervals in operating
time t) X (average number of corrective plus
preventive replacements in one opportunity
interval),
or
Nsp = 7^-[H(Tro\T0) + PTro(Tp-xi\T0)). (12.9)
The actual number of spares, at a desired confidence level, CL —

1 — a, can be obtained by solving Eq. (12.10) for Nsp for both cases;
i.e.,
CL = i2e~"spi-^r-- (12-10)
,=0 J-
12.1.9 RELIABILITY MODEL UNDER THE POLICY

The improved reliability of a component under the Optional Replace
ment Policy, lZ(t), can be determined as follows:
1. When Tro is exponentially distributed:
(a) If Tp-.xi < 1/", then

H(t)*[R(l/u)yR(T), (12.11)
where
j = INT(t ■ u),
t = t- (l/u)j,
and
INT(t • u) = integer part of (t ■ u) rounded
to the next lower integer value.
(b) If Tv.xi > I/", let k = INT(Tp-xi ■ «j and
,,_/*, ifrp_^7-(l/u). INT(TP.XI ■ u) = 0,

\k + 1, if Tp-xi -(!/«)• INT(Tp-xru)>0.
Then,
Tl(t) £ [R(K/u)YR(t), (12.12)
where
j = INT{t/(K/u)},
and
r = < - (ir/U)i.
2. When Tro is constant:
(a) If Tp_;a < TTO, then,

ft(t) = [R(Tro)Y ■ R(t), (12.13)
where
j = INT(t/TT0),
and
r = t - j ■ Tro.
(b) If Tp-x; > Tro, let K = INT(Tp-xi/TT0), and

/ /:, if rp_x/ - Tro • INT(Tp.xi/TT0) = 0,
* " \ * + 1, if rp_;a - Tro • INT(Tp-xi/Tro) > 0.
Then,
7e(0 = [i?(A'-rro)p'.JR(r), (12.14)
where
j = INT(t/K-Tro),
and
T = t-(K-Tro)-j.
12.1.10 CONCLUSIONS AND COMMENTS ON THE

POLICY
1. The most important factor in determining the best preventive
replacement age is the cost ratio, Cp/Cc.
2. The best preventive replacement age increases as replacement
opportunities become more frequent.
3. The costs are lower when the replacement opportunities are reg
ular and the same preventive replacement age is in force.
4. The best preventive replacement age for any cost ratio is lower
when the replacement opportunities are regular.
5. When Tp_x/ —► 0, the Optional Replacement Policy reduces to
a Block Replacement Policy, regular or random.
6. When Tp-xi —* oo, the Optional Replacement Policy reduces
to a Pure Corrective Replacement.
7. When the times between opportunities TT0 —► 0 (very frequent
replacement opportunities), the Optional Replacement Policy re
duces to an Age Replacement Policy.
8. This policy is based on the assumption that the considered com
ponent is economically independent of the rest of the components
in the parent system. Therefore, the policy is optimized solely for
the considered component excluding the cost factor due to joint
replacement with its "neighbors." To avoid this drawback, the
Opportunistic Replacement Policy for economically- dependent-
component systems was proposed and is presented later in this
chapter.
12.2 MULTISTAGE REPLACEMENT POLICY

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

fiers or electric light bulbs, which have a distributed life. // items in
some locations are more expensive to replace than in others, a simple
corrective replacement is not necessarily the most economical policy.
This situation may arise in practice because some parts of the sys
tem are inaccessible or because failures in key positions have expensive
repercussions in other parts of the system. Let us consider one of the
simplest models of this kind. Suppose that the N items can be divided
into two groups of sizes JVi and JV2 where (N\ + N2) = N . Let the
cost of replacing a member of the first group be Cj\ and the cost of
replacing a member of the second group be C/2-
If the failure rate of the items increases with age, that is, the older
the item becomes, the more likely it is to fail, and Cj\ > Cji because
failures among the first group items incur extra costs by causing dam
age to other parts of the system, then it seems reasonable to suppose
that the following strategy would reduce the overall replacement costs.
Replace all failures in the second group (hereafter called Stage 2) by
items already operating in the first group (Stage 1). Fill all the vacan
cies in Stage 1 by new items, whether the vacancy is caused by failure
or by transfer to Stage 1. It is clear that such a strategy cannot affect
the overall failure rate, or the failure rate of the whole system. It will,
however, decrease the failure rate in Stage 1, where replacement of fail
ures is relatively expensive, at the price of increasing the failure rate
in Stage 2 where replacement is cheaper. If we assume that the cost of
transferring an item from Stage 1 to Stage 2 is small compared with
Cji, such a policy will result in a net saving over simple replacement.
A strategy of this kind will be described as "two-stage replacement."
It may be represented diagrammaticaUy by Fig. 12.4.
STAGE 1 Failures
New
components in Stage 1
Transfer of operating components

in Stage 1 to Stage 2
V
STAGE 2
Failures
A2
in Stage 2
C
'fl
Fig. 12.4- Two-stage replacement policy.
12.2.2 PRINCIPLE OF THE POLICY

In this policy [3; 4; 5] a system containing N identical components
is considered. These N components are divided into "n" groups or
stages of sizes, N\, IVj, • • • , Nn, depending upon the cost of replacing
a component upon failure. Assume that the replacement costs per
component, in each group, are C/i,C/2,-- -,Cfn, respectively, and let
Cj\ > Cj2 > • • • > Cfn- Then the replacements are performed as
follows:
All failures in Stage (» + 1) are replaced by components already
operating in Stage t where 1 < i < n — 1. All vacancies in Stage i,
caused by failures and transfers of components into Stage (i + 1) are
replaced by components operating in Stage (t — 1). This process is
continued until Stage 1 is reached, where all vacancies resulting from
transfers and failures are replaced by new components. In Stage n all
failures are replaced by transferring components from Stage (n - 1);
there is no transfer of components from this stage. In this strategy,
new components enter only into Stage 1. The policy cannot change
the overall failure rate, but it certainly can decrease the failure rate in
Stage i at the expense of increasing the failure rate in Stage (i + 1).
The transfers can be made according to one of the following two rules:
1. Transfer by age — the oldest working component in Stage i is
transferred to Stage (i + 1). Therefore, every component in Stage

(i + 1) is older than any component of Stage i.
2. Transfer at random — pick arbitrarily a working component from

Stage i and transfer it to Stage (t + 1).
The objective of this policy is to find out the optimum grouping

(replacement cost order: increasing or decreasing; group composition:
number of components in each stage) to assure that the Multistage
Replacement Policy is preferable to corrective replacement.
12.2.3 THE COST MODEL

The total expected cost of replacement per unit time of operation, in
the case of the n-stage replacement policy, Cn, is given by [4]
Cn = total corrective replacement cost

+ total transfer cost
+ total capital cost,
or
n-l
Cn = [(N/m - ft Pit2)Cfi + £(tf,-i K-U ~ Ni P«.«+i)C/-
t=2
n-l
+JVn_i />„_,,„ Cjn] + Yl Ni P«. •+! C«. »+l
1=1
+(N/m)Cc, (12.15)
where
Pi, i+i — transfer rate, or transfers/(component)- (hr),

or expected number of transfers from Stage t to
Stage (t + 1), per component, per unit time of
operation,
Ct, (+i = cost of transferring one component from Stage i
to Stage (i + 1),
m = mean life of a component,
or
m = [°° R(T)dT, (12.16)

Jo
and
Cc = capital cost of a component.
The transfer rate, P{i t+i, depends on the transfer rule and the
life distribution of the components considered, and is determined as
follows:
1. If transfer is made by age; i.e., the oldest component in Stage i
is transferred to Stage (i + 1), then P,-, ,+i can be obtained by
eliminating T, between the following two equations:
+ Nn)/ZN
t=i (12.1/)
Ni Pi, i+, = (5) R(Ti),
where T, is the critical age for a component in Stage i. The
critical age for a component in Stage i is defined as the limiting
age of the components in Stage i when the system approaches its
steady state; i.e, when the system approaches its steady state,
the age of each component in Stage i will be less than T,. Solving
Eq. (12.17) yields
E "i
Pi, i+1 - Ni m
E »i (12.18)
Ti R -l ~7T
V
where R-1( ) is the inverse function of a component's reliability
function.
2. If transfer is made at random, then P\t 2, Pi, t+i(i = 2, • • • , n — 1 )
and Pn_it n are given by
' /0°° R(T)e-^T dT = (Ni/N)m,
< /0°° R(T)e-p>,<+>T dT = Ni/(Ni-i P,-i, ,), (12-19)
/0°° R(T) dT = Nn/(Nn-i Pn_!, „).
EXAMPLE 12-3
Assume TV components have an exponential life distribution with
failure rate A. Find the transfer rate P1( 2 for the Two-stage Replace
ment Policy with N\ and iVj components at Stage 1 and Stage 2,
respectively, if
(1) transfer is by age,

and
(2) transfer is at random.

For the exponential life distribution, the reliability function is
R(T) = e~x T,
and the mean life is

m = 1/A.
Since there are only two stages, then n = 2.
1. If transfer is by age, then let i = 1 in Eq. (12.18) and solve for
A,2! i-e.,
j=i+i _ N2
Pl,2 =
Nxm ~ Nx (1/A)'
or
N2
Pi ,2 = -rr- A,transfers/(component)- (hr).
2. If transfer is at random, then from Eq. (12.19)
Jo N
or
1 AT,
A + Pi,2 A N
Then, since N = Nt + N2,
Pi-2 - ~iv7"A - n; a-
EXAMPLE 12-4
There are ten (10) interchangeable, non-screened, line-replaceable
units (LRU's) in a complex electronic system. According to their
failure replacement cost, they can be divided into the following two
groups:
-108 ADDITIONAL MAINTENANCE POLICES
1. Group 1: Ni = 4 with C/i=$250 per failure.

2. Group 2: 7V2 = 6 with C/2=$600 per failure.
The capital cost of each LRU is Cc=$200. Each transfer costs S25.
The life distribution of these non-screened LRU's is mixed expo
nential with mean life of m = 1,000 hr, or
f(T) = Pl (A, e-Al r) + (1 - pO (A2 e"A2 T) ,
where Xt = 0.01 fr/hr, A2 = 0.000909 fr/hr and ft = 0.10. Do the

following:
1. Derive the transfer rate expressions of the two-stage replacement
policy for both the transfer-by-age and the transfer-at-random
cases.
2. Write down the cost equation for a two-stage replacement policy.
3. Write down the cost equation for a simple corrective replacement
policy.
4. To assure the superiority of the two-stage replacement policy
over the simple corrective replacement policy, how should the
two-stage replacement be conducted in this particular case?
5. What is the cost savings of conducting the two-stage-replacement
policy over the simple-corrective-replacement policy?
Since this is a two-stage case, then n = 2. For the mixed-exponential

life distribution, the reliability function is
R(T) = Pie-^T + (l-p,)e-^T.
1. If the transfer is by age, then let i = 1 in Eq. (12.18) and solve

for Pji2; i.e.,
E ^
P - ;=1+1
or
N2
P\2 — t; transfers/(component)- (hr). (12.20)
N\ m
If the transfer is at random, then from Eq. (12.19)

jHlPi e"Al T + (1 - *) e"A> T] e-** Tdt = ^ m,
Pl re-{Xl+Pl-')TdT + (l-Pl) re-^+P^)TdT=^m,

Jo Jo N
or
Nx
Pi 1
Al + -Pl,2
+(l"Pl) *
A2 + A,2 JV
m. (12.21)
Rearranging yields
(P1<2)2 + K Ph2 + G = 0,
where
A' = A, + A2
and
N
G = Aj A2 — [Pi A2 + (1-Pi) Ai].
Ni m
Solving Eq. (12.21) for Ph2 yields
-if + y/K2 -AG
A,2 = (12.22)
2. Since this is a two-stage replacement case, substituting n = 2

intoEq. (12.15) yields
C2 = [(Jtym - Nx Pi,2) C71 + 0 + AT, Ph2 C/2]
+JVi A,2 Cli2 + (N/m) Cc,
or
C2 = m (C/1 + Cc) + ^ P1,2 (C/2 + Cl'2 " C/l)' (12"23)
3. For a simple corrective replacement policy, the total expected

cost of replacement per unit time of operation is
Co = - [Nt (Cfl + Cc) + N2 (Cf2 + O,

m
or
Co = - (tfi C/: + A^2 C/2 + JV Cc). (12.24)

m
4. To assure the superiority of the two-stage replacement policy

over the simple corrective replacement policy, C2, which is given
by Eq. (12.23), has to be less than Co, which is given by Eq.
(12.24). Now let's calculate the values of these two costs to see
if they meet the requirement of C2 < Cq.
Substituting Nx = 4, C/i=:$250, JV2=6, C/2=$600, TV = 10,
Cc=$200, and m = 1,000 hr into Eq. (12.24) yields the total
expected corrective replacement cost per unit time of operation,
or
Co = —— [4 (250) + 6 (600) + 10 (200)] = $6.600/hr. (12.25)
If the transfer is made by age, then substituting Ni = 4,C/i=S>250,

N2=Q, C/2=$600, Cc=$200, Ci,2=$25, A] = 0.01 fr/hr, A2 =
0.000909 fr/hr, Pj =0.10 and m = 1,000 hr into Eqs. (12.20) and
(12.23) yields the transfer rate and the total expected cost of
two-stage replacement with transfer-by-age, respectively, or
Pi,2 = 4 (16Q00) = 1.5 x 10-3 traMfers/(£JMO- P»),
and
IO ->
C2 = —— (250 + 200) + 4 (1.5 X 10~3) (600 + 25 - 250),
oi-
C2 = $6.750/hr. (12.26)
It may be seen from Eqs. (12.25) and (12.26) that
C2 = $6,750 > Co = $6,600.
Then, two-stage replacement policy with transfer-by-age is less

economical than the pure corrective replacement policy.
If the transfer is made at random, then substituting N\ = 4,
C/i=$250, 7V2=6, C/2=$600, Cc=$200, Cli2=$25, A] = 0.01
fr/hr, A2 = 0.000909 fr/hr, ;ji=0.10 and m = 1,000 hr into
Eqs. (12.22) and (12.23) yields the transfer rate and the total
expected cost of two-stage replacement with transfer-at-random,
respectively, or
_ A + VA 2 4_G _ l 3Q1 x 10_3 trdins{QTS^LRUy^T^

where
10
K = 0.01 + 0.000909 - = 0.0084,
4(1,000)
and
10
0 = 0.01 (0.000909)- [0.1 (0.000909) + 0.9 (0.01)],
4(1,000)
or
G = -1.364 x 10"5,
and
10 (250 + 200) + 4 (1.391 X 10_J) (600 + 25 - 250)
1,000
or
C2 = $6.587/hr. (12.27)
It may be seen from Eqs. (12.25) and (12.27) that
C2 = $6,587 < C0 = $6,600.

Then, the two-stage replacement policy with transfer-at-random
is more economical than the pure corrective replacement policy.
Therefore, the two-stage replacement policy should be conducted
as follows: Any failed LRU in Group 1 should be replaced by
an identical new LRU. Any failed LRU in Group 2 should be
replaced by an operating LRU picked randomly from Group 1.
5. The net savings per unit time of operation of conducting such

a two-stage replacement policy with transfers-at-random over a
simple- corrective-replacement policy is
C0 - C2 = $6,600 - $6,587 = $0.413/hr.
12.2.4 CONDITIONS FOR POLICY EXISTENCE

The conditions for the existence of an optimum Multistage Replacement
Policy are the following [4]:
1. When the transfer is made by age; then, do the following:

(a) If A(T) is a monotonic, non- decreasing function of T, the

grouping has to be done such that C/, > C/(I+1), and it has
to be assured that
/ R(T)[X(T)-(l/m)]dT>0. (12.28)
Jt,
(b) If A(T) is a monotonic, decreasing function of T, the group
ing has to be done such that Cji < C/(i+i)5 and it has to be
assured that
/•CO
/ £(T)[A(T)-(l/m)]dT< 0. (12.29)
JT,
2. When the transfer is made at random, the conditions are almost

the same as in (a) and (b) of Case 1 when the transfer is made
by age, except that Eqs. (12.28) and (12.29) are changed to:
too
/ e-BT[e-Tlm - R{T)} dT > 0, (12.30)
Jo
and
/roc e-eT[e-T/m - R{T)\ dT < 0, (12.31)
JO
respectively, where
9 = Ni-j J%-i.i/(JVi-l/m). (12.32)
12.2.5 SPARES REQUIREMENT MODEL

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

THE MULTISTAGE REPLACEMENT POLICY
Since the failure rate of the system is not influenced by the policy,
the system's reliability will be the same as that when no maintenance
policy is implemented [2]. If the N components are reliabilitywise in
series, then
N
K,(t) = H'R.t(t) = [R(t)f. (12.35)
t=i
12.2.7 COMMENTS
The application of the Multistage Replacement Policy requires the ex

changeability among the components in the parent system and a gra
dient in their replacement costs.
12.3 OPPORTUNISTIC REPLACEMENT

POLICY - POLICY XIII
■
12.3.1 PRINCIPLE OF THE POLICY
Many investigations have shown that for multi-component systems, if

the components are economically dependent, the opportunistic replace
ment policy will be the best one [2; 5; 6; 7]. The components are said to
be economically dependent if the cost of replacing several components
jointly in a system is less than the sum of the cost of several separate
replacements of the same components. Opportunistic replacement is
such a strategy that the preventive replacement action upon a compo
nent in the system can be performed at any opportunity offered either
by other components' failures (joint replacement) or by the arrivals
of preventive replacement ages of the designated component (separate
replacement) and of other components (joint replacement), and correc
tive replacement is made whenever the failure occurs. The objective of
this policy is to seek optimal component replacement decisions for all
components in the system at any moment and at various state combi
nations of the components, as to whether to exercise separate or joint,
corrective or preventive, replacements or to keep the component(s) in
service. A multi-stage decision technique can be used to find the best
policy by applying discrete-time, stochastic, dynamic programming.
Backward direction
I—h
n-1 n-2 n-3 n-4 2 10
Stage or number of periods to operate
Forward direction
I—I—I—I—I 1—I—I
0 A 2A 3A 4A (n-2) A (n-1) A nA=T
:
Accumulated operating time
Fig. 12.5 - Accumulated operating time and the dynamic

programming stages.
12.3.2 COST MODEL ESTABLISHMENT

Consider a system composed of m > 2 components having differ
ent life distributions with the corresponding reliability functions of
Ri(t), B.2(t),- ■ ■ , Rm(t). The system's state can be uniquely repre
sented by the components' age combination. Let the individual pre
ventive replacement costs be Cpi,Cp2, ■ ■ ■ ,Cpm, and the joint preven
tive replacement costs be Cpi2, Cpi3, • ■ •, Cp(m-i)m; Cpi23, Cpi24, ■ ■ 'i
Cp(m-2)(m-i)m; ■ • "i Cpi23-(m-i)m- Let the penalty costs of failure
replacement be PCi, PC2, • ■ •, PCm (individual); PC\i% PC13, • • •,
^C(m-i)m! PCizz, PC\2i, • • •, -PC'(m_2)(m_1)m; • • •; PC\2S-{m-l)m
(joint). Also consider that the planned period of operation is T, or
equivalently n periods of operation of duration A for each period; i.e.,
A = T/n, (12.36)
as shown in Fig. 12.5.

The dynamic programming stages are taken to be the time periods
in which the system is expected to operate, as also shown in Fig. 12.5.
The system's state is taken to be the components' age combination at
the beginning of a given stage fc, and is expressed as

SSk = {Sk,Sk,' • -,Sk },
where
Sk — aSe °f component L at stage fc, L ~ 1,2, • • •,!».
Obviously SSjt not only describes the state transition of the system,
but is also Markovian in nature. This is so because the system's state
(components' age combination in the system) at Stage fc — 1, SSk-i,
depends only on the system's state at Stage fc, SSk, and the decision
made at Stage fc, but is completely independent of the previous states
(at Stages n,n — 1, • • -,fc + 2,fc+ 1) and of how long it takes to go from
the initial state to the state at Stage fc. The decision at each stage
is whether the components should be replaced or kept in use, and is
represented by dsk-
Define Ck(SSk) as the minimum expected cost of Components 1,
2, 3, • • •, m with ages 5^,5|, • • • , S™ and fc periods to go. Then, the
Bellman functional equation can be written out as follows [7; 8; 9; 10]:
MIN f — 1
Ck{SSk)=T { £ P*(«*)-[/t(d5*,55*fejfc) + Cifc_1(55it_1)]L
s. t. SSk-i = tk(dsk,SSk,ek),
dsk e Dk
(12.37)
where
dsk = decision made on the system at stage fc,
e/t = undetermined events which may occur
under ds^ and SSk with their own
feasible range Ek and mass function
Pk(ek), and causes the
next state to be stochastic,
tk{.) = state transition function at Stage fc,
SSk-i — system state at Stage fc — 1 which is
a random variable,
fk(dsk,SSk,ek) = decision cost at Stage fc which is a
function of the system's current state
SSk, decision dsk and the random
events ejt under SSk and dsk,
s. t. = abbreviation of "subject to,"
and
Dk = feasible decision sets for the system
at Stage k.
Under the opportunistic replacement policy, the feasible decision sets
at any stage of the system are
replacing Component 1 preventively,
I C* in all,
replacing Component m preventively,

replacing Components 1 and 2 preventively,
replacing Components 1 and 3 preventively,
Cm in all,
replacing Components (m — 1) and m preventively,

replacing Components 1, 2 and 3 preventively,
Dk = { replacing Components 1, 2 and 4 preventively,
Cm in all,
replacing Component (m — 2), (m — 1) and m preventively,
replacing Component 1, 2, 3, • • •, and m preventively,} C£ in all,

replacing Component(s) only upon failure,
(12.38)
where
Cm = combination value of m choosing i.
The state transitions of any component L, L = 1, 2, • • ■ , m, in the
system with an age of Sfc at Stage k under different decisions are shown
in Fig. 12.6, where k = n - 3 and Sfc = S£_3 = 3. If component L is
replaced preventively at Stage k, then an identical new component will
start its mission immediately at Stage k with an initial age of zero. If
the decision is to "keep it in service," then there will be two possible
outcomes:
(•) The Component L with an age of 3. which may be read off the ordinate,
at the corresponding Stage (n-3), as may be read off the abscissa, is
replaced preventively bv an identical new component starting its
mission immidiately at Stage (n-3) with an initial age of zero.
0>) The Component L with an age of 3 at Stage (n-3) is not replaced preventively,
but it fails before the next stage, or Stage (n-4). Then it is replaced
correctively by an identical component starting its mission
at Stage (n-4) with an initial age of zero.
(c) The Component L with an age of 3 at Stage (n-3) is not replaced preventively,
at Stage (n-3), and it survives the next period with an age increment
of 1 , or increases its age to 4 at Stage (n-4).
<f =0
n n-1 n-2 k=n-3 k-l=n-4 2 1

Stage or number of periods left to operate starting with n
such periods at the begining of the mission
Forward direction
H—I—h H—I—I
2A 3A 4A (n-2) A (n-1) A nA=T
Accumulated operating time
Fig. 12.6 - State transitions of any component L, L =

1, 2, • • • , m, under different decisions.
1. Component L survives the next period with an age increment of

1 at Stage (k — 1), or
2. Component L fails before next stage, or at Stage (k - 1), and is

replaced correctively by an identical new component starting its
mission at Stage (k — 1) with an initial age of zero, or
St, = o.
The probability of the first outcome is the probability of component
L with present age Sfc surviving the next period. The probability of
the second outcome is the probability of component L with present age
Sfc, not surviving the next period, or one minus the first probability.
Therefore, the cost model given by Eq. (12.37) may be written as
follows:
ck(ssk) = ck(sl,s*, —.ST),

( Cpl +Cfc(0,S».S* ••■,S?),\
Cp2+Ck(Si,0,53,--,S-),
> C> in all,
cpm + ck{sl,sl,--,o),
Cpi2 +C*(0,0,Sj»,-", SJ"),
Cpl3 + Cik(0,Sj,0,Sj,.--,S™),
Cl in all,
Cp(m-l)m + Ck{Sl, Si, ■ ■ • , S£ ,0,0),
= MIN <
Cpl3...(m-i)m + ^(0,0, • • • ,0) } C% in aU,
\P\Sl ■ P2Sl ■ - ■ P™S? • Cfc-l(Sj +1.5J +1.-..,SJ» + 1)

+(i-P,s,)-P2S,-...Pmsr
( Cpl + Pd +C*_1(0,S« + l,5j + l,...,5p + l)
Cpi2 + PC12 + Ck_i(0,0, S3k + 1, • • • ,S™ + 1)
•A//7V <
i Cpi2...(m_i)m + fCi2...(m_i)m + Cfc_i(0,0, •• • ,0)
+(i - Pis*)- (» - p2s;) — " (J - p".sr)

•[cPi2...(m-I)m + PC12...(m_1)m + c*_1(o,o,...,o)]J, (12.39)
with the initial condition of

Co^X • • "A"1) = 0. ^ all 50L > 0,1 = 1,2, • ■ -,m,
where
Plsl = probability of Component L with present age
Sg surviving the next period,
Cpi 4- PCi = corrective replacement cost of Component
i where i = l,2,---,m,
Cpij + PCij = joint corrective replacement cost of
Components i and j, where i = 1,2,
■ • • , m, j = 1, 2, • • • , m, and i ^ j,
and
Cpi2.(m-i)m + PCi2-(m-\)m = joint corrective replacement
cost of all m components.
By the conditional probability law
PLst = Rl[(S£ + l)A)/RL[(S£)A}. (12.40)
If a two-parameter Weibull distribution is used for the components'

lives, or
R{T) = exp
-?)' (12.41)
where
P = shape parameter,
and
T] — scale parameter,
then
(SL+l) A 1/3'
exp< —
Plsi =
(StL)A
exp ■
v
or
(S£)A (5,L+1)A !/»'

Pl5l = exp
V 7/
Since Eq. (12.39) is a stochastic dynamic programming model, the

optimum decision sets at any Stage k, ds*k, and the associated minimal
expected costs in the k periods of operation, Ck(SSk), can only be
obtained by a backward optimization algorithm [8; 9; 10]; i.e.,
O t C1 C2 CM dsl3 t3lJ3i'J3r"i'J3
/"■ fC1 C2 C"Mj <fcj
Wl-->2> °2' " ' "' °2 /
ds!
^ CkiSioSin-'-yS™).
This process is implemented using a computer program whose flow-

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

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

Theoretically, each component's life (or age) is a continuous variable
with the domain of [0, 00). To make the system state sets finite so that
dynamic programming can be carried out, let us introduce the concept
of the "oldest age." The "oldest age" of a component is defined as the
99th percentile of its life. This percentile can be changed depending on
the positive skewness of the components' life distributions. It should
be increased for highly-skewed-to-the-right distributions. Therefore,
s£e 0,T0L99 ,£ = 1,2,- -.m, (12.42)

in unit of hours, or
Ste |o,l,2,---,/JVrf^+0.5j|,L = l,2,-..,ml (12.43)
in unit of A, where
Tqqq = 99th percentile of unit L's hfe,
and
INT(X) = integer part of X rounded to the next

lower integer value.
If the Weibull distribution is used for the component's hfe, then
T0.99 - T\r(T)=o.01 = V (log. lOO)1^. (12.44)
12.3.3.2 DIMENSIONALITY REDUCTION
To overcome the difficulty due to the dimensional increase of array

Ck{S\tS%, • • • , S™) and dsk(Sl,S%, • • • , 5™), as m increases during the
iteration of Eq. (12.39), a dimensionality reduction technique is needed
during the computation process. According to the data structure the
ory [11], an array of m dimensions, A(ai,a.2, • ■ -,am), can be stored
rowwise or columnwise into an one-dimensional array, B(b), where
ai,a2,-"iam are the subscripts of the m- dimensional array A, and
b is the subscript of the one-dimensional array B.
Let an and au{ be the lower and upper bounds for a,-, t = 1 , 2, • • • , m.
Then, the total number of elements in array A is
(aui - an + l)(au2 - a/2 + 1) ■ ••(a»m - aim -f 1)

m
= Jf(aul - an + 1). (12.45)
i=i
Let b; and bu be the lower and upper bounds for the subscripts of array
B. Then, the total number of elements in arrays A and B should be
equal; i.e..
bu - bi + 1 = \\{aui ~ aii + 1). (12.46)

i=i
When array A(a\,a2, • ■ -,am) is stored rowwise into array B(b), their
subscripts have the following relationship:
A —► B : b = y*f[Wj(*i ~ aii)] + K <*<« < a,- < aui,
i = l,2,--,m, (12.47)
where
(12.48)
i=f'+i
and
Wm = 1. (12.49)
Conversely when array B(b) is stored rowwise into array A(a,i,a,2, ■ ■ ■ ,am)>
their subscripts have the following relationship:
fc-i
b-bi- Yl Wi(ai - an)
B —> A : ak = J7VT i=l + a/fc,
Wfc
fc = 1,2, , m. (12.50)
where
INT(X) = integer part of X.
Using Eq. (12.47), we can store the elements of an m-dimensional ar

ray, A(a.i,a,2, • ■ -,am), into their corresponding locations in an one-
dimensional array, B(b). The intermediate computation is done based
on this one-dimensional array. Finally, the information represented by
Array A can be recovered using Eq. (12.50). With these techniques,
we can make a dynamic programming decision on a multicomponent
system with any number of components as long as there is sufficient
computer memory.
12.3.4 CONDITIONS FOR POLICY EXISTENCE

The failure rate of each component should be non-decreasing [2].
12.3.5 SPARES REQUIREMENT MODEL AND

RELIABILITY MODEL UNDER THE
POLICY
Since the cost model is a discrete-time stochastic dynamic program
ming one, the total expected spare number in (0,t) period for each
component and system reliability can not be written out analytically,
but can be obtained by a computer based Monte Carlo simulation [12].
12.3.6 AN APPLICATION OF THE OPPORTUNISTIC

REPLACEMENT POLICY TO A BALL-BEARING
SYSTEM [12; 13]
12.3.6.1 CASE STATEMENT

Now let us apply the opportunistic policy to the replacement decision
for a ball-bearing system in a continuous, steelplate, rolling mill ta
ble in an iron and steel plant [12; 13; 14]. Figure 12.7 shows a set of
rolls which are supported by ball bearings. These rolls are indepen
dent of each other in the assembly, but the two supporting bearings
of each spindle are economically dependent. Figure 12.8 shows a sec
tional diagram of a "spindle-bearing-gear" subsystem. Since the roll
and gear rarely fail as compared to the two bearings, they can be re
garded as 100% reliable. Therefore, this subsystem turns out to be a
two-component (two bearings in series) subsystem, as shown in Fig.
12.9, and it can be simplified to a ball-bearing system consisting of a
number of two-component ball-bearing subsystems. The opportunistic
replacement policy is applied first to each subsystem and then to the
whole bearing system.
12.3.6.2 COST MODEL AND COMPUTER PROGRAM FOR

A SINGLE TWO-COMPONENT BALL-BEARING
SUBSYSTEM
The feasible decision sets for the subsystem at any stage are

replacing Component 2 preventively, , .
Dk- { replacing Components 1 and 2 preventively, *
replacing Component(s) only upon failure.
M
PlJ*dl€
$ffWffr*-
Fig. 12.7 - Schematic of a continuous, steelplate, rolling mill
table.
Roll spindle
\ Bevel gear
Bearing
3 W///rWt
Bearing /
"
# 5222 # 97522
Fig. 12.8 - Sectional diagram of one of the "spindle-bearing-

gear" subsystem of a rolling mill.
R,
Bearing
M
Bearing
#5222 # 97522
Fig. 12.9 - Reliabilitywise series system of two bearings sup
porting a roll.
Then, the cost model is

Ck(SSk) = Ck(Sl,Sl),
(Cpl + Ck(0,S2k),
Cp2 + Ck(Sl,0),
Cpi2 + Ct(0,0),
{plsrP2Si-Ck-i(Sl + 1,51 + 1)
= MIN I
^•('-^)^{&+te+cc^)•ll,
+(1 - P1S>) ■ (1 - Pis') ■ [C,a + PCn + C,_,(0,0)]}.
(12.52)
A computer program has been developed for the recurrence com
putation of this cost model. The two-parameter Weibull distribution is
used in the program for the bearings' lives. The computer flow diagram
is given in Fig. 12.10.
12.3.6.3 COMPONENTS' LIFE DISTRIBUTIONS AND

SYSTEM STATE SETS
Through statistical analysis of historic field life data of Bearings 5222
and 97522 [12], their Weibull cumulative distribution functions are
found to be
1.5
F(T)\ 5222 1 — exp
\66.46;
( Begin )
Enter number of component*, NUM; decision interval, DI\ total

operation length, T; preventive replacement coata, Cfi,Cri,Crii;
penalty coata due to corrective replacement*, PCi,PCt,PC\i,
Weibull life distribution parameters, 7),/?i,iji,( = 1,2; conver
gence preciaion c.
Compute the oldest ages, NL(I),I= 1,2;

total operation stages, N = I NT (fa + 0.5).
t
C0(J, K) = 0; Cflo( J. K) = 0; JK = 0
^
Cornpuu C,(0,0)
i
CoopiiuC,(0,K),*r« 1,3 NL(2)
I
|CompuUC,(J,0),J = 1,3 /VL(l)
| J := 0; K :^"o"|
Compuw CrtJ.JOsCJI,'./.*) ■ C,(J. «•)/(/• D/);

print out lh« optimum dcouciu *i ■toge /
= / + l|^-<^<^>>-
( End )
Fig. 12.10 - Computer flow diagram for the opportunistic re

placement policy optimization using the dynamic
programming technique for a two-component
system with Weibull life distributions.
and
1.33
F(T)\97522= l-exp (—
KSIMJ)
where the unit for T is day.
The length of each period is taken to be A = 30 days, or one month.
Then, according to Eqs. (12.43) and (12.44) the "oldest ages" for these
two bearings are
^nr„.99|5222 + o.5) = /ivrf66-46(los«100)2/3 + 0.5
30
= 6 months,
and
81.6 (loge 100)3/'1
/JVT(To.99|97522 + 0.5) = INT + 0.5
30
= 9 months.
Therefore, from Eq. (12.43) and the above results, the correspond
ing state sets for these two bearings are
S\ - {0,1,2,3,4,5,6} in months,
and
S\ - {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9} in months.
12.3.6.4 PROBABILITIES plSi AND p2g2

k k
According to the conditional probability law,
Rr[(Sl + 1)A]
PlSi = (12.53)
Ri(SlA) '
or
(5j + l)A-7i
lh si = exP (12.54)
m
and
R2[(Sl + 1)A]
P2Sl ~ R2(SIA) ' (12.55)
or
02 02
'SlA-ji (5fc2+l)A-72
P2S\ ~ eXP (12.56)
V2
_L.
12.3.6.5 REPLACEMENT COSTS

Based on the information provided by the plant [12], the preventive
replacement costs for Bearing 5222 or 97522, which include each bear
ing's purchase cost plus its replacement labor cost, are the following:
Cp\ = C"pJ5222 — $362.0,
and
Cp2 = CVI97522 = $148.5.
The costs of production loss due to failure (corrective) replacement
are
PCi = PC|5222 = $35,000,
and
PC2 = /?C|97522 = $70,000.
The cost of joint replacement can be taken to be approximately
half the sum of each individual replacement [5], or
Cp" = £l+S2
2 = 362.0+148.5
2 = $255.25,
and
PCl2 . ££1±PC1 = 35,000+70,000 =
12.3.6.6 COMPUTER-BASED OPTIMIZATION OF POLICY

AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
By inputing the quantities calculated above into the computer pro
gram, we get the optimal replacement decision at any stage with var
ious components' age combinations. If we consider the case when the
system is expected to run for one year (365 days), at the 12th stage (at
the beginning of the year or k = 12) the best decisions to take and the
corresponding replacement costs are listed in Table 12.3. The decision
tables for the other stages, or at k = 11, 10, • ■ -,2, 1, are not listed here
for brevity's sake.
The decision symbols used in Table 12.3 are explained as follows:
Decision "CR12" = replace bearing(s) only upon failure(s),
Decision "PR1" = replace Bearing 1 preventively,
Decision "PR2" = replace Bearing 2 preventively,
TABLE 12.3- Decision table of opportunistic replace

ment of a single, two-bearing system of
Fig. 12.0 at stage k = 12.
Bearing age Bearing age i
combination, Annual combination, Annual

in month Optimal replacement in month Optimal replacement
No. 1 No. 2 decision cost, in $104 No. 1 No. 2 decision cost, in $10*
0 0 CR12 29.16 3 5 PRl 2 29.20
0 1 PR2 29.16 3 6 PR12 29.20
0 2 PR2 29.16 3 7 PRl 2 29.20
0 3 PR2 29.16 3 8 PRl 2 29.20
0 4 PR2 29.16 3 9 PR12 29.20
0 5 PR2 29.16 4 0 PRl 29.20
0 6 PR2 29.16 4 1 PR12 29.20
0 7 PR2 29.16 4 2 PR12 29.20
0 8 PR2 29.16 4 3 PRl 2 29.20
0 9 PR2 29.16 4 4 PR12 29.20
1 0 PRl 29.20 4 5 PR12 29.20
1 1 PR12 29.20 4 6 PR12 29.20
1 2 PR12 29.20 4 7 PRl 2 29.20
1 3 PR12 29.20 4 8 PR12 29.20
1 4 PRl 2 29.20 4 9 PRl 2 29.20
1 5 PRl 2 29.20 5 0 PRl 29.20
1 6 PRl 2 29.20 5 1 PR12 29.20
1 7 PR12 29.20 5 2 PR12 29.20
1 8 PR12 29.20 5 3 PRl 2 29.20
1 9 PR12 29.20 5 4 PR12 29.20
2 0 PRl 29.20 5 5 PR12 29.20
2 1 PR12 29.20 5 6 PRl 2 29.20
2 2 PR12 29.20 5 7 PR12 29.20
2 3 PRl 2 29.20 5 8 PR12 29.20
2 4 PR12 29.20 5 9 PRl 2 29.20
2 5 PRl 2 29.20 6 0 PRl 29.20
2 6 PR12 29.20 6 1 PR12 29.20
2 7 PRl 2 29.20 6 2 PRl 2 29.20
2 8 PRl 2 29.20 6 3 PR12 29.20
2 9 PRl 2 29.20 6 4 PRl 2 29.20
3 0 PRl 29.20 6 5 PRl 2 29.20
3 1 PRl 2 29.20 6 6 PR12 29.20
3 2 PR12 29.20 6 7 PR12 29.20
3 3 PRl 2 29.20 6 8 PR12 29.20
3 4 PR12 29.20 6 9 PR12 29.20
and
Decision "PR.12" = replace Bearings 1 and 2

preventively together.
It turns out [12] that this decision table, or Table 12.3, applies to
each of the other 11 stages, or at k = 11, 10, • • ■ , 2, 1; i.e., the decisions
under the same component state combinations are identical at differ
ent stages, and the only difference for each decision table is the total
minimum replacement cost in the corresponding k = 12, 11, 10, • • -,2,
and 1 periods of operating time.
The following conclusions may be drawn from Table 12.3:
1. If the two bearings are completely new (with the age of zero), no
replacement will be needed. This corresponds to decision "CR12"
in Table 12.3.
2. If one of them reaches an age older than, or equal to, one (1)
month while the other is less than one (1) month, the replacement
is made only upon the former. This corresponds to decisions
"PR1" and "PR2" in Table 12.3.
3. If both of them share ages which are older than one (1) month,
joint preventive replacement should be conducted on them. This
corresponds to decision "PR12" in Table 12.3.
4. The cost savings in one year by opportunistic replacement against
corrective replacement, which has long been conducted in the
plant, is as high as about 50%, which will be verified next.
The maintenance cost for one subsystem in one year, or for twelve
(12) months, for corrective replacement only is
c-c = {smd ■ <c» + fC'> + (brk) ■ <c* + "*>■
(12.57)
where
MTTFr = Tfc r(l//3, + 1),

= 66.46 r(l/1.5+l),
= 66.46 (0.9033),
= 60.033 days,
or
MTTF-i, £ 2 months,
and
MTTF2 = mT(l/p2 + l),
- 81.60 r(l/1.33+l),
= 81.60 (0.91906),
= 74.995 days,
or
MTTF-i. £ 2.5 months.
Then, the annual corrective maintenance cost for one subsystem, Ct-c,
from Eq. (12.57) is
cT-c = (y) (362-° + 35' 00°) + (y$) (148-5 + 70> 00°)'

or
CT-c = $548,284.80.
The cost for one subsystem in one year when opportunistic re
placement is introduced is, as obtained from the computer program,
$292,000, and it appears in Table 12.3 under the Annual Replacement
Cost column. The cost savings in one year is
548, 284.80 - 292, 000 = $256, 284.80,
which is nearly 47% of the corrective maintenance cost.
12.3.6.7 REALIZATION OF OPPORTUNISTIC REPLACEMENT

POLICY UPON THE WHOLE BEARING SYSTEM
We discussed here only the single-subsystem case in which opportuni
ties are offered only by their components' own failure or the arrival of
their own preventive replacement ages. However, the decision tables at
different stages developed for one two-bearing subsystem are valid for
the rest of the two-unit subsystems as well, since they are statistically
identical.
For the case of the bearing system of Fig. 12.7, which consists of
several two-unit subsystems, the mutual influences among aD subsys
tems and their surrounding equipment have to be taken into account.
In fact, on one hand, within the system any bearing replacement brings
opportunities to other subsystems' bearings, no matter what kind of

replacements they are, preventive or corrective, individual or joint.
Whether we should take advantage of these opportunities to conduct
preventive replacement upon the remaining subsystems and how to do
it, can be decided by their decision tables at corresponding stages, such
as that given in Table 12.3. On the other hand, outside the system,
the planned minor overhaul and production hold-up due to temporary
material supply delay also bring utilizable replacement opportunities
to all the subsystems in the system. The replacement decision upon
each subsystem can be made in accordance with its decision table as
well. This way the replacement policy for the whole system can be
fully implemented.
12.3.7 CONCLUSIONS
A general, time-discrete, stochastic dynamic programming model for

opportunistic replacement is presented in this section. Two technical
difficulties, namely, the "oldest age" concept and the "dimensionality
reduction technique," which may be encountered during policy opti
mization are discussed and their solutions are proposed. A practical
case study is conducted on the replacement decision of a ball-bearing
subsystem in an iron-and-steel plant rolling mill and the following are
found:
1. Both Bearings 5222 and 97522 have a Weibull life distribution
with (/3 = 1.5 > 1,1/ = 66.46 days) and (0 = 1.33 > 1,t? =
81.60 days), respectively, which satisfies the increasing-failure-
rate condition for the existence of an optimum maintenance pol
icy.
2. The oldest ages for Bearings 5222 and 97522 are 6 months and 9
months, respectively.
3. A computer program for the opportunistic replacement policy and
the economically dependent two-component systems is developed
with its flow diagram given.
4. The optimum decision table at any stage k (k = 0,1,2,- ■ •) can be
obtained using the developed computer program. A sample deci
sion table at Stage k = 12 is given for the two-bearing subsystem.
According to this table, whenever an opportunity is available, op
portunistic replacement should be made upon those bearings with
ages older than 1 month either individually (if there is only one
bearing having age older than 1 month) or jointly (if there are
more than one bearings having ages older than 1 month).
CAPITAL EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT POLICY 433
5. The cost savings in one year by using the opportunistic replace

ment policy versus the corrective-replacement-only policy is nearly
47%.
6. The decision tables developed for a single two-bearing subsystem

are also valid for the rest of the two-bearing subsystems in the
whole bearing system. The implementation of the opportunistic
replacement policy upon the whole bearing system can be realized
by using these decision tables whenever the opportunity arrives.
The opportunistic replacement policy is the best policy for any

multi-component system which might be a single machine, a group of
machines, or even a whole production line, as long as enough reliable
information about their components' failure characteristics, replace
ment times and costs are available.
12.4 PREVENTIVE REPLACEMENT POLICY

FOR CAPITAL EQUIPMENT - POLICY
XIV [15]
The deterioration of a capital equipment can be measured by the net
benefit derived from operating the equipment. When the net benefit
becomes economically unjustifiable the equipment should be replaced.
Our objective is to determine an optimal replacement interval which
maximizes the total discounted net benefits derived from operating the
equipment over a long period of time, under the assumption that the
equipment is replaced by an identical one, and the cost and benefit
functions remain the same in each of the replacement cycles.
12.4.1 DESCRIPTION OF POLICY XIV

Equipment is put into operation at age T = 0. When its age, or
accumulated operating time, T, reaches a prespecified value Tp, it is
replaced with a new identical one and replacement is done in tv time
period. Corrective maintenance action is conducted whenever a failure
occurs before the equipment reaches age Tp. This policy is illustrated
in Fig. 12.11.
12.4.2 DEVELOPMENT OF THE MODEL

The total discounted net benefit over a long period of time with pre
ventive replacements at age Tp consists of the following:
First cycle Second cycle
Tp < Tp -
Tp + tp Tp + tp
-4— —► •*— —*■
Fig. 12.11 - Preventive replacement policy for capital equip

ment.
1. The net benefit, b(T), obtained from operating the equipment

at age T, is the revenue derived from operating the equipment
minus the operating cost which may include maintenance costs,
fuel costs, etc. Generally b(T) is a decreasing function of age T.
2. The net cost, c(T), of replacing the equipment of age T includes

the purchase price, plus the installation cost, and may also in
clude the cost of loss of production due to the time required to
replace the equipment.
The replacement cycle length is defined as the sum of Tp + tp, where Tv

is the preventive replacement age of the equipment. Let's first consider
the first cycle of operation. Define B\(Tp + tp) as the total net benefit
over the first cycle, or in (0,TP), discounted back to their present day
value, minus the cost of replacing the equipment at age Tp discounted
to its present day value. If we assume that the interest rate is paid
continuously; then,
B,(TP + L •' = / [b(T) ,-«' T dT) - c(Tp) e -i TD

(12.58)
Jo
where
j = interest rate.
Similarly, the total net benefits of the second cycle of operation,

discounted back to their present day value at the start of the second
cycle, is given by
B2(TP + tp)= f P[b(T) e- T dT] - c(Tp) t~{ T". (12.59)
Jo
Discounting ^(Tp + tp) back to the start of the first cycle yields
B2~i(Tp + tp) = B2(TP + tp)e~^T"+t^. (12.60)
The total net benefits of the third cycle of operation, discounted
back to their present day value at the start of the third cycle, is given
by
B»(T, + tp) = / "[b(T) e~> T dT] - c(Tp) eH T". (12.61)
Jo
Discounting B3(TP + tp) back to the start of the first cycle yields
J33_i (Tp + tp) = B3(TP + fp)e-,'t2(T"+'"M. (12.62)
Similarly, the total net benefits of the nth cycle of operation, dis
counted back to their present day value at the start of the nth cycle,
is given by
Bn{Tp + tp)= I "[b(T) e-' T dT] - c(Tp) eH T", (12.63)
Jo
which, discounted back to the start of the first cycle, yields
Bn-.i(Tp + tP) = Bn(Tp + tp) e-'(«-D(^+'p). (12.64)
The total net benefits over a long period of time, with preventive
replacements at age Tp, discounted back to their present day value
at the start of the first cycle, is the same as the net benefits over an
infinite number of cycles discounted back to their present day value at
the start of the first cycle; i.e.,
B{Tp) = Bx{Tp + tp)
+B2^(Tp + tp)
+B3^(Tp + tp)
+Bn^(Tp + tp)
or
B(Tp) = B1(Tp + tp)
+B2(TP + iê-'*3^)
+B3(TP + tp)e-^T"+t^
+£n(rp + *p)e-'(n-1H7>Mp)
(12.65)
Since
B1(Tp + tp) = B2(Tp + tp),
= B3(TP + tp),
= Bn(Tp + tp),
/ P[b(T) e-' T dT] - c(Tp) e~' T»;

Jo
then, Eq. (12.65) can be written as
B{Tp) = B,{Tp + tp)
+B1(TP + tr)e-alT*+V
+51(Tp + tp)e-,'(n-1)(T')+''))
or
B(TP) = B,(TP + tp)J2 [e-,'(r"+lp)]J . (12.66)
j=o
Since i(Tp + tp) > 0, then e-^T"+^ < 1 and
00
,e-i(TP+tp))j _ I
Therefore, Eq. (12.66) simplifies to

B/T , _ ^(T. + t,)
"Vrf- ! _ e-.(Tp-MP) '
or
J(r,),l''t<r>'-,T'g-f,'"-T'. (1S.«7)
The optimum preventive replacement age, Tp, can be determined by
maximizing B(TP). Since this is a one-dimensional optimization prob
lem, the Golden Section (0.618) Method [9] can be applied to search for
the optimum value of Tp, T*, which is illustrated in the next example.
EXAMPLE 12-5
The net benefit per year obtained from operating a capital equip
ment at age T is given by
6(r) = 32,000e-°O9r,
and the cost of preventive replacement is given by

c(T) = 15, 000 - 13, 600 e-°-73T.
The time required to replace the equipment preventively is one month.

The interest rate is 10%. Do the following:
1. Determine the optimal preventive replacement age of the equip
ment, Tp.
2. Find the corresponding maximum total discounted net benefit,
b(t;).
solutions to example 12-5
1. Knowing that
b(T) = 32,000 e-0-09 T per year,
c(T) = 15,000-13,600 e"073 T,
1
tp = 1 month = — year = 0.083 year,
and
i = 10% = 0.10;
then, Eq. (12.58) becomes
-0.09 T „-0.1 T
Br (Tp + tp) = f 32, 000 e dT
Jo
-(15,000- 13,600 e-073 J") e_u''
-0.73 T,A '"
„-0.1 TD
32, 000 e --0..19T dT

=/:
-(15,000- 13,600 e -0.73 T„\ -0.1 TD
or
Bi(T, + tp) = (168,421)(1 - e-°'19 T*)
-(15,000-13,600 e-073 T") e'01 T".
The total net benefit over a long period of time is then given by
Eq. (12.67), or
_ (168,421)(1 - e-°-19 T") - (15,000 - 13,600 e-°-73Tr)e-ul r?
"V*W ~~ j _ e-0.1(Tp+0.083)
(12.68)
The maximum total net benefit occurs at J^p' = 0. But since
the total net benefit of Eq. (12.68) is a complicated function,
a numerical optimization method should be used. The Golden
Section Method may be used in this case. A computer program
in FORTRAN language has been developed using the Golden
Section Method for this example and is given in Appendix 12 A.
Using this program yields the optimum preventive replacement
age at
T£ = 3.6803 years, or approximately 4 years.
2. The corresponding maximum net benefit turns out to be

B(T;) = 5(3.6803) = $239,085.80.
12.5 OPTIMAL INSPECTION FREQUENCY:

MAXIMIZATION OF PROFIT - POLICY
XV [15]
In Policy XV the equipment fails randomly according to its times-to-
failure pdf. To detect deterioration and reduce the number of failures
we can periodically inspect the equipment, its components and its per
formance. These inspections cost money in terms of materials, wages
and loss of production, due to scheduled downtime. The objective
is to determine an inspection policy which gives the optimal balance
between the related inspection costs and the derived benefits.
INSPECTION POLICY FOR MAXIMUM PROFIT 439
12.5.1 DESCRIPTION OF POLICY XV

Equipment fails according to the exponential times-to- failure pdf with
the MTBF = j, where A is the failure rate. The inspection is con
ducted n times per unit time of operation. Inspection times are expo
nentially distributed with mean time I , where £ is the inspection rate.
If failure, malfunction or deterioration of the equipment's performance
parameters are detected, the repair action is performed, where the re
pair times are exponentially distributed with MTTR = -, where /i is
the repair rate. The output value per unit time of equipment operation
has a profit value V . V is the profit value if there are no downtime
losses. The average cost of inspection per unit time of operation is Cj
and the average cost of repairs per unit time of operation is Cr. The
constant failure rate of the equipment under this inspection policy, or
n inspections per unit time of operation, is a function of n, the fre
quency of inspection; i.e., A = A(n). It is expected that as the number
of inspections increases the failure rate decreases. The objective is to
choose an optimum n such that the expected profit per unit time of
equipment operation is maximized.
The profit per unit time of equipment operation consists of the
following:
1. Output value per unit time of equipment operation, V.
2. Output value lost due to repairs per unit time of operation, which
is equal to the product of the mean total time of failure repairs
per unit time of operation and the output value per unit time of
operation, or [A(n) (MTTR)] V, or [A(n) (i)] V.
3. Output value lost due to inspections per unit time of operation,

which is equal to the product of the number of inspections per
unit time of operation, the mean time per inspection, and the
output value per unit time of operation, or [n (?)] V.
4. Cost of repairs per unit time of operation, which is equal to the
product of mean time of failure repairs per unit time of operation
and the average cost per unit time of repair, or [A(n) (-)] Cr.
5. Cost of inspections per unit time of operation, which is equal to
the product of the mean total time of inspection per unit time
of operation and the average cost per unit time of inspection, or
[tl {})] d.
Then, the profit per unit time of equipment operation is given by
F(n) = V - V%& - V± - CR%& - CA. (12.69)

ft Z H i
To find the maximum profit value we have to diferentiate P(n) with

respect to n and equate it to zero; i.e.,
•"><») = _v^l _ * _ CfiAW _ ft . 0, (12.70)

d" /* £ A* £
and
*&(v+CR)+ci±a>=0. (»„,
Then,
Given the equipment's failure rate as a function of inspection fre

quency n, X(n), the optimal frequency to maximize the profit per unit
time of operation, n", can be obtained by solving Eq. (12.72) for n.
EXAMPLE 12-6
A system has an exponential times-to- failure pd/with a failure rate
given by
n
where k is the average number of failures per unit time of operation
when n = 1 inspection is made per unit time of operation. The times-
to-restore distribution is exponential with MTTR = - = 24 hr or
0.033 month. The mean time to perform an inspection is j = 8 hr or
0.011 month. The value of the output per month of system operation
is $ 30,000. Costs of repair and inspection per month of system oper
ation are Cr =$250 and Cj = $125, respectively. According to past
experience, the average number of failures per month, when n = 1 in
spection is made, is k = 3. Find the optimal number of inspections per
month, n*, so that the profit per unit time of operation of the system
is maximized.

Since,
A(n)=-, (12.73)
n
INSPECTION POLICY FOR MAXIMUM AVAILABILITY 441
using Eq. (12.72) yields

V + Cj_
A(n) ______ (__
Cr
or
n = rib*
It (v+Cr\\
\vtcj). 2
(12.74)
Then,
3(0.033) ^30,000
(30, + 250
n = (12.75)
0.011 V30, 000 + 125
or
n* = 3.006, or n* K 3.
Substituting n* = 3 into Eq. (12.73) yields
3
A(3) = - = 1 fr/month.
Obviously, a significant reduction of the failure rate from 3 fr/month to

1 fr/month has been achieved by increasing the number of inspections
from n = 1 to n = 3.
Thus, the optimal number of inspections per month in order to
maximize profit is n* = 3 and the corresponding maximum profit per
unit time of operation, P(n*), is given by Eq. (12.69); i.e.,
P(n') = P(3),
= 30, 000 -30, 000(1 x 0.033) -30, 000(3 x 0.011)
-250(1 x 0.033) - 125(3 x 0.011),
or
P(3) = $28,007,625 per month.
12.6 OPTIMAL INSPECTION INTERVAL:

MAXIMIZATION OF EQUIPMENT
AVAILABILITY - POLICY XVI
12.6.1 DESCRIPTION OF POLICY XVI
If the equipment can fail, or deteriorate, while being in standby or
in storage, there is a possibility that when it is called into use it will
not function. To reduce the probability that equipment will be in

a failed state when needed, it can be inspected periodically, and if
the equipment is found to have failed, it can be repaired or replaced,
thus returning it to the as-new condition. Inspections and repairs or
replacements take time. The objective is to determine the best interval
between inspections to maximize the availability of the equipment.
12.6.2 DEVELOPMENT OF THE MODEL

Equipment with a times-to-failure pdf of f(T) is put into standby or
in storage at time T — 0. Inspection is performed every T/ hours.
Each inspection takes an average of tj hr. If the equipment is found
to be in a failed state it is repaired, or replaced, in i/j time interval so
that it is returned to an as-good condition and the cycle repeats again.
The equipment's long-run average availability will be a function of the
inspection interval Tj and is given by
_ Expected uptime per cycle (12 76)
Expected total length per cycle'
If no failure is detected at inspection, the expected uptime is equal
to Tj. If a failure is detected then the expected uptime during the
failed cycle is the mean time to failure of the equipment, given that
inspection takes place at T/, or
/ T f(T) dT
1 - R(Ti)
Thus,
the expected uptime per cycle = Tup,
=[(inspection interval)
X (probability that no failure is detected at inspection)]
-[-[(conditional mean life in one inspection interval)
x (probability that a failure is detected at inspection)],
or
flUTf(T)dT
Tup = Ti R(Ti) + [1 - R(Tj)},
1 - R(Ti)
or
Tuv = Tj R{Ti) + I" T f(T) dT. (12.77)

J—oo
The expected total length of each cycle is

Tcycu = (Tj + */) R(Ti) + (77 + u + tR)[\ - #(T7)],
or
Tcycle = (TI + tI) + tR[l-R(TI)}. (12.78)
Therefore,
■up
Tun Ti RiTA + S^T f{T)dT
A(Tj) = (12.79)
Tcyclc ' Ti + tl + ** [1 ~ £(7/)] "
Then, the optimum inspection interval, T/, can be obtained by maxi
mizing Eq. (12.79).
EXAMPLE 12-7
The times to failure of an equipment are normally distributed with
a mean of fi = 5 months and standard deviation a — 1 month. The
time required to effect repair, or replacement, is tR = 0.50 month, and
the time required to effect an inspection is tj = 0.25 month. Find
the optimal inspection interval, Tf , to maximize the long-run average
availability of the equipment.

Using Eq. (12.79) and substituting the values for tj and Ir yields
r/*(Tj) + /2(>T/(T)<ff
A(Ti) = (12.80)
Ti + 0.25 + 0.5(1 - fi(T/)]
Since
f(T) = ! 2 V a ) .
y/2i
then,
r
J—oo
T f(T) dT
-r J — OC oo
T,
T ~r=-
v27T O
1 ( T-u\2
— oo -/27r a
a rj 1 .' r -,a\2 (T — fl
V^Jr
J._
" rTi e-H3^)2 d \\ (LUL)'

y/2^ J-oo [2 V o )
+M-$
or
£**»-*■• P^-A--1^.
(12.81)
where
$( ) = cd/ of the standardized normal distribution, 7V(0, 1).
Note that
1 - #(77) = $ (12.82)
and
R(Ti) = 1 - $ (^-^) • (12.83)
Substituting Eqs. (12.81), (12.82) and (12.83) into Eq. (12.80) yields
27 [l - * (^)W-* (*£*) ~ ± e
A(Tj) =
Tj + 0.25 + 0.5 $ (Izf:£)
or
A(T/) =
0.25 + 2/ + 0.5 $(Iz^)
(12.84)
Substituting \x — 5 months and a = 1 month into Eq. (12.84) yields
r/-K5-r/)^(^)-ê"(ZV1)
MTl) 0.25 + Tj + 0.5 $ (£^s)
TABLE 12.4- Availability versus inspection interval for Exam

ple 12-7.
Tj, month Ti-5 *(T/ - 5) A{Ti)

1 -4 3.1671 X 10"5 0.8000
2 -3 1.3499 x 10"3 0.8905
3 -2 2.2750 x 10"2 0.9173
4 -1 0.15866 0.9047
5 0 0.50000 0.8366
6 1 0.84134 0.7371
7 2 0.97725 0.6450
or
r7 + (5 - r/)«(Tj - 5) - -a-
•/2^
e-5(^-5)
A(Tj) =
0.25 + Ti + 0.5$ (T/ - 5)
(12.85)
Table 12.4 lists the availability values for various values of Tj. A
sample calculation for Tj = 5 months is as follows:
5 + (5 - 5)- *(5 - 5) - ;4- e-5(5-5)

-4(5) =
0.25 + 5 + 0.5 $ (5 - 5)
5 + °"^
0.25 + 5 + 0.5(0.5)'
or
A(5) = 0.8366.
It may be seen from Table 12.4 that the optimum inspection interval
is
Tj = 3 months,
and the corresponding maximum availability is
A[Tj) = A(3) = 0.9173.
12.7 A SUMMARY OF RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

IN MAINTENANCE POLICIES
12.7.1 LOCAL VERSUS GLOBAL REPLACEMENT
POLICIES
Ebrahimi [16] investigated two new replacement policies which can be
used in deciding whether one should replace or repair a system. Con
sider a system with several components which can fail and be replaced.
Examples are:
1. a car where the components are the battery, ignition system,

transmission, etc.,
2. a television set where the components are the picture tube, ca

pacitors, condensers, resistors, tuners, etc.
Suppose that a system has failed and the question is whether to replace
it as a whole, or to repair it by replacing only the failed components.
For example, if a car has failed and the cause of the failure is the
transmission, then the owner of the car has to decide whether to buy
a new car or to replace only the transmission. The replacement of a
failed transmission with a new one is considered to be a repair of the
system.
The replacement policies for such systems depend on:
1. the life of a new system,
2. the remaining life of the old system if it was repaired at the time
of failure,
3. the cost of a new system, and
4. the cost of repairing the old system at the time of failure.
Policies based on some of the above quantities have been thoroughly

studied in the literature and effectiveness of such policies has been
evaluated, in particular the minimal repair policy [17]. In the example
of the TV or the car, the type of repair referred to (whereby failed
components are replaced by new ones) is somewhere between minimal
repair and replacement.
Suppose several repairmen (automobile, appliance, etc.) are asked:
"How do you decide what kind of repair to recommend to your cus
tomers?" All (honest) answers would be essentially the same, although
phrased differently: "I have a rough idea, from experience, of how long
the item will work after each kind of repair made to this stage, and
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS 447
/ recommend the type of repair which will give the customer the most
for his money." This is common sense which one would anticipate
ordinary individuals to use.
Ebrahimi [16] formulated the above idea and made it operational.
He proposed two types of policies:
1 . A local policy wherein a decision is made based on average life

time (or life-time) per unit cost of repair.
2. A global policy.
Mathematical properties of these policies are developed and some ex
amples show that the two policies can yield different decisions under
the same circumstances.
12.7.2 MAINTENANCE POLICY FOR REPAIRABLE

SYSTEMS BASED ON OPPORTUNISTIC
FAILURE-RATE TOLERANCE
Zheng and Fard [18] proposed an opportunistic failure rate replacement
policy for a repairable system with several types of units. A unit is
repaired at failure when the failure rate falls in (0,X — u) where L
is failure rate limit for preventive replacement and u is failure rate
tolerance. A unit is replaced at failure when the failure rate falls in
(L-u, L). An operating unit is replaced when its failure rate reaches L.
When a unit is replaced because its failure rate reaches L, all operating
units with their failure rates falling in (L — u, L) are replaced. The long-
run mean cost rate as a function of L and u is derived. Optimal L and u
are obtained to minimize the total maintenance cost rate. Application
and analysis of results are demonstrated through a numerical example.
The maintenance model is designed for a system with multitype
units, or units with different life time distributions or different failure
rate equations. Each type has its own increasing failure rate. Units
are repaired or replaced depending on their failure rate at a failure or
active replacement of another unit. The repair interval, replacement
limit, and replacement tolerance are determined to yield the optimal
total maintenance cost rate.
12.7.3 PERIODIC-REPLACEMENT MODELS WITH

THRESHOLD LEVELS
Nakagawa and Yasui [19] suggested five replacement policies where a
unit is replaced at periodic times, jT,j = 1,2,..., and the replace
ment cost is expensive when the number of events occurring in (0,T)
is greater than a threshold level. The usual models for inspection, peri
odic replacement, block replacement, parallel systems, and cumulative
damage can be transformed into replacement models with threshold
levels. The mean cost-rate of each model is obtained, using well-known
results of reliability theory. The optimum replacement time which min
imizes the cost-rate of an inspection model, is discussed and shown to
exist uniquely.
12.7.4 PERIODIC REPLACEMENT POLICY FOR

SYSTEMS SUBJECTED TO SHOCK DAMAGE
Lai and Yuan [20] presented a periodic replacement policy for a system
which is subjected to shocks. Such shock can be classified, depending
on its effect to the system, into two types: lethal and nonlethal. When
ever the system receives a nonlethal shock, it damages the system, in
the sense that it increases its failure rate. However, whenever a lethal
shock occurs it causes the system to fail due to its excessive stress.
Since the occurrence of shocks could easily cause the system to fail
and, consequently, to increase the operation cost of the system, there
is an incentive to replace the system preventively prior to failure. A
periodic replacement policy for the system is presented and conditions
which characterize the optimal replacement period T are given. The
results are illustrated through numerical examples.
12.7.5 MAINTENANCE SCHEDULING FOR SYSTEM

WITH ASSURED RELIABILITY
Systems which have to work at or below a maximum acceptable failure
rate should be maintained at predetermined points such that the failure
rate does not exceed an acceptable level. As the system ages, the post-
maintenance failure rate of the system drops to a new value which is
larger than the failure rate at the begining of the mission but less than
that prior to the failure. Unless the system has been replaced, the
maintenance does not restore the system to the original state.
Jayabalan and Chaudhuri [21] presented a branching algorithm
with effective dominance rules that curtail the number of nodes cre
ated. This algorithm determines the number of maintenance inter
ventions before each replacement in order to minimize the total cost
over a finite time horizon. The model considers inflationary trends. A
numerical example demonstrates the algorithm. Most papers on main
tenance problems have considered the maintenance interval as constant
and increasing cost for successive maintenance for a system. Jayabalan
and Chaudhuri [21] treated the maintenance cost as constant and suc
cessive simple-maintenance intervals as decreasing. Though their algo
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS 449
rithm assumes that the cost per maintenance is constant, an increasing

maintenance cost function may be incorporated. The optimum solu
tions depend on the following:
1. Constant improvement factor.

2. First simple-maintenance point.
3. Rate of increase in acquisition cost.
4. Maintenance cost factor.
5. Planning period.
12.7.6 REPLACEMENT POLICY FOR CUMULATIVE-

DAMAGE-CAUSED FAILURE
Cumulative damage models, where a unit suffers damage due to shocks
and fails when the total amount of damage exceeds a failure level,
generate a cumulative process. The damage could be wear, fatigue,
crack, corrosion, and erosion. It may be wise to replace a unit before
failure, by investigating some factors.
Park [22] studied the case where an item breaks down when it wears
continuously beyond a. certain threshold. The item is replaced preven
tively if the wear at periodic inspections exceeds a certain wear limit
and correctively upon failure. The optimal wear limit for preventive
replacement which minimizes the long-run total average cost-rate is
derived. A numerical example demonstrates its computability. Later
in the same year, Park [23] studied the case where an item with wear-
dependent failure rate is replaced when it wears beyond a preset wear
limit; or on failure. He presented an Age Replacement Policy for such
kind of wear-failure process.
Nakagawa and Kijima [24] applied the periodic replacement with
minimal repair at failure to cumulative damage models: A unit is re
placed at time T, at shock N, or at damage Z, and undergoes minimal
repair between replacements. The mean cost-rate is obtained and each
optimal T", N" and Z* to minimize the cost-rate is discussed. A nu
merical example is given for an exponential case.
Kececioglu and Sun [25] studied the stochastic behavior of the
wear process from the cumulative damage point of view. The gen
eral wear progression envelope is presented and the typically observed
three wear periods (break-in, steady wear and rapid wear) are defined
and discussed. Curvilinear-linear-curvilinear wear equations are fitted
to data on both the lower and the upper boundaries of the wear data
envelopes using the least-squares regression method. Parameters are
450 ADDITIONAL MAINTENANCE POLICIES
estimated for the wear-life distribution families using the "3a" theo
rem for the normal distribution and the matching percentiles method
for the Weibull distribution. Wear reliability prediction procedures are
developed for different cases using the normal and the Weibull distri
butions. The preventive replacement policy models are developed for
the specified in-service reliability and for the minimum cost. Numer
ical examples are given and discussed. The methodologies presented
can be applied to other failure modes exhibiting cumulative damage
behavior, such as metal fatigue, fatigue crack growth, corrosion, ero
sion, creep, deteriorating material properties in plastics with time, and
so on.
12.7.7 PREVENTIVE REPLACEMENT POLICY FOR

SYSTEMS WITH DEPENDENT COMPONENTS
A multi-component series system includes a component which dete
riorates over time, changing its operating characteristics, and conse
quently, increasing the failure rates of neighboring components. Pre
ventive replacement of the deteriorating component can be beneficial.
Albin and Chao [26] presented replacement policies where we:
1. inspect the deteriorating component at system failure instances
and replace it if the deterioration exceeds a critical level, or
2. continuously monitor the deteriorating component.
The system is modeled as a Markov chain solved by an efficient algo
rithm that can handle systems with hundreds of components. For a
2-component system, a closed form equation gives the critical level for
the minimum-average-cost failure-replacement policy. For the general
case, replacement policies are evaluated by the mean cost rate and by
the ratio of the reduction in the number of failures to the number of
preventive replacements.
PROBLEMS
12-1. What is the relationship betwen the Optional and the Age, the
Block and the Pure Corrective Replacement Policies? List all the
advantages and the disadvantages for each policy and compare
them. Give at least two (2) practical examples for which each
of these policies may be applicable. Make justifications wherever
desirable.
12-2. What is the difference between the Optional Replacement Policy
and the Opportunistic Replacement Policy. Give at least two (2)
examples for which each of these two policies may be applicable.
r
PROBLEMS 451
12-3. In the Multi-stage Replacement Policy, how do you set up the

stages? What is the constraint to the application of this policy?
Give an example where the Multi-stage Replacement Policy is
applicable.
12-4. The time to failure of a component follows a gamma distribution

with a shape parameter /? = 10, or
/(T) = m (iT\9 1
_r
e i,
The Optional Replacement Policy is to be applied to this com

ponent. The time between preventive replacement opportunities,
Tro, is exponentially distributed with an appearing rate of u. The
cost for preventive replacement is Cp = $25. The cost for correc
tive replacement is Cc = $100. Do the following:
(1) Determine the optimum preventive replacement age, T" in

terms of the scale parameter of the component's life distri
bution, 77, using the results of Example 12-1 and in par
ticular Fig. 12.2 or Table 12.1, assuming the mean interval
between preventive replacement opportunities, £, is equal
to the mean time to failure, or
- = fi 7? = 10 ij.
u
(2) Determine the minimum total replacement cost per unit
time of operation in terms of the scale parameter, 77.
(3) Determine the total replacement cost per unit time of oper
ation without any preventive replacements, in terms of the
scale parameter, T).
(4) Discuss the results.
12-5. The time to failure of a component follows a gamma distribution

with a shape parameter @ = 10, or
«r' = ^(P'
r?(9!) Vr/y
The Optional Replacement Policy is to be applied to this com
ponent. The time between preventive replacement opportunities,
Tro, is exponentially distributed with an appearing rate of u. The
cost for preventive replacement is Cv = $25. The cost for correc
tive replacement is Cc = $167. Do the following:
(1) Determine the optimum preventive replacement age, T' in

terms of the scale parameter of the component's life distri
bution, 77, using the results of Example 12-1 and in par
ticular Fig. 12.2 or Table 12.1, assuming the mean interval
between preventive replacement opportunities, », is equal
to the mean time to failure, or
- = 0 J) = 10 77.
u
(2) Determine the minimum total replacement cost per unit
time of operation in terms of the scale parameter, n.
(3) Determine the total replacement cost per unit time of oper
ation without any preventive replacements, in terms of the
scale parameter, 7?.
(4) Discuss the results.
12-6. Rework Problem 12-4, but with a constant time between oppor
tunities, Tro.
12-7. Rework Problem 12-5, but with a constant time between oppor
tunities, TT0.
12-8. Assume N components have a Weibull life distribution with pa
rameters of /3 = 2.0, 7 = 0 and 77 = 150 hr. Find the transfer
rate P\t 2 for the Two-stage Replacement Policy with N\ and A'2
components at Stage 1 and Stage 2, respectively, if
and
12-9. Assume TV components have a Weibull life distribution with pa
rameters of /3 = 1.0, 7 = 0 and 77 = 150 hr. Find the transfer
rate P\t 2 for the Two-stage Replacement Policy with N\ and 7V2
components at Stage 1 and Stage 2, respectively, if
and
12-10. There are ten (10) interchangeable hne-replaceable units (LRU's)
in a complex electronic system. According to their failure re
placement cost, they can be divided into the following two groups:
PROBLEMS 453
Group 1: N\ = l with C/i=$400 per failure.

Group 2: N2 = 3 with C/2=$800 per failure.
The capital cost of each LRU is Cc=$200. Each transfer costs
$50.
The life distribution of these LRU's is Weibull with parameters
of )3 = 2.0, 7 = 0 and ij = 850 hr. Do the following:
(1) Determine the optimum, two-stage replacement policy (trans
fer by age or at random, and the appropriate stage order)
and the corresponding total replacement cost.
(2) Determine the cost savings of conducting this two-stage-
replacement policy over the simple-corrective-replacement
policy?
12-11. There are eight (8) interchangeable line- replaceable units (LRU's)
in a complex electronic system. According to their failure re
placement cost, they can be divided into the following two groups:
Group 1: Ni = 3 with Cfl=$900 per failure.
Group 2: JV2 = 5 with C/2=$300 per failure.
The capital cost of each LRU is Cc=$150. Each transfer costs
$45.
The life distribution of these LRU's is normal with parameters
of /i = 950 hr and a = 10 hr. Do the following:
( 1 ) Determine the optimum, two-stage replacement policy (trans
fer by age or at random, and the appropriate stage order)
and the corresponding total replacement cost.
(2) Determine the cost savings of conducting this two-stage-
replacement policy over the simple-corrective-replacement
policy?
12-12. The net benefit per year obtained from operating a capital equip
b(T) = 50, 000 e-°04T,

c(T) b 10, 000 - 12, 500 e"0'657".
The time required to replace this complex capital equipment pre
ventively is one month. The interest rate is 10%. Do the follow-
(1) Determine the optimal preventive replacement age of the

equipment, T*.
(2) Find the corresponding maximum total discounted net ben-
efit, b(t;).
12-13. The net benefit per year obtained from operating a capital equip
b(T) = 45, 100 e-°-05T,
c(T) = 25, 000 - 13, 500 e'0607.

The time required to replace this complex capital equipment pre
ventively is 1.5 months. The interest rate is 12%. Do the foDow-
ing:
(1) Determine the optimal preventive replacement age of the
equipment, T*.
(2) Find the corresponding maximum total discounted net ben-
efit, B{T;).
12-14. A system has an exponential times-to-failure pdf with a failure
rate given by
A(n) = -,
n
where k is the average number of failures per unit time of oper
ation when n=l inspection is made per unit time of operation.
The times-to-restore distribution is exponential with MTTR =
- = 20 hr. The mean time to perform an inspection is j = 6
hr. The value of the output per month of system operation is $
25,000. Costs of repair and inspection per month of system op
eration are Cr =$250 and Cj = $125, respectively. According to
past experience, the average number of failures per month, when
n=l inspection is made, is k = 3. Find the optimal number of
inspections per month, n* , so that the profit per unit time of
operation of the system is maximized.
12-15. A system has an exponential times-to-failure pdf with a failure
rate given by
M.)-i.
REFERENCES 455
where k is the average number of failures per unit time of oper

ation when n=l inspection is made per unit time of operation.
The times-to-restore distribution is exponential with MTTR =
- = 15 hr. The mean time to perform an inspection is * = 5
hr. The value of the output per month of system operation is $
30,000. Costs of repair and inspection per month of system op
eration are Cr =$320 and C\ = $120, respectively. According to
past experience, the average number of failures per month, when
n=l inspection is made, is k = 2. Find the optimal number of
inspections per month, n", so that the profit per unit time of
operation of the system is maximized.
12-16. The times to failure of an equipment are normally distributed
with a mean of /j = 4 months and standard deviation a = 0.5
month. The time required to effect a repair, or replacement, is
tR = 0.50 month, and the time required to effect an inspection
is ti = 0.25 month. Find the optimal inspection interval, TJ , to
maximize the long-run average availability of the equipment.
12-17. The times to failure of an equipment are Weibull distributed
with parameters of j3 = 3, 7 = 0 and n — 4.5 months. The
time required to effect a repair, or replacement, is tji = 0.60
month, and the time required to effect an inspection is </ = 0.35
month. Find the optimal inspection interval, Tf, to maximize
the long-run average availability of the equipment.
REFERENCES
1. Woodman, R. C, "Replacement Policies for Component that
Deteriorates," Operational Research Quarterly, Vol. 18, No. 3,
pp. 267-280, 1967.
2. Mou, Zhi-Zhong and Sun, Feng-Bin, "Multimode Replacement
Policies for Large-Scale Industrial Systems," Proceedings of the
International Symposium on Reliability and Maintainability, Tokyo,
Japan, 1990.
3. Bartholomew, D. J., "Two-stage Replacement Strategies," Oper
ational Research Quaterly, Vol. 14, pp. 71-87, 1963.
4. Naik, M. D. and Nair, K. P. K., "Multi-stage Replacement Strate
gies," Operations Research, pp. 279-290, 1965.
5. Vergin, R. C. and Scriabin, M., "Maintenance Scheduling for
Multi-component Equipment," AIIE Transactions, Vol. 9, No.
3, pp. 297-305, 1977.
6. L'Ecuyer, P. and Haurie, A., "Preventive Replacement for Multi-

component Systems: an Opportunistic Discrete-time Dynamic
Programing Model," IEEE Transactions on Reliability, pp. 78-
81, 1986.
7. Mou, Zhi-Zhong and Sun, Feng-Bin, "DP (Dynamic Program

ming) Model of Opportunistic Replacement Policy for Multi-
component System and Its Solution Approach," Proceedings of
China-Japan Reliability Symposium, Shanghai, China, pp. 74-77,
1987.
8. Cooper, L. and Cooper, M. W., Introduction to Dynamic Pro

gramming, Pergamon, 1981.
9. Rao, S. S., Optimization Theory and Applications, Indian Insti

tute of Technology, Kampur, Wiley Eastern Limited, 1985.
10. Bradley, S. P. & Hax, A. C, Applied Mathematical Programming,

Addison- Wesley, 716 pp., 1977.
11. Reingold, E. M. and Hansen, W. J., Data Structures, Little,

Brown and Company, 450 pp., 1983.
12. Sun, Feng-Bin, Study on Reliability and Maintainability of Steel-
Rolling Production Line, Master's Thesis of Shanghai University
of Technology, Shanghai, China, 141 pp., 1987.
13. Kececioglu, Dimitri B. and Sun, Feng-Bin, "A General Discrete-

time Dynamic Programming Model for the Opportunistic Re
placement Policy and its Application to Ball-bearing Systems,"
Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Vol. 47, No. 3, pp.
175-185, 1995.
14. Mou, Zhi-Zhong and Sun, Feng-Bin, "Study on Reliability and

Maintainability of Steel-Rolling Production Line," Proceedings
6th International Conference on Reliability and Maintainability,
Strasbourgh, France, pp. 105-109, 1988.
15. Jardine, A. K. S., Maintenance, Replacement and Reliability, Pit

man, John Wiley & Sons, 199 pp., 1973.
16. Ebrahimi, N., "Two New Replacement Policies," IEEE Transac

tions on Reliability, Vol. 42, No. 1, pp. 141-147, 1993.
17. Nakagawa, T., "A Summary of Periodic Replacement with Min

imal Repair at Failure," Journal of Operations Research Society
of Japan, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 213-228, 1981.
REFERENCES 457
18. Zheng, X. and Fard, N., "A Maintenance Policy for Repairable
Systems Based on Opportunistic Failure-rate Tolerance," IEEE
Transactions on Reliability, Vol. 40, No. 2, pp. 237-244, 1991.
19. Nakagawa, T. and Yasui, K., "Periodic- Replacement Models with

Threshold Levels," IEEE Transactions on Reliability, Vol. 40,
No. 3, pp. 395-397, 1991.
20. Lai, Min-Tsai, "Cost-Optimal Periodic Replacement Policy for a
System Subjected to Shock Damage," Microelectronics and Re
liability, Vol. 33, No. 4, pp. 489-491, 1993.
21. Jayabalan, V. and Chaudhuri, D., "Cost Optimization of Main
tenance Scheduling for a System with Assured Reliability," IEEE
22. Park, K. S., "Optimal Continuous-Wear Limit Replacement un
der Periodic Inspections," IEEE Transactions on Reliability, Vol.
37, No. 1, pp. 97-102, 1988.
23. Park, K. S., "Optimal Wear-limit Replacement with Wear-Dependent
Failures," IEEE Transactions on Reliability, Vol. 37, No. 3, pp.
293-294, 1988.
24. Nakagawa, T. and Kijima, M., "Replacement Policies for a Cu
mulative Damage Model with Minimal Repair at Failure," IEEE
25. Kececioglu, D. and Sun, Feng-Bin, "Wear Reliability and Preven
tive Replacement Policy for Mechanical Components," Proceed
ings of Failure Prevention and Reliability, 47th Meeting of the
Mechanical Failure Prevention Group Virginia Beach, Virginia,
pp. 263-278, April 14, 1993.
26. Albin, S. and Chao, S., "Preventive Replacement in Systems with
Dependent Components," IEEE Transactions on Reliability, Vol.
41, No. 2, pp. 230-238, 1992.
27. Barlow, R. E. and Proschan, F., Mathematical Theory of Relia
bility, New York, John Wiley & Sons, 256 pp., 1965.
28. McCall, J. J., "Maintenance Policies for Stochastically Failing

Equipment: A Survey," Management Science, Vol. 11, pp. 493-
524, 1965.
29. Jardine, A. K. S. and Buzacott, J. S., "Equipment Reliability

and Maintenance," European Journal of Operational Research,
Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 285-296, 1985.
30. Jardine, A. K. S., "Solving Industrial Replacement Problems,"

Proceedings 1977 Annual Reliability and Maintainability Sympo
sium, pp. 136-141, 1977.
31. Kececioglu, Dimitri B., Maintainability Engineering, Lecture Notes
of The University of Arizona, 700 pp., 1994.
32. Malik, M. A. K., "Reliable Preventive Maintenance Scheduling,"
AIIE Transactions, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 221-228, 1979.
REFERENCES 459
APPENDIX 12A
COMPUTER PROGRAM FOR EXAMPLE 12-5
c
Q ******************************************************
C * COMPUTER PROGRAM FOR OPTIMUM PREVENTIVE REPLACEMENT*
C * AGE DETERMINATION FOR CAPITAL EQUIPMENT BY *
C * MAXIMIZING THE DISCOUNTED BENIFITS USING *
C * THE GOLDEN SECTION (0.618) METHOD *
C ******************************************************
C
EXTERNAL B
WRITE (*,*)» ENTER THE LOWER LIMIT FOR Tp!'
READ(*,*)A1
WRITE (*,*)' ENTER THE UPPER LIMIT FOR Tp! '
READ(*,*)A2
EP=0. 00001
CALL 0PT(A1,A2,EP,XM,FM,B)
WRITE (* , * ) ' ========================================== '
WRITE(*,*)'THE OPTIMUM PREVENTIVE REPLACEMENT AGE IS:'
WRITE(*,*)'Tp*=',XM
WRITEC*, *)'=========================================='
WRITE(*,*)'THE MAXIMUM TOTAL NET BENIFIT IS:'
WRITE(*,*)'B(Tp*)=',-FM
WRITEO, *)'=========================================='
STOP
END
C
C *******************************************************
C * SUBPROGRAMME FOR OPTIMIZATION USING 0.618 METHOD *
C *******************************************************
C
SUBROUTINE 0PT(A1 ,A2,EP,XM,FM,B)
EXTERNAL B
TU=0.618
10 A3=A2-TU*(A2-A1)
F3=B(A3)
20 A4=A1+TU*(A2-A1)
F4=B(A4)
30 IF(ABS(F4-F3)-EP) 1,2,2
1 IF(ABS(A4-A3)-EP) 3,3,4
3 IF(F3-F4) 7,8,8
7 XM=A3
FM=F3
RETURN
8 XM=A4
FM=F4
RETURN
4 A1=A3
A2=A4
GOTO 10
2 IFCF4-F3) 5,6,6
5 A1=A3
A3=A4
F3=F4
GOTO 20
6 A2=A4
A4=A3
F4=F3
A3=A2-TU*(A2-A1)
F3=B(A3)
GOTO 30
END
C
C *******************************************************
C * SUBPROGRAM FOR THE OBJECTIVE FUNCTION *
C * —THE TOTAL DISCOUNTED NET BENIFIT *
C *******************************************************
c
FUNCTION B(X)
Bl=168421*(1.0-EXP(-0.19*X))-( 15000- 13600*EXP(-0.73*X))
1 *EXP(-0.1*X)
B=Bl/(1.0-EXP(-0.1*(X+0.083)))
WRITEO,*) 'Tp==' ,X, 'B(Tp)==' ,B
B=-B
RETURN
END
Chapter 13
OVERHAUL POLICIES
13.1 OVERHAUL
Overhaul is a maintenance activity undertaken at scheduled time in
tervals whose primary purpose is to reduce the number of failures and
prevent equipment from reaching the age at which frequent failures
cause substantial loss of performance. In comparison with the preven
tive maintenance policies, given in Chapters 9, 10, 11 and 12 by which
a component, an equipment or a system is restored to "as good as new"
condition after replacement or repair, an overhaul action is considered
as a restorative action which does not return an equipment to "as good
as new" condition but improves its performance. Figure 13.1 illustrates
the effect of overhaul and repair on the equipment's condition. It may
be seen that there is gradual deterioration of the equipment's perfor
mance over time which ends eventually in the replacement of the whole
equipment.
In contrast to preventive maintenance policies where the criteria
are most often to determine the optimum replacement or repair sched
ule so that the total cost per unit of operating time is minimized, an
overhaul strategy is based on making decisions whether, and when, to
overhaul, as well as the level of overhaul to which equipment is to be
repaired. Overhaul versus replacement and repair is a decision most
often based on minimization of future cost, maximization of future
benefits or reducing the failure rate to acceptable levels. The decision
is usually made at regular time intervals so that the loss of production
due to downtime is minimized. For example, overhaul/replacement de
cision is made once a week, once a month or once a year. To optimize
the overhaul/repair/replacement activities over a sequence of regular
intervals, information about overhaul, repair and replacement costs is
required. Since overhaul may consist of different maintenance activi-
461
462 OVERHAUL
'AS GOOD AS NEW CONDITION

r^
K
I N
I
Overhoul Repair Overhaul Overhaul Replace
Uptime and maintenance time
Fig. 13.1 - Effect of overhaul and repair to equipment per

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

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

Overhaul can be classified as follows:
1. Scheduled Overhaul.
2. Off-schedule Overhaul.
Scheduled overhaul is a preventive maintenance, while off-schedule
overhaul is a corrective maintenance.
Overhaul and repair concepts are very important in the maintain
ability, availability and dependability [See Chapter 3, Volume 2 of this
Handbook] of the equipment.
The system operating time is defined as follows:
Topt = T — T41
where
T = calendar time,
Td = total downtime (overhaul time),
and
T^t = system's operating time.

If m is equal to the mean time between failures of a system, then
we can find out how often the system will fail in a time Topt between
two regular overhauls.
If between two regular overhauls the system is not affected by wear-
out failures so that it behaves exponentially, as shown in Fig. 13.2, its
reliability of operating for T^t hours between overhauls is
RiTopt) = e-^ . (13.1)

If the time between two overhauls of an equipment or a system is
fixed and equal to a mission or required operating time (T0 — Topt),
then from Eq. (13.1), it is obvious that, depending on the MTBF
464 OVERHAUL DEFINED
3
s
-C
Early failure
U period
_3
ia
—
'3
Start of
wear-out
Operating life (age), T, hours
Fig. 13.2 - The "reliability bathtub" curve.

and thereby on the reliability of the equipment, not all equipments

will reach the regular overhaul time of T0 without failing and Q{T0) =
[1 — R(T0)]% is the probability that the equipment will fail before the
time T0. So the number of equipments to be overhauled before the T0
hours is given by
NF = N Q(T0).
The expected average overhaul time for all these equipments would
be less than_T0, therefore we need to find the average time between
overhauls (T) which is given by
T = / " R(t) dt. (13.2)

Jo
In the exponential case this is given by
T= / R(t) dt = / cm dt,
Jo Jo
= — m (e~~™— l]=m [l — e~~£],

or
T = m Q{T0). (13.3)
Therefore, in general, T equals the mean time between failures
multiplied by the unreliability for the overhaul period.
EXAMPLE 13-1
100 units with the mean time to failure, m = 5,000 hr, are to
be overhauled at regularly scheduled time intervals, T0, equal to 500
hours. Determine the following:
1. The reliability of a unit for a mission duration equal to the total

operating time, T0, between two overhauls.
2. The expected number of unscheduled overhauls in one interval,
T0, or between two scheduled overhaul actions.
3. The average time between overhauls for both scheduled and un
scheduled overhaul actions.
1. The reliability of a unit with the mean time between failures of

m = 5,000, for a mission duration of T0 = 500 hr, is given by
R(T0) = e-%,
or
500
11(500) = e vaE,
= e -o.i I
or
11(500) = 0.904837.
2. The expected number of unscheduled overhauls between two sched

uled ones, or in the interval of T0 = 500 hr, is equal to the number
of units that will fail before T0 hours, or
NF = N Q(T0),
= N[1-R(T0)},
= 100 [1 - 0.904837],
= 9.5163,
or
Nf = 10 failures or overhauls.
3. The average time between overhauls is given by Eq. (13.3), or
T = m Q(T0),
= m [1 - R(T0)],
= 5,000 [1 -/?(500)],
= 5,000 [1 -0.904837],
or
T = 475.815 hr.
The main function of overhaul is to prevent wear-out. The Weibull

distribution with shape parameter (3 > 1 represents the times to wear-
out quite well. Figure 13.2 shows a typical "reliability bathtub curve'-
with the overhaul schedule, T0, so chosen that the occurrence of wear-
out failures is reduced to a minimum. The Weibull pdf is given by
m-lP=*F »■<**. ; (.3.4)
V \ V J
When /? = 1 this pdf reduces to the exponential distribution, and then
only chance failures occur. Assuming that the time T0 is equal to the
time at which chance failures end and wear-out starts; i.e., the time
at which overhaul becomes mandatory, then the reliability function for
this point, where the occurrence of chance failures ends and wear-out
failures start, can be written as
iWT„) = fe-<^>%ê-(^)*", (13.5)
where
(3C = shape parameter for chance failures (/? = 1),
/3u, = shape parameter for wear-out failures (/? > 1),
77c = scale parameter for chance failures (tjc = mc = ■£-),
T)w = scale parameter for wear-out failures,
7C = location parameter for chance failures,
7„, = location parameter for wear-out failures,
Nc
= subpopulation undergoing chance failures,
and
N
—*r = subpopulation undergoing wear-out failures.
The reliability of the system for a new mission of duration of t hours,

starting the mission at age T0 (overhaul interval), or after having al
ready operated a total of T0 hours, is obtained from
RcMToJ) = Rc£{T? + t] > (136)
nt,w(1o)
or
*» e V * l + Op. e V q. )
■ftc,tu(-'o> *) — JL
The overhaul interval, T0, should be so determined that the follow

ing condition is satisfied:
Rc,w(T0,t) > Rgoal-
The mean time between both scheduled and unscheduled overhauls

is given by
MTBO = f ' RCtW(T) dT, (13.7)

Jo
or
MTBO = f0 [§ e-(^)" + ^ e-(Z^)"1 dT,
Jo [N N J
or
MT50 = /* ^£ a-(W ^ + \T" *k e~(^r dTi (13.8)
Jo N Jo N '
Equation (13.8) can be solved numerically to find the mean time be
tween scheduled and unscheduled overhauls.
The expected number of overhauls that will be performed in calen
dar time, T, which is the operating time plus total downtime, is given
by
"- - 3OT5- (13"9)

where
Novh = number of overhauls,
T = calendar time,
T& = total overhaul time or total downtime,
and
MTBO = mean time between overhauls.

The number of units that will fail during the calendar time using
the scheduled overhaul period, T0, [1, pp. 531-559] is given by
NF = N Q(T0),
= N[l-R(T0)},
or
NF = N < 1 — I — e * * * + — e ' iv i
EXAMPLE 13-2
A mixed sample of exponential and Weibullian parts is used in
an equipment. Ninety percent of the parts are exponential with the
following parameters:
0C = 1.0; r)c = 5, 000 hr and jc = 0 hr.
Ten percent of the parts are Weibullian with the following parameters:
(3W = 2.5; r)w = 1, 000 hr and 7W = 0 hr.
If the reliability goal is Rgoal = 0.985, determine the following:
1. The interval between overhauls, T0, so that the reliability for a
mission duration of 50 hr satisfies the reliability goal.
2. The mean time between both scheduled and unscheduled over
hauls, MTBO.
3. If 100 such equipment are in operation, determine the number of
those that will fail prior to the overhaul time, T0.
1. Using Eq. (13.6) and the given parameters, the reliability of
an equipment for a mission duration of 50 hr, given that the
equipment is overhauled every T0 hours, is given by
(T„ +50 \ (Tn+50\''
0.90 e 1 5.°°° I + 0.10 e v »■<>«> '
ftc,w\-l<>i V
0.90 e~(sô) +0.10 e"vTôo)
To determine the value of T0 so that
Rc,w(T0, 50) > Rgoal = 0.985, (13.10)
choose different values of T0 and check whether the inequality of
Eq. (13.10) is satisfied. It is determined that for T0 = 700 hr
^^(700,50) = 0.985. Therefore, the interval between overhauls
is 700 hr.
The mean time between overhauls is given by
MTBO = / ' Rc,w(T) dT,

Jo
<-700 T /-700
= / 0.90 e 5,ooodT+ / 0.1 e iI i.ooo
I 12.5
; dT,
Jo Jo0
700 700 Z_\2.5
= 4,500 (1- 0.1 e -(-
g 5,000 -j_
700
L dT,
= 587.888 + / 0.1 e" dT, (13.11)

JO
The integral of Eq. (13.11) can be solved by numerical inte

gration, or by using Simpson's Rule with sufficient number of
intervals. Then,
MTBO m 587.888 + 62.694 = 650.582 hr.
3. To determine the number of equipment that will fail prior to the

overhaul time, T0, calculate the reliability for a mission duration
of T0 hours. Then,
700 / 700 \7b
#c,w(700) = 0.90 e 5.°°o +0.10 e Im»" ,
= 0.782422 + 0.066367,
or
i?c,w(700) = 0.848789.
If 100 such equipment are in operation, then the number of those
that will fail prior to T0 = 700 hr, is given by
Nf = N QC,W(T0),
= N[\- RCtW(To)},
= 100 [1-0.848789],
= 15.1211,
or
N/ = 16 units.
13.2.1 WHEN THE WEAR-OUT PDF IS NORMAL

If the wear-out times-to-failure distribution is normal, then
f(T) = —ê-M2^)2, (13.12)

CT \/2 7T
where
H = mean wear life,
T = age, or accumulated operating time since new,
and
a = standard deviation of the life times.
Here the case when only one failure mode can occur is considered;
i.e., only chance failures can occur or only wear-out failures can occur
and not both simultaneously.
If Tw = (n — 3 a) is chosen as a replacement or overhaul time,

the probability of wear-out failure for the entire operating life of the
component from T = 0 to T = Tw = (/z — 3 o) amounts to
Qw(Tw) = 0.0015,
which can be obtained from the cumulative normal distribution tables.
For different overhaul intervals, the probabilities of wear-out failures
are as follows:
For
-.-5
T„, = n - 4 a Qw = 0.0000317 = 3.17 x 10_
Tw = n-5 a Qw = 0.000000287 = 2.87 x 10~7,
Tm = /i — 6 a Qw = 9.8659 x 10~10,
and so on.
To reduce the number of failures which are caused by wear-out the
overhaul interval, T0 = Tw, or
T0 = n - z a, (13.13)
should be so chosen that the probability of wear-out failures is small.
For single components the replacement or overhaul time must be
kept at (fi — 4 a) or (fi — 5 a) or in between, to prevent wear-out from
appreciably increasing the failure rate. If large numbers of components
are in a system, this replacement or overhaul time must be further
reduced to (/i — 5 a), or even (/i — 6 a), according to the reliability
requirements.
By a proper choice of the replacement, or overhaul, time T0 = (fi —
z a), wear-out failures can be substantially reduced, or even eliminated.
Then, only chance failures would occur and the probability that the
equipment would fail in operation is drastically reduced.
When only chance failures occur between regular overhauls, the
number of parts of the same kind which will have to be replaced because
of failing prior to regular overhaul time T0 amounts, on the average, to
Nf = N Q(T0). (13.14)
When Q(T0) is small and only chance failures occur [2, p. 200],
then
Q(T0) = ^,
m
Nf = N £ (13.15)
1 m
EXAMPLE 13-3
An equipment has a mean time to failure of ro = 4, 000 hr, a mean
wear-out life of \i — 1,200 hr and a standard deviation of a = 100
hr. To prevent the wear-out failure from occurring prior to scheduled
overhauls the interval between overhauls, T0, should be determined
from T0 = /x — 4 a. Determine the following:
1. The interval between overhauls, T0, and the reliability of an
equipment for a mission duration of T = T0 assuming that only
chance failures occur.
2. The probability of wear-out failures occurring prior to T0.
3. The probability of chance failures occurring prior to T0.
4. Compare the results of Cases 2 and 3.
5. If 100 such equipment are in operation how many will fail due to
chance failures prior to T0?
6. If the interval between overhauls is extended to T0 = 1,000 hr,
what is the probability of wear-out failures occurring prior to T0?
Compare this result to the result of Case 2.
7. Determine the reliability of an equipment for a mission duration
of T = T0 — 1 , 000 hr and compare this result with the result of
Case 1.
8. If 100 such equipment are in operation, how many will fail due
to chance failures prior to T0 = 1,000 hr?
9. What should be the mean wear-out designed-in life if there is
a requirement that not more than 1% fail due to wear-out, as
suming that a good approximation of the standard deviation is
° = "ft-
1. Using Eq. (13.13) yields

T0 = M - 4 ct,
= 1,200-4 (100),
or
T0 = 800 hr.
Assuming that only chance failures occur, the reliability of an

equipment for a mission duration of T = T0 is given by
800
#(800) = e *»,
_ .-0.2
= e
or
#(800) = 0.81873.
2. The probability of wear-out failures occurring prior to T0 — 800

hr is obtained from
T0 — n - z a.
Since z = 4, then from the standard cumulative normal distribu
tion tables the probability of wear-out failure is
Qw(T») = 0.0000317.
3. The probability of chance failures occurring prior to T0 = 800 hr

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

wear-out failures are negligible which is the purpose of overhaul
actions undertaken every T0 = 800 hr, whereby the equipment is
not allowed to go significantly into wear-out.
5. If there are N = 100 units at the start of an overhaul interval
of T0 = 800 hr, then the number of those that will fail due to
chance failures is given by
Nf = N Q(800),
= 100 (0.18127),
= 18.127,
or
Nj — 19 units.
6. If the interval between overhauls is extended to T0 = 1,000 hr,

the probability of wear-out failures is obtained from Eq. (13.13),
or
T0 = (i — z o.
Then
M~T0
2 =
a j
1,200-1,000
100
or
2 = 2.
Prom the standard normal cumulative distribution tables and for
2 = 2 the probability of wear-out failures is
gw( 1,000) =0.02275.
Comparing the results of Cases 2 and 6 it can be seen that when
the overhaul interval, T0, is extended from 800 hr to 1,000 hr
the probability of wear-out failures increases from 0.0000317 to
0.02275.
7. The reliability of an equipment for a mission duration of T —
T0 = 1,000 is given by
1,000
R{ 1,000) = e <.«*>,
-- p-0.25
or
R{ 1,000) =0.7788.
Comparing the results of Cases 1 and 7 it can be seen that when
the overhaul interval, T0, is extended from 800 hr to 1,000 hr the
reliability of an equipment for a mission duration of T0 = 1,000
hr decreases from 0.81873 to 0.7788.
8. If there are N = 100 units at the start of an overhaul interval
of T0 = 1,000 hr, then the number of those that will fail due to
chance failures is given by
Nf = N Q( 1,000),
- N [1 - R(T0)}
= 100 [1 -0.7788],
= 22.12,
or
N, = 23.
9. Using the standard normal cumulative tables for a value of 1%,

or 0.01 probability of failure, yields z = 2.326. Using Eq. (13.13)
yields
T0 = \x - z O,
p 10
or
(13.16)
*-»(>-a)-
Solving Eq. (13.16) for /x yields
T0
H = 1 - ^-'
10
_1,000
1 2.326
10
'
or
fi = 1,303.1 hr.
Therefore, if it is required that the number of failures due to

wear-out prior to T0 = 1,000 hr does not exceed 1% then the
designed-in mean wear-out life must be at least 1,303.1 hr.
13.2.2 MEAN TIME BETWEEN FAILURES OF A RENEW

ABLE DEVICE OR A SYSTEM
Assume that
Tre = operating time between two inspections,
m,Trc = mean time between failures if the system is inspected every
Tre hours,
and
%l = average time between scheduled and unscheduled replace

ments.
The mean time between renewals of a renewable device or a system,

mTrci is given by [See Section 9.2]
Tre ft" R(t) dt

mT""m7)- QiTre) ' (13"17)
which is the ratio of the expected, or average time, Tre, between sched
uled and unscheduled overhauls to the fraction of overhauls caused by
the actual failure of the system. From Eq. (13.17)
j£*M*. (13,8)
mTrc
In case of an exponential system Eq. (13.17) reduces to
So" R(t) dt
mTrt
Q(Tre) '
ff" e-m dt
Q(Tre) '
■mil— e ■• J
m m Q(Tre)
Q(Tre)
or
mT„ = ra
it is known that for a nonmaintained system its mean life is given by
r°°
I m
m = / R(t) dt.
Jo
However, for a maintained system the average constant failure rate is
given by
1 = Q(Tre)
âva3 — mrr*
mTrc — ~sr '.
r1rt *■■'■•■
I0T"R(t)dt • (13.19)
Equation (13.17) for mrre and (13.19) for Xavg are valid regardless of
the failure distribution of the components. For example, if a component
fails only because of wear-out and is not preventively replaced after Tre
hours of operation, it will fail with a mean time between failures equal
to its mean wear-out life, m.
When the component is overhauled every Tw hours, its mean time

between failures is given by
- QW(TW) ' ll"-2°j

where
V 2 n a Jt
T = the age of the component,
and
Tw = regular replacement time.

The average stabilized failure rate of the component is given by
Xavg = -j-. (13.21)
13.3 DYNAMIC PROGRAMING BASICS

The most efficient method of solving the overhaul/ repair/ replace op
timization problems is by using dynamic programing techniques. In
order to formulate a problem as a dynamic program it is necessary to
define the stages which correspond to a sequence of decision points. If
a decision is made in time intervals of one year, each stage is so num
bered that the stage number corresponds to the number of remaining
years for which a system should stay in service. For example, the Stage
1 corresponds to the decision point where one year remains, and Stage
n corresponds to the decision point where n years of system operation
remain. Each stage or each decision point is characterized by several
variables such as the equipment's age at the present stage, or the state
of the equipment at the next stage.
Now, we can define the equipment as a system whose state (i,j, . ..)
is defined by these variables. Sn(i,j, . . .) is an objective function to be
optimized and is usually called the "optimum value function." Starting
from Stage n on a decision path, a decision is made regarding overhaul,
repair or replace, and by that decision the state of the equipment at the
next stage, Sn-i(i, j . . .), as well as the set of variables (i,j, . . .) at the
next stage are determined. At the same time the decision determines
the value of going from the present to the next decision point, Cn. In
terms of costs, Cn represents the cost of operation for one period, or
interval of time, or the cost of going from Stage n to the next stage,
478 OPTIMAL OVERHAUL/REPAIR/REPLACE POLICY
(n— 1), depending on the decision made at the starting point, n. The
optimum value function, Sn-i(i, j, . . .), is the optimum future cost at
the (n — l)th stage. The optimization criterion is to find the optimum
decision for which the cost of going from the nth to the (n— l)th stage,
Cn, plus the minimum cost of being at the next stage, Sn-\(i,j, . . .),
is minimum.
In general, the recurrence relation is given by
Sn(i, j, ...)= min {Ci + S&.&J, ...)}, (13.22)
where
d = set of decisions possible at each decision point.
The minimum total expected future cost, Sn(i,j,...), is selected as
the minimum among the costs calculated for each possible decision,
d, at the decision point n. Since the future cost, Sn-i(i, j, . ..), is
not known, a general procedure is to start from the stage where it is
known; i.e., 5o(t,j, ...)i and generate the values of the total expected
future cost backwards for n = 1,2,... using the recurrence Eq. (13.22).
Application of this general idea is presented in the remaining sections
of this chapter.
13.4 OPTIMAL OVERHAUL/REPAIR/REPLACE

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

After the first interval the system is in the stage with (n — 1) remaining
intervals, and being in state j the minimal total expected future cost
is denoted by Sn-\(j). Using the recurrence relation of Eq. (13.22)
the minimal total expected future cost for the system, which starts in
state i, after one period of time, and ends in state j and decision d is
made at the start of the period with n remaining periods of time to
operate, is given by
Sn(i) = min \jrcd(ij) pd(ij) + Y,pd(i,j) 5n_!(j) ■} (13.24)

a
Knowing that decision d can be overhaul, 0, repair, r, or replace, Rp,

which depends on the initial state, i, the minimal total expected future
cost, 5n(i), is obtained as the minimum value among those calculated
by using Eq. (13.24) for each possible decision d.
If the system is initially in good state, i = G, then, the possible
decisions are either overhaul or replacement. Consequently, there will
be two equations on the right side of Eq. (13.24) from which the
minimum value should be determined. Since j can be either G or F,
then N = 2 which is only a symbolic way of summing up over all values
of variable j. When making an overhaul decision the probabilities of
going from State i to j in one period of time are either p°(G,G) or
p°(G,F). When making a replacement decision, the probabilities of
going from state i to j in one period of time are either pRp(G,G) or
pRp(G, F). Then, using Eq. (13.24) the minimum total expected future
cost is given by
C°(G, G) p°{G, G) + C°{G, F) p°(G, F)
+p°(G,G) Sn-!(G) +p°(G,F) Sn-!(F),
Sn(G) = min < or ► (13.25)
C*r(G,G) pR*>(G,G) + CR'(G,F) pR"{G,F)
+PR»(G,G) Sn-^G) +pR»(G,F) Sn-iiF).
The first two lines are for the case where the decision is to overhaul.
The first two terms represent the cost of overhaul if the system is ini
tially good and after one period of time it is still in good condition,
480 OPTIMAL OWKHAUL/KEPAIR/KEPLACE POLICY
C°(G,G), times the probability that the system is still in good con
dition after one period of time if it was initially good, p°(G,G), plus
the cost of overhaul if the system is initially good and after one period
of time it is in a failed state, C°(G, F), times the probability that the
system is in a failed state after one period of time if it was initially
good, p°(G,F). The next two terms represent the total expected fu
ture cost with (n — 1) remaining intervals if the system is in a good
condition after one period of time, £n_i(G), times the probability that
the system is still in good condition after one period of time if it was
initially good, p°(G, G) plus the total expected future cost with (n— 1)
remaining intervals if the system is in a failed state after one period
of time, Sn-i{F), times the probability that the system is in a failed
state after one period of time if it was initially good, p°(G,F).
The next two lines are for the case if the decision is to replace.
The first two terms represent the cost of replacement if the system is
initially good and after one period of time it is still in good condi
tion, CîG^G), times the probability that the system is still in good
condition after one period of time if it was initially good, pflp(G!, G),
and the system is replaced, plus the cost of replacement if the system
is initially good and after one period of time it is in a failed state,
CRp(G,F), times the probability that the system is in a failed state
after one period of time if it was initially good, pRp(G,F), and the
system is replaced. The next two terms represent the total expected
future cost with (n — 1) remaining intervals if the system is in a good
condition after one period of time, Sn-i(G), times the probability that
the system is still in good condition after one period of time if it was
initially good, pRp(G,G), and the system is replaced, plus the total ex
pected future cost with (n — 1) remaining intervals if the system is in
a failed state after one period of time, 5'n_i(F), times the probability
that the system is in a failed state after one period of time if it was
initially good, pRp(G,F), and the system is replaced.
The minimum of the two values on the right side of Eq. (13.25)
determines the best decision, and the minimum total expected future
cost if the system is initially in a good state.
Similarly, if the system is initially in a failed state, i = F\ then,

the possible decisions are either repair or replace. Making a repair de
cision the probabilities of going from state i to j in one period of time
are pr{F, G) and pr(F,F). Making a replacement decision, the proba
bilities of going from state i to j in one period of time are pRp(F,G)
and pRp(F,F). Figure 13.3 shows possible decisions and the associ
ated probabilities of going from state i to state j. Using Eq. (13.24)
n n- 1
Time
Fig. 13.3 - Possible decisions and associated probabilities of

going from State i to j.
TABLE 13.1 - Transition probabilities for Example 13-4.
State of Condition at end of interval

the system at
start of interval,
i Decision Good Failed
Overhaul pu{G,G) = 0.75 pu(G,F) = 0.25
Good Replace pRp{G,G) = 0.9b p**(G,F) = 0.05
Repair pr(F,G) = 0.60 pT(F,F) =0.40
Failed Replace p*»(F,G)=0.95 pR?(F,F) = 0.05
the minimum total expected future cost is given by

Cr(F, G) pr(F, G) + &(F, F) pr(F, F)
+pr(F,G) SnMG)+pr(F,F) Sn_,(F),
Sn(F) = min < or > (13.26)
C^(F,G) pR'{F,G) + CR»(F,F) pR»(F,F)
+pKr(F,G) Sn.1{G) + pH-(F,F) 5„_i(F).
The minimum of the two values on the right side of Eq. (13.26) de
termines the best first decision, and the minimum total expected fu
ture cost with n remaining periods of time to operate if the system
is initially in a failed state. In both Eq. (13.25) and (13.26) the op
timum future cost, Sn-i(j), is not known and to find the minimum
total expected future cost, Sn(i), these two equations should be solved
recursively by starting from the stage where the value of Sn-\(j) is
known. Usually So(i), or the optimum future cost with zero remaining
intervals to operate, is known. Now, using Eqs. (13.25) and (13.26)
the minimum total expected future cost with one remaining interval to
operate, S\(i), can be determined. This value is used again to calculate
S2(i) and going backwards, repeating the same procedure, the values
of Sn(i), or the minimum total expected future costs with n remaining
intervals to operate, are determined.
EXAMPLE 13-4 [3, p. 129]
A complex system is put into operation. It is decided that the
system is inspected at regular one-year intervals and, depending on the
condition of the system, replacement, repair or overhaul is undertaken.
The transition probabilities from State i to State j are given in Table
13.1. Costs of the system's operation for a one-year interval, depending
on the system's condition at the start and at the end of an interval,
TABLE 13.2 - Costs of the system's operation for a one-

year interval for Example 13—4.

the system at
start of interval,
j Decision Good Failed
Overhaul CU(G,G) = $200 CU{G,F) = $1,200
Good Replace C*»(G,G) = $500 CR*{G,F) = $1,500
Repair Cr(F,G) = $100 Cr{F,F) = $1,100
Failed Replace C**(F,G) = $500 C**(F,F) = $1,500
are given in Table 13.2. Assuming that the system should be in

operation for four more years, determine the best possible decisions
among replacement, repair and overhaul at each one-year interval so
that the total expected future cost is minimum.
Since the minimum expected future cost is zero if zero years of
operation remain, or n = 0, then
So{i) = 0.
Then, using Eq. (13.24), the total expected future cost with one re
maining year of operation, n = 1, is given by
N
5i(i) = min ^C(i,j)pd(z,j) (13.27)
d
If the system is in Condition G, the unit can be either overhauled,

O, or replaced, Ftp. Then, from Table 13.1 it can be seen that if the
system is overhauled it will still be good at the end of the interval
with probability p°(G,G) — 0.75, and it will be in a failed state with
probability p°(G,F) = 0.25. If the system is in Condition F, then it
can be either repaired, r, or replaced, Rp. If the system is repaired it
will be good at the end of the interval with probability pr(F, G) = 0.60
and it will be in a failed state with probability pr(F,F) = 0.40. If the
system is replaced, it will be good after a one-year interval with proba
bility pHp(F,G) = 0.95 and it will be in a failed state with probability
pRp(F,F) = 0.05. Substituting these transition probabilities, and the
operation costs given in Table 13.2 into Eq. (13.27), yields
' E C°(G,j) p°(G,j) overhaul,

S\(G) = min
£ C**(G,j) pR"(G,j) replace,
C°(G,G) p°{G,G) + C°(G,F) p°(G,F)

= min C^(G,G) pR>(G,G)+C**(G,F) p**(G,F)
(200) (0.75) + (1,200) (0.25)"
= min
(500) (0.95) + (1,500) (0.05) J '
or
450 overhaul,
Si(G) = min (13.28)
.550 replace,
and
r n C'(F, j) pr(F,j)
£ repair,
Si (F) = min
E <?Nf, j) p^(Fj)
replace,
J=l
Cr(F,G) pr(F,G) + Cr(F,F) pr(F,F)
mm C^(F,G) pR*(F,G) + CR*(F,F)pRr(F,F)\ '
(100) (0.60) + (1,100) (0.40)
= min
.(500) (0.95) + (1,500) (0.05)
or
500 repair,
Si(F) = min (13.29)
550 replace.
From Eqs. (13.28) and (13.29) the following decisions can be made:
If the system is in good condition at the decision point, where one
year of operation remains, then the minimum total expected future
cost is achieved if the system is overhauled; i.e., S\(G) = $450.
If the system is in a failed state at the decision point, with one
year of operation to go, then the minimum total expected future cost
is achieved if the system is repaired; i.e., S'i(F) = $500.
To go one step backward consider two intervals or two remaining
years of operation, n = 2, of the system. Using Eqs. (13.24) and (13.27)
yields
52(i) = min YJcd{hj)pd{i,j) + Yjpd{i,j) s1(j) (13.30)

d
j=i j=i
If t = G, then either an overhaul or a replacement decision can be

made, or
C°(G,G) p°(G,G) + C°(G,F) p°(G,F)
+p°(G,G) S^G) + p°(G,F) S^F) overhaul,
S2(G) = min (13.31)
C^(G,G) pRr{G,G) + CR'(G,F) p*'(G,F)
+pR*(G,G) S1(G)+pR'(G,F) SxiF) replace.
Substituting the transition probabilities given in Table 13.1, the op
eration costs given in Table 13.2 and the minimum values from Eqs.
(13.28) and (13.29) into Eq. (13.31), the minimum total expected fu
ture cost with two remaining years of operation may be obtained as
follows:
"(200)(0.75) + (1,200)(0.25) + (0.75)(450) + (0.25)(500)
S2(G) = min
(500)(0.95) + (1,500)(0.05) + (0.95)(450) + (0.05)(500)
450 + 300 + 337.5+125
= mm
475+ 75 + 427.5+ 25
or
912.5 1 overhaul,
S2(G) = min (13.32)
1002.5 J replace.
If i = F, either repair or replace decision cam be made, or
C(F, G) pr(F, G) + Cr(F, F) pr(F,F)
+pr(F,G)Si(G)+p'(F,F)Si(F) repair,
S2(F) = min (13.33)
CR" (F, G) pR" (F, G) + CR* (F, F) p*» (F, F)
+pRr(F,G) Sl(G)+pR"(F,F) 5j(F) J replace.
Substituting the transition probabilities given in Table 13.1, the op

eration costs given in Table 13.2 and the minimum values from Eqs.
(13.28) and (13.29) into Eq. (13.33) the minimum total expected fu
ture cost with two remaining years of operation can be obtained as
follows:
' (100)(0.60) + (1, 100)(0.40) + (0.60)(450) + (0.40)(500)
S2(F) = min
.(500)(0.95) + (1,500)(0.05) + (0.95)(450) + (0.05)(500) J '
60 + 440 + 270.0 + 200
= min
475+ 75 + 427.5+ 25
or
970.00 repair,
S2(F) = min (13.34)
1,002.50 replace.
From Eqs. (13.32) and (13.34) the following conclusions can be drawn:
If the system is in good condition at the decision point, where 2 years
of operation remain, then the minimum total expected future cost is
achieved if the system is overhauled; i.e., 82(G) = $912.50. If the
system is in a failed state at the decision point, with two years of op
eration to go, then the minimum total expected future cost is achieved
if the system is repaired; i.e., 82(F) = $970.00.
Applying the same procedure for three and four remaining years of
operation the minimum total expected future costs, Sz(i) and S^(i),
respectively, can be calculated. Table 13.3 gives the summary of the
calculations for values of n = 1 to 4, the best decisions to be made at
the start of each period and the minimum total expected future costs
for each value of n. It can be seen from Table 13.3 that if there are four
more years for the system to operate, the best decision is to overhaul
if the system is in good condition at the start of a 4-year time and the
minimum achievable total expected future cost is 84(G) = $1,841.60.
If the system is in a failed state at the start of a 4-year time, the best
decision is to repair and the minimum total expected future cost is
S4(F) = $1,900.30. Table 13.3 also gives the best decision at the start
of any of the subsequent intervals with the corresponding minimum
total expected future cost.
EXAMPLE 13-5 [4, pp. 319-320]
A complex system whose age at present is two years is to be in
spected, and either overhauled or replaced at one-year intervals. The
cost of overhaul, C0(i), the annual cost increase over the annual cost
of a new system, CU/(i), and the salvage value of the replaced system
are given in Table 13.4. The acquisition cost of the system is $30,000.
Determine the sequence of decisions for a five-year period in which the
system should be in operation.
Let the variable i denote the age of the system and the variable j
denote the order number of a decision point at the start of each year.
Since the initial age of the system is two years, then, i varies from 1 to
7. If the first decision is with the Order Number 1, then the variable
j varies from 1 to 6 when the operation of the system ends. Let c(i)
be the sum of the overhaul cost and the annual cost increase of the
system of age i, or
c(i) = C0(i) + CAI(i). (13.35)

The net aquisition cost of the system when the replaced one is of age
i is defined as the price of the new system minus the salvage value of
Repair 500.00
F
1 Overhaul
450.00
G
Repair 970.00
F
2 Overhaul
cfor
Example
of
13-4.
aSummary
lTABLE
13.3
culat-ions 912.50
G
Repair 1,435.50
F
3 Overhaul 1,376.90
G
Repair 1,900.30
F
4 Overhaul 1,841.60
G
intervals,
Remaining
at
start
system be
Dto
ecision made
start
at
ii
of
nterval
n of
the
State
iof
nterval future
cost,
Expected
S„(i),S
TABLE 13.4 - The overhaul cost, C0(i), the annual cost

increase, Cai(})i and the salvage cost, Cs(a),
for Example 13—5. All costs are given as
multiples of $1,000.
System age, i
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Cost of overhaul, C0(i) 3 6 4 9 9 12 10
Annual cost increase, CU/(i) 2 4 5 6 6 7 8
Salvage value, Cs(i) 20 16 13 10 8 6 0
TABLE 13.5 - Values of c(i), A(i) and 5(i,6) for Example

13-5.
System age, i
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
c(i) 5 10 9 15 15 19 18
A(i) 10 14 17 20 22 24 30
S(t,6) -20 -16 -13 -10 -8 -6 0
the system of age i, or the net aquisition cost of the system; i.e.,
A{i) = 2D-Ct(i), (13.36)
where the price of the new system is given in thousands of dollars.
Table 13.5 gives the values of c(i), A(i) and 5(i,6), where S(i,6) is the
optimum value function after the fifth year of system operation; i.e., it
is the negative of the salvage value for the system of age i, or
5(i,6) = -C.(i). (13.37)
Using the recurrence relation of Eq. (13.22) and Eqs. (13.35) and
(13.36), the total expected future cost is given by
_,. ,v . f c(t) + S(i + 1,J + 1) 1 overhaul,
(13.38)
where the top line of Eq. (13.38) refers to the overhaul option and the
bottom line corresponds to the replacement option. If the decision is
to overhaul, then the total expected future cost consists of the cost of
the overhaul and the annual cost increase, c(i), plus the optimum value
function after one year of operation, S(i + l,j+l), where the age of the
system now is (i+ 1) and the Order Number of a decision point is (j"+ 1).
If the decision is to replace, then the total expected future cost consists
of the total acquisition cost, A(i), plus the optimum value function
after one year of operation, 5(1, j + 1), where the age of the system
now is i = 1, since the system was replaced and the Order Number
of a decision point is j + 1. As in Example 13-1, to determine the
minimum total expected future cost of the system, initially of age two
years subjected to the given overhaul/replacement policy, Eq. (13.38)
should be solved recursively starting from the decision point where
S(i,j) is known. Since the values of 5(z,6) are known, determine the
values of S(i, 5) as follows: Using Eq. (13.38), the values given in Table
13.5 and assuming that the system's age at the start of the fifth year
is one year, i = 1, yields
c/i ki • fc(l) + 5(2,6) \
5(1,5) = mm (X(1) +5(1,6)/'
r 5-i6i
= min
\ 10 - 20 / '
or
overhaul,
5(1,5) = min {JJ} replace.
Hence, the minimum future cost is
5(1,5) = -$11,000, (13.39)

and the best decision to be made is to overhaul. The next stage the
system will be in is (2,6), meaning that at the beginning of the sixth
year the system will be two years old, since at the previous stage the
overhaul is done on the system which was one year old.
If the system's age at the start of the fifth year is two years, i = 2,
then,
J c(2) +5(3,6)1
5(2,5) = mi" 1.4(2) + 5(1, 6)/'
f 10-131
= mm
1 14 - 20 J '
or
overhaul,
5(2, 5) = min
ta replace.
i
490 OPTIMAL OVEPJJAUL/KEPAIR/REPLACE POLICY
5(2,5) = -$6,000, (13.40)
and the best decision to be made at the start of the fifth year is to
replace. The next stage the system will be in is (1,6).
If the system's age at the start of the fifth year is three years, i = 3,
then,
5(3 5)-min/c(3) + 5(4'6)l
| 9-10 1
= min
\ 17-20/ '
or
cio *\ • / -1 1 overhaul,
5(3,5) -min | _3) ^^

5(3,5) = -$3,000, (13.41)
and the best decision to be made at the start of the fifth year, if the
system's age is three years, is to replace. The next stage the system
will be in is (1,6).
If the system's age at start of the fifth year is four years, i = 4,
then,
qu « . Jc(4) + 5(5,6) \
5(4,5)= mm jA(4) + 5(M)j,
■ / 15 " 8 \
= mm\20-20/'
or
5(4,5) =mi„{J} overhaul,

Ieplace.
5(4,5) =$0, (13.42)
and the best decision to be made at the start of the fifth year if the
system age is four years, is to replace. The next stage the system will
be in is (1,6).
Now, consider the fourth decision point or the decision point at the
start of the fourth year, (t,4). If the system's age at the start of the
fourth year is one year, i = 1, then,
Using Table 13.5 and Eqs. (13.39) and (13.40) yields
5(1,4) = min{105:i61},
or
overhaul,
5(1,4) = min (13.43)
{:!} replace.
Since there is a tie, the best decision at the start of the fourth year, if
the system's age is one year, can be either repair or replacement. The
next stage the system will be in is (2, 5) if the decision is to repair or
(1,5) if the decision is to replace.
If the system's age at the start of the fourth year is two years, i = 2,
then,
Using Table 13.5 and Eqs. (13.39) and (13.41) yields
or
5(2,4)= min {1} overhaul,

Ieplace.
5(2,4) =$3,000, (13.44)
and the best decision to be made at the start of the fourth year, if the
system's age is two years, is to replace. The next stage the system will
be in is (1,5).
Now, consider the third decision point at the start of the third year,
or the Stage (i, 3).
If the system's age at the start of the third year is one year, i = 1,
then,
= mm■{£!}■
•
or
„.. . . J 81 overhaul,
5(1,3)= mm | 9| re
replace.
5(1,3) =$8,000, (13.45)
and the best decision to be made at the start of the third year, if the
system's age is one year, is to overhaul. The next stage the system will
be in is (2,4).
If the system's age at the start of the third year is two years, i — 2,
then,
e/o « • / c(2) + 5(3,4) \
5(2,3) =mm|A(2) + s(14)j,
f 10 + 61
= mm{l4-l)'
or
overhaul,
5(2,3) =min{^|
replace.
5(2,3) =$13,000, (13.46)
and the best decision to be made at the start of the third year, if the
system's age is two years, is to replace. The next stage the system will
be in is (1,4).
Consider the second decision point, or the decision point at the
start of the second year. If the system's age at the start of the second
year is one year; i.e., 1 = 1, then,
c/1 _, . f c(l) + 5(2,3) \
5(1'2)=minU(D + 5(1,3))'
f 5+131
= min
I 10+ 8J '
or
overhaul,
5(l,2)=min(J®} replace.
5(1,2) =$18,000, (13.47)
and either an overhaul or a replace decision can be made with the same
minimum total expected future cost.
If the system's age at the start of the second year is three years;
i.e., i = 3, then,
5(3,2)
= min{c(3)
minU(3) ++ 5(4'3U
S(l,3)/'
f 9+191
= nun
1 17+ 8J'
or
overhaul,
5(3,2) =minj ^} replace.
5(3,2) =$25,000, (13.48)
and the best decision to be made at the start of the second year, if the
system's age is three years, is to replace.
The next stage the system will be in is (1,3). What is left is to
consider the initial stage, or the first decision point where the system's
age at the start of the first year is two years; i.e., i = 2. Then,
f 10 + 25 1
= min
\ 14 + 18 J'
or
overhaul,
5(2,l) = min{3^} replace.
Hence, the total minimum expected future cost for a system age of two
years, and five years of operation to go, is
5(2,1) =$32,000, (13.49)
TABLE 13.6 - The minimum future cost by stages, the

best decision for each stage and the tran
sition stages for Example 13—5.
Minimum future
Stage, cost, in $1,000, Next stage,
(m) S(i,j) Decision (hj)
(1,5) -11 0 (2,6)
(2,5) -6 Rp (1,6)
(3,5) -3 Rv (1,6)
(4,5) 0 Rp (1,6)
(6,5) 4 Rp (1,6)
(1,4) - 1 Rp or 0 (1,5) or (2,5)
(2,4) 3 Rp (1,5)
(3,4) 6 Rp (1,5)
(5,4) 11 Rp (1,5)
(1,3) 8 0 (2,4)
(2,3) 13 Rp (1,4)
(4,3) 19 Rp (1,4)
(1,2) 18 RporO (1,3) or (2,3)
(3,2) 25 Rp (1,3)
(2,1) 32 Rp (1,2)
and the best decision to be made at the start of the first year of op
eration is to replace. Since the annual cost increase, which is the
difference between the cost in a particular year and the first year of
operation, is used throughout these calculations instead of the actual
annual cost, then the total future cost of $32,000 is the additional cost
for a five-year operation and failure costs determined on the cost of
the first year. Table 13.6 gives all stages necessary to determine the
minimum total expected future cost and the sequence of decisions for
the next five years of operation. To determine the sequence of best
decisions, which results in the minimum total expected future cost,
consider Table 13.6. Start from the initial stage where the system's
age is two years, or (2, 1). The best decision that minimizes the total
future cost, which is that of all future stages, is to replace and the next
stage is (1,2). At stage (1,2) either overhaul or replacement can be
chosen with the same future cost and the next stage is either (1,3) if
replacement, or (2, 3) if overhaul is chosen. If overhaul is chosen the
next stage is (1, 3). The minimum future cost at stage (1,3) is obtained
if the overhaul decision is made and the next stage is (2,4). At stage
(2, 4) the replacement decision minimizes the future cost and leads to
the stage (1,5). The final decision at the start of the fifth year is over
haul and after the fifth year of operation the system's function ends.
Since at stages (1,2) and (1,4) both replacement and overhaul deci
sions are possible, then there are three possible sequences of decisions
which have the same minimum total expected future cost; i.e.,
1. replace, replace, overhaul, replace, overhaul, dispose,
or
2. replace, overhaul, replace, replace, overhaul, dispose,
or
3. replace, overhaul, replace, overhaul, replace, dispose.
Each of these decisions is made at the beginning of a decision interval
and after the fifth year of operation the system is disposed.
13.5 OPTIMAL OVERHAUL/REPAIR/REPLACE

POLICY: INFINITE TIME HORIZON [3, pp.
125-129]
The problems in Section 13.4 are based on the minimization of the
objective function over a finite number of time intervals, n, and it is
said that the spanning horizon is finite. If n —> oo, the planning horizon
becomes infinite and the minimum total expected future cost per unit
time of operation is to be determined. The minimum value function of
having a system in its tth year of age, or tth stage, is defined by
Sn(i) = ng + v(i), (13.50)
where
g = steady state average cost per unit time,
and
v{i) = transient cost which depends on the initial State i.
Prom Eqs. (13.24) and (13.50)
{N N \
£Cd(i,j) pd(i,j) + ]Tpd(i,j) S„_,(j) \ . (13.51)
496 INFINITE TIME HORIZON
Using Eq. (13.50) yields

Sn-i(j) = (n-l)g + v(i). (13.52)
{N N 1
£<?d(i,j) pd(M) + £>d(M) [(n-1) g + v(i)} I,
or
AT W
n g + u(i) = mjn \ £ Cd(i, j) pd(i, ;) + X>d(*> J') (n " 1) 9
j=l 3=1
N |
y£JPd{hJ) v(j) \
+
N .
Since £ Tr (*»i) = 1> then,
n 9 + t>(t) = mjn J V Cd(i, j) pd(i,j) + (n-l)g +

£y&j) «o)|,
or
5 + v{i) = mjn j ^ C(hi) Pd(i,j) + L/(U) »0) | ■ (13-53)
Equation (13.53) represents a system of N equations; i.e., N states in

which the variable i can be in, with (N + 1) variables. Optimization
of Eq. (13.53), using the algorithm developed by Howard [5], consists
of the following five steps:
1. Arbitrarily choose some policy, or decision for each State i.
2. For N possible states choose v(N) = 0, which reduces the number
of variables to solve for the N unknowns.
3. Solve simultaneously the TV equations of Eq. (13.53) for the steady
state average cost per unit time, g, and the transient cost, v(i).
4. Using the value of v(i) obtained in Steps 2 and 3, for each State
i, determine the best decision, d, which minimizes the right side of
Eq. (13.53); i.e.,
(13.54)
5. Repeat Step 3 with the policy, or decisions, obtained in Step 4

until the minimum total future cost is obtained. This will hap
pen when g is minimized and the decisions at two successive
iterations are identical.
EXAMPLE 13-6
The system of Example 13-4 is to be maintained over "a long"
period of time. The transition probabilities are given in Table 13.1 and
the operation costs in Table 13.2. Determine the best overhaul/repair/
replace decisions or the optimum maintenance policy and the steady
state average cost per unit time of operation.
To determine the optimum decisions depending on the state of the
system at start of one-year interval use the Howard's algorithm as
follows:
Step 1
Assume the following decisions at the start of an interval:
1. If the system is in good condition, G, then replace it.
2. If the system is in a failed state, F, then replace it.
Step 2
Since the variable i can be only in N = 2 states; i.e., i = G or F,
then using Step 2 of the Howard's algorithm yields
v(F) = 0. (13.55)
Step 3
;
Using the data given in Tables 13.1 and 13.2 and the decisions
defined in Step 1, solve Eq. (13.53) for the steady state average cost
per interval, g, and the transient cost, v(i), or for i = G and for j = G
and F,
g + v(G) = CR'(G,G)pR''(G,G) + CR*(G,F) P^(G,F)
+pR*{G,G) v(G) +pR*(G,F) v(F), (13.56)
and for i = F and j = G and F

g + v(F) = CR"{F, G) pR"{F, G) + C**(F, F) p*(F, F)
+pR'(F,G) v(G) +pR»(F,F) v(F). (13.57)
Using the data from Tables 13.1 and 13.2, and Eqs. (13.55) and (13.56)
yields
g + v(G) = (500)(0.95) + (1,500)(0.05)
+(0.95) v(G) + (0.05) (0),
g + 0 = (500)(0.95) + (1,500) (0.05)
+(0.95) v(G) + (0.05) (0),
or
g + V(G) = 475 + 75 + (0.95) v(G),
and
g = 475 + 75 + (0.95) v(G),
or
g + v(G) = 550+ (0.95) v(G), (13.58)
and
g = 550 + (0.95) v(G). (13.59)
The solution to the system of Eqs. (13.58) and (13.59) is
g = 550 (13.60)
and
v{G)=0. (13.61)
Step 4
Using Eqs. (13.55) and (13.61) determine the best decisions for
each state of the variable i which minimizes Eq. (13.54).
If the system is initially in good condition, or i = G, using Tables
13.1 and 13.2, j = G and F, and Eq.(13.54), yields
Z C°(GJ) p°(G,j) + E P°(G, j) v(j) overhaul,

min
£ CR»(G,j) pR"(GJ) + E PRp(G,j) v(j) replace,
(200)(0.75) + (1,200)(0.25) + (0.75)(0) + (0.25)(0)

min
(500)(0.95) + (1,500)(0.05) + (0.95)(0) + (0.05)(0)
or
450 overhaul,
min
550 replace.
Hence, the minimum of Eq. (13.54) is obtained if the decision is to
overhaul.
If the system is initially in a failed state, or i = F, using Tables
13.1 and 13.2, Eq. (13.54) and j = G and F, yields
ZCr(F,j)pr(FJ)+Y:pr(F,j)v(j) repair,
j=\ j=l
nun
£ C"*(FJ) pR'(FJ) + E PR'(F,j) v(j) replace,
.7=1 j=l
(100)(0.60) + (1, 100)(0.40) + (0.60)(0) + (0.40)(0)
min
(500)(0.95) + (1,500)(0.05) + (0.95)(0) + (0.05)(0) J '
or
500 repair,
min
550 replace.
Hence, the minimum of Eq. (13.54) is obtained if the decision is to
repair.
The first iteration results in the new set of decisions; i.e.,
1 . if the system is in good condition at the start of an interval,

then overhaul,
2. if the system is in a failed state at the start of an interval,
then repair.
Step 5 -» Go to Step 3
Using the decisions obtained in Step 4, solve simultaneously Eq.

(13.53) for the steady state average cost per interval, g, and the tran
sient cost, v(G), or for i = G and j = G and F, Eq. (13.53) yields
g + v(G) = C°(G, G) p°(G, G) + C°(G, F) p°(G, F)

+p°(G, G) v(G) + p°(G, F) v(F), (13.62)
and for i — F and j = G and F
g + v(F) = Cr(F, G) pr(F, G) + Cr(F, F) pr(F, F)
+pr(F,G) v{G) +pr(F,F) v(F). (13.63)
Using data from Tables 13.1 and 13.2, and Eqs. (13.55) and (13.62)
yields
g + v(G) = (200)(0.75) + (1,200)(0.25)
+(0.75) v(G) + (0.25)(0),
and Eqs. (13.55) and (13.63) yield
g = (100)(0.60) + (1, 100)(0.40)

+(0.60) v(G) + (0.40)(0),
or
g + V(G) = 150 + 300 + (0.75) v(G), (13.64)
and
g = 500 + (0.60) v{G). (13.65)
The solution to the system of Eqs. (13.64) and (13.65) is
v(G) = -58.82 (13.66)
and
g = 464.71. (13.67)
Step 6 —> Repeat Step 4
Using Eqs. (13.55), (13.66) and (13.67), or the values of v(F), v{G)
and g obtained in Step 5, determine the best decisions for each state
of the variable i which minimizes Eq. (13.54).
If the system is initially in good condition, or i = G, and j = G
and F, then
E C°(GJ) p°(G,j) + E P°(G,j) v(j) overhaul,

mm
E CR»(G,j) pH>-(G,j) + E PRp(G,j) v(j)
replace,
(200)(0.75) + (1,200)(0.25) + (0.75)(-58.82) + (0.25)(0)
mm
(500)(0.95) + (1,500)(0.05) + (0.95)(-58.82) + (0.05)(0)
(150 + 300) + (0.75)(-58.82) "
min
. (475 + 75) + (0.95) (-58.82) J '
or
405.89 overhaul,
mm
494.12 replace.
Hence, the minimum is obtained if the decision is to overhaul.

If the system is initially in a failed state, or i = F, and j = G and
F, then
repair,
£ C*(FJ) p'(FJ) + ? jf(F, j) ki)
min
£ C^(F,j) pR*(F,j) + £ p«p(F,i) »(j)
Lj=i j=i replace,
(100)(0.60) + (1, 100)(0.40) + (0.60)(-58.82) + (0.40)(0)
min
(500)(0.95) + (1,500)(0.05) + (0.95)(-58.82) + (0.05)(0) J '
or
464.71 repair,
mm (13.68)
494.12 replace.
Hence, the minimum is obtained if the decision is to repair.
The second iteration results in the following decisions at the start
of an interval:
1. If the system is in good condition at the start of an interval,
then overhaul.
2. If the system is in a failed state at the start of an interval,
then repair.
Comparing the resulting decisions of the first and the second iteration,
it can be seen that both give the same policy. Therefore, the procedure
is terminated and from Eq. (13.68) the resulting steady state average
cost per interval is obtained to be g = $464.71 /year.
13.6 OPTIMAL COST LIMITS; FINITE TIME

HORIZON [3, pp. 129-134; 4, pp. 323-327; 6,
pp. 101-105]
One of the main assumptions in the previous models is that the over
haul costs are known in advance. Most often this is not true since the
real costs depend on the equipment's age and the level of equipment
damage and wear-out, therefore the overhaul cost should be consid
ered as a random variable. In this model an equipment is inspected at
regular time intervals and the overhaul cost is estimated. If the esti
mated overhaul cost is less than the overhaul cost limit, the equipment
is overhauled and if the estimated overhaul cost is greater than the
overhaul cost limit, the equipment is replaced.
502 OPTIMAL OVERHAUL COST LIMITS
Knowing the distribution of the overhaul cost for an equipment

of a given age, the optimal overhaul cost limits for a fixed remaining
time of operation are so determined that the total expected future cost
is minimized. At the start of each time interval the overhaul cost is
estimated and compared with the overhaul limit for that interval, and
the decision whether to overhaul or replace the equipment is made.
If fi(x) is the probability density function of the overhaul cost for an
equipment of given age, i, then the probability that the actual cost will
not exceed the overhaul cost limit is given by
°i(Li) = I fi(x) dx, (13.69)

Jo
where
L{ = overhaul cost limit for an equipment of age i.
The expected cost of overhaul and inspection per interval is given by
Zi = K*fiix)dX- i»:iT(»)
Jf* fi(x) dx
Using the recurrence relation of Eq. (13.24), the total minimum ex
pected future cost for an equipment of a given age, z, subjected to an
overhaul/replace maintenance policy, with n remaining time intervals
of operation, is given by
Sn(i) = mm{Cn(i,j) + 5„_i(j)}, (13.71)
Li
where
Cn('»i) = expected cost of the first decision for an equipment of
age i and with n remaining time intervals of operation,
and
Sn-i(j) = minimum expected future cost for (n — 1) remaining
time intervals of operation.
The expected cost of the first decision, Cn(i, j), is the sum of the
expected cost of overhaul times the probability that the overhaul cost
is less than the overhaul cost limit, Lj, and the cost of a replacement,
A*, times the probability that the overhaul cost exceeds the overhaul
cost limit, Lj. Using Eqs. (13.69) and (13.70) the expected cost of the
first decision is given by
Cn(i,j) =U Pi(Li) +A*[1- Pi(Li)}. (13.72)
Then,
Cn(iJ) = £glM± fU fi{x) d* + A* [l - [Li /<(*) dx
/o ' Mx) dx Jo [ Jo
or
Mid) = Jot x fi(x) dx + A*

-fJo
fi(x) dx (13.73)
The minimal expected future cost for the (n — 1) remaining time in

tervals of operation, Sn-i(j), is the sum of the minimum future cost,
SVi-i (*' + !)> if the equipment is overhauled at the start of the nth inter
val times the probability that the estimated cost is less than the over
haul cost limit, Pi(Li), and the minimal expected future cost, S„_i(l),
if the equipment is replaced at the start of the nth interval times the
probability that the estimated cost exceeds the overhaul cost limit.
Then, the minimum expected future cost is given by
SnîU) = Sn-i(i + 1) Pi(Li) + Sn_i(l) [1 - Pi(Li)}. (13.74)
Substituting Eqs. (13.72) and (13.74) into Eq. (13.71), the total ex
pected future cost is given by
5„(t) = min {Cn(i,j) + S„-iO)} ,
or
Sn(i) = min fZi Pi{Li) + A* [1 - ^(£,)]
+Sn.l(i + 1) Pi(Li) + 5n_!(l) [1 - Pi(Li)]} . (13.75)
Apparently, the starting condition, or the minimum expected future
cost for n = 0 remaining time intervals of operation, is
S0(i) = 0 for all i. (13.76)
The optimum overhaul cost limits are so determined that the total ex
pected future cost given by Eq. (13.75) is minimized. The iteration
process starts from the terminating stage; i.e., n = 0, where the total
expected future cost is known, and going backwards the minimum ex
pected future costs, Si(i), Si(i), • • -, are determined for possible equip
ment ages, t.
Alternatively, the optimum overhaul cost limits can be determined
as follows: Assume that the equipment is in state n, with the optimum
value function Sn(i), and the overhaul cost is $i. If the equipment is
overhauled, the total cost is given by
x + Sn-i(i + 1), (13.77)
and if the equipment is replaced, the total cost is given by

A*+Sn-i(l). (13.78)
The equipment will be overhauled only if the total overhaul cost is less
than the total replacement cost, or
s+$,_i(t+i)<jr+s;_i(i). (13.79)
Using Eq. (13.79) the optimal overhaul limit is determined from
or
Li = i4* + Sl_i(l)-£l_i(t + l). (13.80)

To find the minimum total expected future cost, the calculations should
be done by alternating between Eq. (13.80) and Eq. (13.75). Start
ing from the terminating stage of equipment operation determine the
optimum overhaul limit, Li, at the start of the interval and substitute
its value into Eq. (13.75) and determine the optimum value function
for all possible ages, i. Continue this iteration procedure until the
minimum total expected future cost is determined.
EXAMPLE 13-7
A complex unit, initially new, is to be inspected regularly at one-
year intervals and the overhaul cost estimated. The unit can be in
operation at most three years; i.e., the unit is always replaced if its age
reaches three years. At the end of the first year the overhaul cost is
uniformly distributed over the range (0, $100), at the end of the second
year the overhaul cost is uniformly distributed over the range (0, $150)
and the cost of a new unit is $150. If the unit is to be in operation for
the next five years determine the optimal overhaul cost limits for the
unit.
The optimal overhaul cost limits and the minimum total expected
future cost given by Eq. (13.75) can be solved recursively starting from
the stage where one year of operation remains. The optimum overhaul
cost limits are then calculated backwards for n = 1, 2, • • • , 5.
Stage 1, n = 1
Since the minimum expected future cost at the end of the system
operation or the minimum future cost for n = 0 is So{i) = 0 for all i,
then, from Eq. (13.75), the minimum expected future cost with one
remaining year of operation is given by
Si(i) = Cn(i,j),
or
S^t) = Li Pi(Li) + A*[l - Pi(Li)].
For the three-year-old unit and one remaining year of unit operation,
replacement is compulsory, or
5i(3) = $150. (13.81)
For the two-year-old unit and one remaining year of unit operation,
since the overhaul cost is uniformly distributed over the range (0; $150)
and the cost of a new unit is A* = $150, overhaul should be always
done. Consequently, P2(-^2) = 1, because overhaul is a certainty. The
overhaul cost pdf at the end of the second year of a unit's operation is
Mx) = 150
> 0u _
< x < 150. (13.82)
Therefore, the minimum expected future cost is given by

Si(2) = L2,
or
Si (2) = $75. (13.83)
For the one-year-old unit with one remaining year of operation, since
the overhaul is uniformly distributed over the range (0, $100) and the
cost of a new unit is A* = $150, the overhaul is always cheaper, and
the decision is always to overhaul. The overhaul cost pdf at the end of
the first year of the unit's operation is given by
/l(x) = T5o' o^*^100' (13.84)
Therefore, the minimum expected future cost is given by

Si(l)=Ii,
or
5i(l) = $50. (13.85)
Stage 2, n = 2
For the three-year-old unit with two remaining years of operation,
it is replaced always. Using Eq. (13.75) the total expected future cost
is given by
&(3) = j€*+Si(1),
= 150 + 50,
or
S2(3) = $200. (13.86)

For the two-year-old unit and two remaining years of operation, the
probability that the overhaul cost does not exceed the overhaul cost
limit is found from Eq. (13.69), or
P2(L2) = / ' f2(x) dx,

Jo
Li j
-i x Ln
150
dx,
'
l50|0
or
P2(L2)
v ' =—
150 . (13.87)
The expected cost is determined from Eq. (13.70), or
_ Jo x 150 °x
Lo =
2L2'
or
u —T (13.88)
Then, the expected cost of overhaul and replacement per interval,

Cn(i,j), is given by
C2(2) = I2 P2(L2) + A' [1 - P2(Z2)],
= hi J± + 150 1- L2
2 150 150
or
C*2)-& + ,50 (,-£) (13.89)
Using Eqs. (13.75) and (13.89), the total expected future cost for the
unit of age two years, and two remaining years of operation, is given
by
52(2) = mm {Z2 P2(L2) + A* [I - P2(L2)]

+51(3)P2(L2) + 51(1)[1-P2(X,2)]},
= mm
a + 150
l2 300
+150^ + 50
or
52(2)=tn{i+200(1-i)+L2}- (13.90)
To find the optimum overhaul cost limit, L2, which minimizes the total
expected future cost given by Eq. (13.90), find the first derivative of
52(2) with respect to L2, equate it to zero and solve for L2. Then,
dS2{2) _ 212 200
dL2 300 150
or
d52(2) ^ U_ _50_
dL2 150 150'
Now,
L2 50
= 0,
150 ~ 150
and
L2 = $50. (13.91)
Substituting Eq. (13.91) into Eq. (13.90) the minimum total expected
future cost is
502
52(2) = |_ + 200(l-^)+50,
2,500 100
300 +200l50+50'
or
52(2) = $191.67. (13.92)
_.!._
Hence, if the estimated overhaul cost is less than $50, then the decision
is to overhaul, otherwise replace the unit. The minimum total expected
future cost for the unit of two years of age, and for two remaining years
of operation, is $191.67.
For a one-year-old unit and two remaining years of operation, the
probability that the overhaul cost is less than the overhaul cost limit,
is given by
P1(Ll)= I ' fi(x)dx,

Jo
i:o ' Too dx'

100 0
or
Pl(Ll)=m- (13>93)
The expected overhaul cost is given by
y _ Jo x loo x
Ii =
JO 100 ax
or
£i=y. (13.94)
Using Eqs. (13.75), (13.93) and (13.94) the total expected future cost
for the unit of one year of age and two remaining years of operation is
given by
52(1) înfZ! PtiL^ + A* [l-Pi(Li)]
+S,(2) />,(£,) + S,(l) [1 -P,(i,))},
= r(H+150(1-^)
+5,(2)^ + 5,(1) (l- j±)}. (13.«)
Substituting the values of Si (2) and Si(l) from Eqs. (13.83) and
(13.85), respectively, into Eq. (13.95) yields
-2
or
«"-if \m+woi.1-m)+nm • (13-96>

The first derivative of 52 (1) is given by
dS2(l) ■•♦J
dL, 100
Equating the first derivative to zero and solving for L\ yields
I, = 100-,
4
or
Lx = $125. (13.97)
Since the optimal cost limit, L\ = $125, is greater than the overhaul
cost whose range is (0, $100) for a unit age of one year, the decision
should always be to overhaul. Then, the minimum total expected
future cost for the unit with an age of one year and two remaining
years of operation is given by
52(1) = Z1+51(2),
Li
-L x Jx{x) dz + 5i(2),
-L V2
x
100
100
dx + 75,
'
+75,
2(100)
= 50 + 75,
or
52(1) = $125. (13.98)
Hence, the optimum total expected future cost for the unit of an age
of one year and for two remaining years of operation is 52(1) = $125,
and the decision should be to overhaul regardless of the overhaul cost
estimate.
Stage 3, n = 3
Since the unit is initially new at this stage, when three years of
unit operation remain, the system can not be three years of age.
Therefore, the minimum total expected future cost, S3(3), should not
be considered.
Consider a unit of two years of age, or i = 2, and three remaining
years of unit operation, or n = 3. Using Eqs. (13.75), (13.86), (13.87),
(13.88) and (13.98) the total expected future cost is given by
S3(2) = min {Z2 P2{L2) + A* [1 - P2(L2))
+S2(3) P2(L2) + S2(l) [1 - P2(L2)}} ,
. (L2 L2 ( L2\\
— mm { — —— + 150 1 >
L2 I 2 150 V 150/ J
or
«"S+»(,-ra)}'
To determine the optimum overhaul cost limit, Eq. (13.80) may be

used as an alternative to differentiating Eq. (13.99). Then,
L2 = .4* + S2(l)-S2(3). (13.100)
Substituting Eqs. (13.98) and (13.86) into Eq. (13.100) yields
L2 m 150 + 125 - 200,
or
L2 = $75. (13.101)
Substituting Eq. (13.101) into Eq. (13.99) the minimum total expected
future cost is given by
or
53(2) = $256.25. (13.102)
Consider a unit of one year of age, i = 1 , and three remaining years
of operation, or n = 3. Using Eqs. (13.75), (13.93), (13.94), (13.92)
and (13.98) yields
53(1) = min{l, PiiL,) + A* [1 - P^)}
+S2(2)Pl(L1) + 52(1)[1-P1(Z1)]},
mir
Li
+m.67iL + 125(,-^L)},
or
s^"l?{m+27"{l-m) + ilM 67) Li \ . (13.103)
Using Eq. (13.80) the optimum overhaul cost limit is given by

L1 = A' + Sl_i(l)-S;_i(* + 1),
or
Li = 150 + 52(1)-S2(2). (13.104)
Lx = 150 + 125 - 191.67,
or
Lx = $83.33. (13.105)
_ ... = ^^r-
S3(l) 83.332 + nrwm /
275 [1 83.33
(l-^)+0-M67)(83.33),
200
or
53(1) = $240.28. (13.106)
The minimum total expected future cost for the unit of one year of age
and three remaining years of operation is 53(1) = $240.28.
Stage 4, n = 4
Since the unit is new at the start of the five-year period of operation,
at Stage 4 where four years of operation remain, the unit's age can be
only one year, then only one state should be considered; i.e., n = 4
and i — 1.
Using Eq. (13.80) the optimum overhaul cost limit is then given
by
Lx = A' + S3{1) - S3(2). (13.107)
Lx = 150 + 240.28 - 256.25,
or
Lx = $134.03. (13.108)
TABLE 13.7 — The optimum overhaul cost limits for all

possible stages and unit ages for Example
13-7.
Unit Remaining years of operation,

age, n
j 4 3 2 1
1 Overhaul 83.33 Overhaul Overhaul
2 75.00 50 Overhaul
3 Replace Replace
Since the overhaul limit is greater than the maximum overhaul cost
for the unit of age of one year, then the unit should be overhauled
regardless of the cost estimate. From Eq. (13.75) the minimum total
expected future cost for the unit with an age of one year, and four
years of operation remaining, is given by
54(1) =Xi+53(2),
= 50 + 256.25,
or
S4(l) = $306.25. (13.109)

Table 13.7 gives the summary of the optimal overhaul cost limits for
all possible stages and unit ages. In the table "overhaul" means that
there is no cost limit and the unit should be overhauled regardless of
the estimated overhaul cost. Figure 13.4 gives the optimal paths for
the unit, which is initially new and is maintained over the five-year
period. The minimum total expected future cost over the five years of
system operation is $306.25 which corresponds to the state £4(1) since
the initial acquisition cost is not included.
EXAMPLE 13-8
A system, initially one year of age, is to be in operation for the next
four years. At regular one-year intervals the system is inspected and
the overhaul cost estimated. If this estimate is less than the overhaul
cost limit the system is overhauled, otherwise it is replaced. The over
haul cost is uniformly distributed. The ranges of the overhaul cost,
(a, /?), for different system ages, along with the system salvage values
are given in Table 13.8. The cost of a new system is A* — $10,000.
Rp
S2(3) -S,(l) » S0(2)
O
S4(D ►S3(2)
O O
S2(D ^S,(2) -S0(3)
Fig. 13.4 - Optimal paths for Example 13-7.
TABLE 13.8 — Overhaul cost ranges, (a,/?), and the sal

vage value, S(i), in multiples of $1,000, for
Example 13-8.
System age, i
1 2 3 4 5
Overhaul cost range,
(1,2) (2,4) (3,6) (4,8) (5, 10)
Salvage value,
S(i) 3 2 0 0 0
Determine the optimum overhaul cost limits so that the total expected
future cost is minimized.
The system is to be in operation for four more years, therefore
the variable n, number of remaining years of operation, has the values
n = 0, 1,- • • ,4. Since the overhaul/replace policy is to be applied at
a time when the system's age is one year, the system's age, i, has
the values t = 1,2,***,5. To determine the optimum overhaul cost
limits for each interval under consideration, Eq. (13.75) should be
used starting from the terminating stage, or n = 0, when the system's
operation ends. Therefore, the values of the minimum total expected
future cost, So(i), for all possible system ages should be determined
first. Because with So(i) we are reaching the end of operation the
only cost left is the salvage value which is obtained from Table 13.8.
Consequently,
So(l) = -3, 50(2) = -2,
and
50(3) = S0(4) = 50(5) = 0.
Since the overhaul cost is uniformly distributed in each age interval,
the probability that the estimated cost will be less than the overhaul
cost limit, Lj, is given by
{0 for Li < a,
^ for a < Li </?, (13.110)
1 for Li > /?,
and the expected cost of overhaul and replacement is given by
x
^ fa' ih **
U =
tirfc**'
Li
X2
a
ET'
2x
a
L\-c?
2 (U -a)'
or
Li + a
Li = -^—. (13.111)
Then,
0 for Li < a,
Li = } ^2 for a<Li<0, (13.112)
2±£ for Li > /?.
Stage 1, n = 1, i - 1,2,3,4
Using Eq. (13.80) the optimum overhaul cost limit for a system
age varying from t = 1 to 4 years yields
Li = A*- S(i) + Sn_!(l) - Sn-i(i + 1),
L, = A* - S(l) + So(l) - So(2),
= 10-3-3 + 2,
or
Li =6. (13.113)
L2 = ^-5(2)+5o(l)-50(3),
= 10-2 + 3-0,
or
L2 = 5. (13.114)
L3 = ^-5(3) + 5o(l)-50(4),
= 10-0-3-0,
or
18 = 7, (13.115)
and
L4 = A* - 5(4) + 50(1) - 50(5),
= 10-0-3-0,
or
L4 = 7. (13.116)
If i = 1, then the overhaul cost is uniformly distributed in the range
(a, (3) = (1,2). Since the optimum overhaul limit is L\ = 6, then the
estimated overhaul cost is always less than L\ and an overhaul decision
51 6 OPTIMAL OVERHA UL COST LIMITS
is made regardless of the estimate. Then, P\{L\) = 1 and from Eq.

(13.112)
1+2
2 '
or
Ii ■ 1.5. (13.117)
Similarly, for i = 2, (a, (3) = (2,4), and since Li — 5 then Pi{L<}) = 1.
Then,
-=, 2+4
or
Z2 = 3. (13.118)
For i = 3, (a,/?) = (3,6), and since L3 = 7 then P3(L3) = 1. Then,
-=-3+6
u -—.
or
L3 = 4.5. (13.119)
For i = 4, (a,/?) = (4,8), and since L4 = 7, then, from Eq. (13.111),
3
~ 4'
or
P4(^4) = 0.75, (13.120)

and
T 7+4
2i
" 2'
or
I4 = 5.5. (13.121)
The minimum total expected future cost for all i is determined

by using Eq. (13.75) and the appropriate values of S\(i) calculated
previously. Then,
5i(l) = I, Pi (I,) + [A* - 5(1)] [1 - PiiLt)]
+ S0(2)Pl(L1) + So(l)[l-P1(Ll)},
= (1.5)(l) + (10-3)(0)-(2)(l)-(3)(0),
= 1.5 - 2,
or
Sj(l) = -0.5. (13.122)
5i(2) = L2 P2(L2) + [A' - 5(2)] [1 - P2(L2)]

+ 50(3) P2(L2) + 50(1) [1 - P2(L2)],
= 3 + 0 + 0 + 0,
or
5x(2) = 3. (13.123)
ft(3) = LZ P3(L3) + [A* - 5(3)] [1 - P3(L3)]

+ 50(4) P3(L3) + 50(1) [1 - P3(L3)],
= 4.5 + 0 + 0 + 0,
or
5! (3) = 4.5, (13.124)
and
5X(4) = L4 P4(Z4) + [A* - 5(4)] [1 - P4(Z4)]
+ 50(5) P4(L4) + 50(1) [1 - P4(L4)],
= (5.5)(0.75) + (10 - 0)(1 - 0.75)
+(0)(0.75)-(3)(l-0.75), '
= 4.125 + 2.5 - 0.75,
or
5i(4)= 5.875. (13.125)

Table 13.9 gives the summary of the calculations for Stage 1.
TABLE 13.9 - Summary of Stage 1 for Example 13-8

where all costs are in multiples of $1,000.
Optimum Expected Minimum

System overhaul cost of Probability expected
age, cost limit, overhaul, of overhaul, future cost,
i Li Li Pi(Li) Si®
1 6 1.5 1.00 -0.500
2 5 3.0 1.00 3.000
3 7 4.5 1.00 4.500
4 7 5.5 0.75 5.875
Stage 2, n = 2, i = 1,2 and 3
Using Eq. (13.80) the optimum overhaul cost limit for a system
age varying from i = 1 to 3 years yields
Li = A* - s(i) + S„_,(l) - 5„_i(i + 1),
L, =A*-s(l) + Si(l)-Si(2)1
= 10-3-0.5-3,
or
L, = 3.5. (13.126)
L2 = ^-*(2) + 5i(l)-5,(3),
= 10 - 2 - 0.5 - 4.5,
or
L2 = 3, (13.127)
and
L3 = A' - s(Z) + Si(l) - Si(A),
= 10 - 0 - 0.5 - 5.875,
or
L3 = 3.625. (13.128)
For i = 1, (a,p) = (1,2) and Lx = 3.5, then Pt(L) = 1 and
1+2
2 '
or
Lx = $1.5. (13.129)
For t = 2, (a,/?) = (2,4) and L2 = 3, then
Li — a
P2(L2) -
0-a'
3-2
4-2'
or
P2(Z2) = 0.5, (13.130)
and
-p 3+2
or
L2 = 2.5. (13.131)
For i = 3, (a,/?) = (3,6) and L3 = 3.625, then
L3 - a
Ws) = /?-a'
3.625 - 3
6-3 '
or
P3(L3) = 0.21, (13.132)
and
T L3+a
3.625 + 3
or
L3 = 3.313. (13.133)
The minimum total expected future cost, £2(1), fc>r n — 2 and i = 1, 2, 3

is determined using Eq. (13.75) and appropriate values of Pi(Li) and
the Li calculated previously. Then,
Sfe(l) = I, ACLi) + [A* - 5(1)][1 - P^)]
+ S1(2)P1(L1) + S1(1)[1-P1(L1)],
= (1.5)(l) + (10-3)(0)
+ (3)(l) + (-0.5)(0),
or
S2(l) = 4.5. (13.134)
S2(2) = Z2 P2(L2) + [A* - 5(2)][1 - P2(L2)]

+ 51(3)P2(L2) + 51(1)[1-P2(L2)],
= (2.5)(0.5) + (10-2)(0.5)
+ (4.5)(0.5) + (-0.5)(0.5),
or
S2(2) = 7.25, (13.135)
and
52(3) = L3 P3(L3) + [A* - S(3)][l - P3(L3)]
+ S,(4)P3(L3) + S1(l)[l-P3(L3)],
= (3.313)(0.21) + (10 - 0)(1 - 0.21)
+ (5.875)(0.21) + (-0.5)(0.79),
or
5a(3) = 9.434. (13.136)

Table 13. 10 gives the summary of the calculations forn = 2 and 1 = 1,2
and 3.
Stage 3, n = 3, i = 1,2
Using Eq. (13.80) the optimum overhaul cost limit for the system
of ages i = 1 and 2 years, yields
Li = A* - S(i) + S„_,(l) - 5„_!(i + 1),
L1 =A'-S(l)+Si(l)-Si(2),
= 10-3 + 4.5-7.25,


i Li Li PiiLi) ft(0
1 3.500 1.500 1.00 4.500
2 3.000 2.500 0.50 7.250
3 3.625 3.313 0.21 9.434
or
Ii = 4.25, (13.137)
and
L2 = A*-S(2) + S2(1)-S2(3),
= 10 - 2 + 4.5 - 9.434,
or
L2 = 3.066. (13.138)
If i = 1, (a,/?) = (1,2) and Lx = 4.25, then,
Pi(Li) = l, (13.139)
and
T a+P
Ll== 2 '
1+2
2 '
or
L, = 1.5. (13.140)
If i = 2, (a,/?) = (2,4) and L2 = 3.066, then,
L2 — a
P2(L2) =
/3-q'
3.066 - 2
4-2 '
or
ft! L2) = 0.533, (13.141)

and
L2 + Ot
L2
2 '
3.066 + 2
2
or
I2 ■ 2.533. (13.142)
The minimum total expected future cost for n = 3 and i — 1,2 is
determined using Eq. (13.75) and appropriate values of P,(£,) and Z-,
calculated previously. Then,
Sail) m I, Py(Li) + [A* - 5(1)][1 - Pi(L0]
+ S2(2)P1(L1) + S2(l)[l-P1(Ll)),
= (1.5)(l) + (10-3)(0)
+ (7.25)(1) + (4.5)(0),
or
53(1) = 8.725, (13.143)
and
53(2) = I2 P2(L2) + [A* - 5(2)][1 - P2{L2)}
+ 52(3) ft(Xa) + 52(1)[1 - P2(L2)],
= (2.533)(0.533) + (10 - 2)(1 - 0.533)
+ (9.434) (0.533) + (4.5)(1 - 0.533),
or
53(2) = 12.216. (13.144)
Table 13.11 gives the summary of calculations for n = 3, and i = 1
and 2.
Stage 4, n — 4, i = 1
Using Eq. (13.80) the optimum overhaul cost limit for the system
of age i = 1 year, yields
L, =i4*-5(l) + S8(l)-Si(2)1
= 10-3 + 8.725- 12.216,


i Li L~i Pi(Li)
1 4.250 1.500 1.00 8.725
2 3.066 2.533 0.533 12.216
or
Li = 3.509. (13.145)
Since the overhaul cost limit is greater than the maximum overhaul cost
for a system of one year of age, then the overhaul should be undertaken
regardless of the overhaul cost estimate. Then, P\{L{) = 1 and
a+p
u= 2
14-2
or
Li = 1.5, (13.146)
and
S4(l) = LX F\(L{) + [A* - .(1)][1 - Pi(Li)]
+ S3(2)P1(L1) + S3(l)[l-Pi(L,)],
= (1.5)(l) + (10-3)(0)
+ (12.216)(1) + (8.725)(0),
or
54(1) = 13.716. (13.147)
Hence the total expected future cost for the system of an age of one
year and four remaining years of operation is $13,716, which may be
achieved using the optimal overhaul cost limits given in Table 13.12.
The word "overhaul" means that the overhaul decision should be made
regardless of the overhaul cost estimate since it is always less than the
overhaul cost limit. Figure 13.5 gives the optimal paths for this system
which is initially one year old, and is to be maintained over the four-
year period with the optimal overhaul cost limits given in Table 13.12.
TABLE 13.12 - The optimum overhaul cost limits for Ex

ample 13-8.
System Remaining years of operation,

age, n
i 4 3 2 1
1 Overhaul - Overhaul Overhaul
2 3,064 3,000 Overhaul
3 3,625 Overhaul
4 7,000
o o o o
S4(l) —S3(2) <3064'S2(3) <3.625 ' S.W <7 'So(5)
r\> 3.625 RA>7
S,(l) S0(l)
S0(2)
S0(3)
Fig. 13.5 - Optimal overhaul/replace paths for Example 13-8.

PROBLEMS 325
PROBLEMS
13-1. 1,000 units with the mean time to failure of m = 1,000 hr, are
to be overhauled at regularly scheduled time intervals, T0, equal
to 1,000 hours. Determine the following:
(1) The reliability of a unit for a mission duration

equal to the total operating time, T0, between
two overhauls.
(2) The expected number of unscheduled over
hauls in one interval, T0, or between two
scheduled overhaul actions.
(3) The average time between overhauls for both
scheduled and unscheduled overhaul actions.
13-2. A mixed sample of exponential and Weibullian parts is used in

an equipment. Ninety percent of the parts are exponential with
the following parameters:
pc = 1.0, T)c = 1, 000 hr and -yc = 0 hr.
Ten percent of the parts are Weibullian with the following pa

rameters:
0vi = 1-5, rhv = 2, 000 hr and 7„, = 0 hr.
If the reliability goal is Rgoal = 0.98, determine the following:
(1) The interval between overhauls, T0, so that

the reliability for a mission duration of 50 hr
satisfies the reliability goal.
(2) The mean time between both scheduled and
unscheduled overhauls, MTBO.
(3) If 100 such equipment are in operation, deter
mine the number of those that will fail prior
to the overhaul time, T„.
13-3. An equipment has a mean time to failure of m = 5,000 hr, a
mean wear-out life of \i = 1,500 hr and a standard deviation of
a = 200 hr. To prevent wear-out failures from occurring prior to
scheduled overhauls the interval between overhauls, T0, should
be determined from T0 = /i — 5 a. Determine the following:
526 OVERHAUL POLICIES
(1) The interval between overhauls, T0, and the

reliability of an equipment for a mission du
ration of T = T0, assuming that only chance
failures occur.
(2) The probability of wear-out failures occurring
prior to T0.
(3) The probability of chance failures occurring
prior to T0.
(4) Compare the results of Cases 2 and 3.
(5) If 100 such equipment are in operation how
many will fail due to chance failures prior to
±0-
(6) If the interval between overhauls is extended
to T0 = 1,000 hr, what is the probability of
wear-out failures occurring prior to T0? Com
pare this result to the result of Case 2.
(7) Determine the reliability of the equipment for
a mission duration of T — T0 = 1, 500 hr and
compare this result with the result of Case 1.
(8) If 100 such equipment are in operation, how
many will fail due to chance failures prior to
T0 = 1,500 hr?
(9) What should be the mean wear-out designed-
in life if there is a requirement that no more
than 1% fail due to wear-out, assuming that a
good approximation of the standard deviation
is a = £>?
13-4. Given is the system of Fig. 13.6, which is subjec
ted to overhauls every T0 = 1 , 000 hr. Determine
the following:
(1) What percent of such systems will fail before
the regular overhaul time, T0, is reached?
(2) What is the mean time between both sched
uled and unscheduled overhauls for this sys
tem?
(3) How many overhauls will be performed for
500,000 calendar-hours, when 50,000 hr are
spent to perform overhauls? Consider no
other downtime or idle time.
PROBLEMS 527
A.1E = 1,000 fr/10hr

kE = 1,200 fr/106hr
X,Q= 100fr/106hr
Ê= 200fr/106hr
U-
Xswo= 10 fir/10 hr
A.SWQ= 50fr/106hr
^SWE= 100 fr/106 cycles
Fig. 13.6 - Standby system with one active and one standby
unit for Problem 13-4.
Jl,E=100fr/10 hr
X2E=120fr/106hr
A*,= 0
XsE= 10fr/106hr
U-
"•swo — 0
"•SWQ — 0
kSWE = 50fr/10 cycles
Fig. 13.7 - Standby system with one active and one standby
unit for Problem 13-5.
(4) How many of Unit 1 will fail during the period

given in Case 3?
(5) How many of Unit 2 will fail during the same
period?
13-5. Given is the system of Fig. 13.7, which is subjected to overhauls
every T0 = 1,000 hr. Determine the following:
(1) What percent of such systems will fail before
the regular overhaul time, T0, is reached?
(2) What is the mean time between both sched
uled and unscheduled overhauls for this sys
tem?
(3) How many overhauls will be performed for
500,000 calendar-hours, when 50,000 hr are
spent to perform overhauls? Consider no
other downtime or idle time.
PROBLEMS 529
TABLE 13.13 - Transition probabilities for Problem 13-6.

the system at
start of interval,
j Decision Good Failed
Overhaul pu(G,G) = 0.85 pu(G,F) = 0.15
Good Replace pR'{G,G) = 0.99 p^(G,F) = 0.01
Repair pr{F,G) = 0.80 pr(F,F)=0.20
Failed Replace pR'(F,G) =0.95 pR*(F,F) = 0.05
TABLE 13.14 - Costs of the system's operation for a one-

year interval for Problem 13-6.

the system at
start of interval,
i Decision Good Failed
Overhaul CU(G,G) = $300 CU{G,F) = $1,500
Good Replace CR*{G,G) = $400 CR'(G,F) = $1,400
Repair Cr(F,G) = $200 Cr(F,F) = $1,000
Failed Replace C*»(F,G) = $500 CRp{F,F) = $1,200
(4) How many of Unit 1 will fail during the period

given in Case 3?
(5) How many of Unit 2 will fail during the same
period?
13-6. A complex system is put into operation. It is decided that the
system is inspected at regular one-year intervals and, depending
on the condition of the system, replacement, repair or overhaul
is undertaken. The transition probabilities from State i to State
j are given in Table 13.13. Costs of the system's operation for
a one-year interval, depending on the system's condition at the
start and at the end of an interval, are given in Table 13.14.
Assuming that the system should be in operation for four more
years, determine the best possible decisions among replacement,
repair and overhaul at each one-year interval so that the total
expected future cost is minimum, for this finite time horizon
case.
TABLE 13.15 - The overhaul cost, C0(i), the annual cost,

C>t(t), and the salvage cost, Cs(i), for Prob
lem 13-7. All costs are given as multiples
of $1,000.
System age, i
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Cost of overhaul, C0(i) 2 7 5 7 9 15 11
Annual cost, Ca(i) 1 3 5 6 5 7 9
Salvage value, C„(i) 20 18 11 10 7 6 0
13-7. A complex system whose age at present is one year is to be in

spected, and either overhauled or replaced at one-year intervals.
The cost of overhaul, C0(i), the annual cost, CU(t), and the sal
vage value of the replaced system are given in Table 13.15. The
acquisition cost of the system is $25,000. Determine the sequence
of decisions for a four-year period in which the system should be
in operation.
13-8. The system of Problem 13-6 is to be maintained indefinitely. The
transition probabilities are given in Table 13.13 and the operation
costs in Table 13.14. Determine the best overhaul/repair/repl
ace decisions or the optimum maintenance policy and the steady
state average cost per unit time of operation.
13-9. A complex unit, initially new, is to be inspected regularly at

one-year intervals and the overhaul cost estimated. The unit
can be in operation at most three years; i.e., the unit is always
replaced if its age reaches three years. At the end of the first
year the overhaul cost is uniformly distributed over the range
(0; $1,000), at the end of the second year the overhaul cost is
uniformly distributed over the range (0; $1,500) and the cost of
a new system is $1,500. If the unit is to be in operation for the
next seven years determine the optimal overhaul cost limits for
the unit.
13-10. A complex unit, initially new, is to be inspected regularly at

one-year intervals and the overhaul cost estimated. The unit
can be in operation at most four years; i.e., the unit is always
replaced if its age reaches four years. At the end of the first
year the overhaul cost is normally distributed with the mean,
fi = $1,000 and standard deviation of o = $100. At the end of
REFERENCES 531
the second year the overhaul cost is normally distributed with

the mean, fi = $150 and standard deviation, a = $100, and the
cost of a new system is $1,500. If the unit is to be in operation for
the next seven years determine the optimal overhaul cost limits
for the unit.
REFERENCES
1. Kececioglu, Dimitri B., Reliability Engineering Handbook, DEStech

Publications, 1148 Elizabeth Ave., #2, Lancaster, PA 17601-
4359, Vol.1, 720 pp., 2002.
2. Basovsky, I., Reliability Theory and Practice, Prentice Hall, Up
per Saddle River, New Jersey 07458, 292 pp., 1963.
3. Jardine, A.K.S., Maintenance, Replacement and Reliability, Wi
ley & Sons, New York, 199 pp., 1973.
4. Blanks, S.B., Reliability in Procurement and Use, Wiley & Sons,
New York, 356 pp., 1992.
5. Howard, R.A., Dynamic Programming and Markov Processes,
Wiley & Sons, New York, 136 pp., 1960.
6. Hastings, N.A.J., Equipment Replacement and the Repair Limit
Method, Operational Research in Maintenance, ed. A.K.S. Jar-
dine, Manchester University Press/Barnes and Noble, pp. 100-
118, 1970.
Chapter 14
SPARES PROVISIONING
14.1 SPARES PROVISIONING AT A DESIRED

CONFIDENCE LEVEL
The expected number of spare parts needed for a particular product,
for a prescribed period of time can be determined from the expected
number of failures [1, Vol. 1, p. 193], or from
NrfT2-Tl) = [T2X(T)dT,
(14.1)
where
Nf{Tz — T\ ) = estimate of the expected number of failures
for a life period (T2 - T\), per part,
A(T) = failure rate function for a life period [T2 — T\)
for that part,
and
(22 — T\) = part life period for which the spare parts pro
visioning is to be determined.
Equation (14.1) applies to any type of reliability bathtub curve (RBTC),
with or without preventive and/or corrective maintenance, provided
the RBTC is representative of the situation for which the number of
spare parts is determined, the appropriate A(T) is used, and the total
number of identical parts in use remains essentially constant. Then,
the total number of expected spare parts is given by
NFT(T2 -Tl) = NTx NF(T2 - r,), (14.2)
533
J__
534 SPARES PROVISIONING
where
Nrrpi-Ti) = total number of expected spare parts in life
period (T2 - Tx),
and
Nt - total number of identical parts in use during life period
(Ta-Tj).
If N7 • varies with T, then
NfHTi-T,) = f2 \{T) NT(T) <n\ (14.3)
where
Nt(T) = functional relationship for the total number of identical

parts in use during part He period (T2 — T\).
Nft(T2 — T\) can be determined only when, in addition to A(T) which

is obtained from the RBTC, Nt(T) is also known. Nt(T) may be
determined either by monitoring such parts, or by the theory of main
tainability and the preventive and corrective maintenance policy and
schedule used, as it will be presented in the next sections. If Nt and
A(T) are both constant for life period (T2 — T\), then A(T) = A and a
good estimate of the spare parts is given by
NFr{Ti-Tx) = NT'x.\x(Ti-Tx). (14.4)

To determine the number of spares at the desired confidence level use
the assumption that if the times to occurrence of an event are expo
nentially distributed, having rate A, then the number of events in any
interval of length t is Poisson distributed with mean A t. The Poisson
distribution can be obtained from the following identity
e~x ex = 1
Expanding the term ex into the Taylor series expansion yields
-2 t" \
= 1.
Then,
x -x
+ -e * e -x
x + — x
x + ■■■+—re -X
x + ■ ■ ■ = 1.
12 n!
SPARES PROVISIONING 535
Each term represents a probability, and the sum of all these prob
abilities is equal to 1. Hence, each term is a term of a pdf, and in this
case of the Poisson pdf.
The interpretation of this distribution is as follows: If x is taken to
be the expected, or average, number of occurrences of an event, then
e~x = probability that that event will not occur if x remains
constant,
xe~x = probability that that event will occur exactly once,
x2 x = probability that that event will occur exactly twice,
—e
and so on.
In reliability, the event of concern is failure, and the average number
of failures in time t is given by x — At, when A is constant. Conse
quently, e~x = e~Xt, which is R(t) for a single system having a constant
failure rate, A, gives the probability that no failure will occur in time
t. xe~x = Aie~Al is the probability of exactly one failure occurring
in time t, [i2/2!]e-1 = [(At)2/2!]e_A< is the probability of exactly two
failures occurring in time t, and so on.
Therefore, the probability of exactly k failures occurring in t is
given by
f(k) = e-xt{-^, * = 0,1,2,...

i
This is the discrete Poisson distribution.

The cumulative Poisson distribution is given by
F(k) = P(k or fewer failures),
or
k
*w=£«-»^.
i=0 7
J'
These results may be used to determine the probability of occurrence

of a specific number of failures during a mission, to determine standby
reliability, or to calculate the number of spares required when units
have constant and identical failure rates. Applications of these are
given in the examples that follow.
EXAMPLE 14-1
Given is a unit exhibiting a constant failure rate of 150 fr/106 hr
and operating for a mission of 100 hr. Find the following probabilities:
1. No failures occur during this mission.

2. One failure occurs during this mission.
3. Two failures occur during this mission.
4. Two or fewer failures occur during this mission.
5. Should two spares be provided for this unit?
1. The probability that no failures occur during this mission, or

/(0), is the system's reliability for this mission, or
rs = m = e-M,
Rs = e-(150)(10-6)(100) _ e-0.01505
Rs = 0.98511.
2. The probability that one failure occurs during this mission is
given by
a<(A*)X
/(I) = e
1!
/(l) = Me -At
/(l) = (150)(10-6)(100)e-(15°)(lo~6)(loo>,
/(l) = (0.015)(0.9851),
or
/(l) = 0.01477.
3. The probability that two failures occur during this mission is
given by
/(2) = e-^2
2! '
1(2) = e- o.ois (0-015)2
2 '
„ , . ,0.000225
/(2) = (0.9851) ,
or
/(2)= 0.00011,
a much lower probability than for one failure.
4. The probability that two or fewer failures occur during this mis
sion is given by
P(k < 2) = F(2) = £ e-Xi{-^£- = /(0) + /(l) + /(2),

fc!
Jt=o
F(2) = 0.98511 + 0.01477 + 0.00011,
or
F(2) = 0.99999.
5. As the probabihty of having up to two failures is as high as

0.99999 it will be very safe to provide two spares for this unit.
EXAMPLE 14-2
In a system there exists a very critical unit which requires spares
to attain a specified unit reliability of 99%, for a period of 250 hr. The
unit has an MTBF of 1,250 hr and exhibits a constant failure rate
characteristic.
How many spares would be required if the unit is easily accessible
and can be replaced almost immediately, by successfully plugging in an
identical spare when the functioning unit fails, to increase its reliability
from 81.87% to 99%?
The solution may be found by using the Poisson distribution and
answering the question, "How many failures, equal to the number of
spares, can be tolerated to attain the reliability of 99%?" or the ques
tion, "How many standby (spare) units are required to attain the
reliability of 99%?" Therefore,
m -£<-**#.i=o
Xt (Xt)2 + ••• + (At)*
F(k) = e -Xt 1 + T7 +
1! 2! fc!
and
Ai=(M7b)(,»=(l^)(250) = 0-2-
Consequently,
0.99 = e -0.2 1, + 0.2

nn + i—i-
(0.2)2 + • • • + *-r-f-
(0.2)*
This equation should be solved for the nearest integer, k, which satisfies
the equality; then the required number of spares is found to be
k-2.
With two spare units, the actual reliability is
Rs = F(2) = 0.99885,
whereas with one spare it would be
Rs = F(l) = 0.98248.
Consequently, k = 2 is the right answer.
EXAMPLE 14-3
A battery has an expected failure rate of 0.01 fr/hr and is used 24
hr per day.
1. How many spares will be required for a three-calendar-month
period (assume 30 days per month) for a 95% probability (ad
equacy, assurance, or confidence) that there will be a sufficient
number of spares?
2. What would the battery reliability be for a 24-hr period?
3. If a battery adequacy of 95% is required for a 24-hr period, how
many spares would be required for a three-calendar-month pe
riod, assuming the replacement of the failed batteries is immedi
ate?
4. Compare and discuss the results obtained in Cases 1 and 3.
1. The average number of spares required for a three-calendar-month

period, assuming operation during useful life and no preven
tive maintenance other than immediate replacement of a battery
whenever it fails, is
Nsp = A t,
where
t = total operating time,
/24 hr\ /30 days\ ,„ , ,
1 ■ (-E7) hdy <3 m°"ths)-
t = 2,160 hr,
and
A = 0.01 fr/hr.
Then,
TTsp = (0.01X2, 160),
or
NSp = 21.6 failures.
For a 95% assurance of having sufficient spares
'h >'■ i
and with N sp - 21.6, Ns = 30 spares.
2. The battery reliability for a 24-hr period is

R(t) = e~Xt = e(-001)(24),
or
R(t) = 0.7866.
3. For a 24-hr period and 95% assurance,

NSP = (0.01)(24) = 0.24 failures.
Then,
0.95 < ge-^2^,

j=0
1 + ^p+%£ +
1! 2!
For Ns = 1,
0.95 < e-024(l + 0.24),
0.95 < 0.9754;
therefore, one spare will be required for a 24-hr operating period.
Extending this to a three-calendar-month period, or to 90 days,
yields
Ns = (1)(90) = 90 spares.
4. In Case 1 the 95% assurance requirement is for a period of 3

months, whereas in Case 3 it is for a 24-hr period; consequently,
Case 1 requires only 30 spares, whereas Case 3 requires 90 spares;
i.e., substantially more!
With 90 spares a daily battery adequacy probability of 97.54% is
achieved, whereas only 95% is required. This means that money
can be saved by having fewer spares that give an adequacy prob
ability closer to 95%. To find the number of spares, x, that are
necessary, we can interpolate as follows:
x (0.9754) + (90 - xXO.7866) = (90)(0.95),

where
(90)(0.95) — average number of days the battery
completes a 24-hr mission for a total
of 90 days,
x (0.9754) = average number of days the battery
of x days,
(90 — z)(0.7866) = average number of days the battery
of (90 - x) days,
0.9754 = probability that there is one or fewer
battery failures during a 24-hr period,
and
0.7866 = probability that there is no failure dur
ing a 24-hr period.
Therefore, the left side of the equation is the average number of
days the battery completes a 24-hr mission, for a total of 90 days,
and so is the right side. Now solving for x yields
x (0.9754 - 0.7866) = (90)(0.95 - 0.7866),

(90)(0.95 - 0.7866)
x —
(0.9754 - 0.7866)
or
x — 77.88, or 78 spares.
Therefore, 78 spares would be sufficient to achieve a daily battery
adequacy probability of 95% for a 3-month period, instead of the
90 spares found in Case 3.
EXAMPLE 14-4
There are N = 100 identical units operating in the field, or in a
production facility. Each unit has a mean time to failure, MTTF , of
500 hr. For a period of 6 months, during which each unit operates
cumulatively t0 = 600 hr, determine the following:
1. The average number of spare units required.
2. The number of spare units required at the 80%, 90%, 95% and
99% confidence levels.
1. The average number of spares, Ns, can be determined from
"5 = MTTF '° "'
- 65o <600» <100)-

or
Ns = 120 spares.
2. The number of spare units required, Ns, at the given confidence

level, CZ, can be determined from the cumulative Poisson dis
tribution, or from
kl
.-».(**)
£
Jt=0
k\
= CL. (14.5)
In Eq. (14.5) the summation term says that the probability of

occurrence of zero (0), one, two up to and including Ns failures,
is equal to the confidence level, CL, and Ns failures will require
Ns spares, one for each failure. It is this fact that makes the
summation equal to the confidence level. Using Eq. (14.5) the
cumulative terms of the Poisson distribution may be determined
for the average number of spare units calculated in Case 1, or
for Ns — 120. Entering Table 14.1, which is one page from
[2, p. 202] and is only for Ns = 120, going down the column
headed by C(Ns), which stands for the cumulative Poisson dis
tribution value given Ns, stop at the C(Ns) value nearest the
chosen confidence level, go left to the first column and read off the
corresponding Ns value, which is the required number of spares.
TABLE 14.1 Table of the Poisson distribution, individ

ual and cumulative terms, for the average
number of spares of 120 units, for Example
14-4.
Ns P(NS) C(NS)
119 0.03639300 0.48786002
120 0.03639300 0.52425302
121 0.03609223 0.56034525
122 0.03550055 0.59584580
123 0.03463469 0.63048049
124 0.03351744 0.66399793
125 0.03217674 0.69617467
126 0.03064452 0.72681919
127 0.02895545 0.75577464
128 0.02714573 0.78292037
129* 0.02525184 0.80817221*
130 0.02330939 0.83148161
131 0.02135212 0.85283373
132 0.01941102 0.87224475
133 0.01751370 0.88975844
134* 0.01568391 0.90544235*
135 0.01394125 0.91938360
136 0.01230111 0.93168471
137 0.01077469 0.94245940
138* 0.00936930 0.95182870*
139 0.00808860 0.95991730
140 0.00693309 0.96685039
141 0.00590050 0.97275088
142 0.00498634 0.97773722
143 0.00418434 0.98192156
144 0.00348695 0.98540851
145 0.00288575 0.98829426
146* 0.00237185 0.99066611*
147 0.00193620 0.99260231
148 0.00156990 0.99417221
149 0.00126435 0.99543656
150 0.00101148 0.99644803
TABLE 14.2 - Required number of spare units, Ns, at the

confidence levels of 80%, 90%, 95% and
99%, for Example 14-4.
Actual
Confidence Number confidence
level, of level,
% spares %
80 129 80.8
90 134 90.5
95 138 95.2
99 146 99.1
For example, for CL — 80% the closest value to it, in the C(Ns)
column in Table 14.1, is 0.80817221 in decimals. Going to the
corresponding value in the first column yields Ns = 129, or nine
(9) more than the average. Going to the value of C(Ns) closest
to CL = 90% yields Ns = 134, or 14 more than the average.
For CL = 95% Table 14.1 yields Ns = 138, or 18 more than the
average, and for CL = 99% it yields Ns = 146, or 26 more than
the average. The number of spare units required at the desired
confidence levels are summarized in Table 14.2. Reference [3]
may also be used to find Ns-
14.1.1 SELECTION OF THE CONFIDENCE LEVEL

Selecting the right confidence level, CL, to use for spares provisioning
is very important, because with the wrong CL the number of spares
can be either over- or under-estimated. For example, when the spare
unit when needed can be obtained from a nearby supplier who stocks
it and can deliver it within 30 minutes if contacted by electronic mail,
and the time to prepare the failed equipment and the administrative
time consume 30 minutes and not much more, and this downtime is
acceptable, then the confidence level of spares provisioning would be
zero (0), because there is no need to have a spare on hand. At the other
extreme, if the units to be spared for are very critical for the function
ing of much used products whose downtime is very costly in terms of
loss of valuable production or performance output, and there is a long
lead time of procuring the spares, then the confidence level of spares
provisioning should be very high, such as 99%. An interpretation of
the CL is as follows:
If the spares are provided at a CL of 99%, then, in the long run,

in 99 out of 100 requests for a spare, during the spares provisioning
period of these failed units, a spare will be available.
14.2 SPARES PROVISIONING FOR A DECAY

ING POPULATION
When dealing with a decaying population of identical units the failed
units are not replaced or maintained as soon as they fail. To find
the number of units which should start a mission, or the number of
missions one unit undertakes, Nt, to end up with the desired number
at the end of the mission or the number of successful missions, Ns(T),
use
or
The number of units that will fail, Nj?, and need to be spared would
be given by
NF = NTQ{t) = NT[1-R(t)]. (14.7)
The conditional reliability function, R(T,t), may be used to find
the number of units which should start the new mission, starting at
the age T, Ns(T), to end up with the desired number at the end of the
new mission of t duration, Ns(T + t), and the number that should start
at age zero, Ns(0), to end up with desired number at the end of the
new mission, Ns{T + t), and vice versa. By definition the conditional
reliability is given by
*(7,.) =*§£>. (14.8)

Also
7V5(0) R(T + t)_N5(T + t)
R{TJ) ~ 7w) -wr ~ NS(T) • (14-9)
From Eq. (14.9) the number of units which should start the new mission
at age T, Ns(T), is given by
Also, by definition,
NS(T + 1)
R{T + t) =
Ns(0)
Therefore, the number of units that should start at age zero, Ns(0), is
given by
Ns(T + t)
Ns(0) = (14.11)
R(T + 1) '
EXAMPLE 14-5
The times-to-failure distribution of identical units is represented
well by the normal distribution with mean T = 43,679 hr and a stan
dard deviation of aj — 562 hr. Do the following:
1. Find the number of units which should start the new mission
of 300-hr duration, each unit having already accumulated 42,850
hr, to end up with 100 such units at the end of the mission.
2. Find the number of units which should start at age zero to end
up with 100 such units at the end of the new mission.
1. From Eq. (14.10)
where
NS(T + t) = 100 units.
From Eq. (14.8)

R(T + 1)
R(T,t) =
R(T) '
f?+tf(T)dT
f?f(T)dT'
J42,850+30o/(-' ) dT r. 0.9412 4>{z) dz
/42.850 f(T) dT /~.4751 #(*) dz '
^
or
R(T,t) =: 0.8267 „ aMJ, (14.12)

0.9299 0.8890.
nnnnn =
Therefore, by substitution in Eq. ;i4.10) the number of units

needed at the beginning of the new mission to end up with 100
units at the end of the new mission is
100
Ns(T) =
0.8890'
or
Ns(T) = 112 units.
FromEq. (14.11)
s{) R(T + t)
Substitution of NS(T + 1) = 100 and R(T + t) = 0.8267, found

in Case 1, gives the number of units needed at age zero to end
up with 100 units at the end of the new mission; then,
0.8267'
or
7Vs(0) = 121 units.
Consequently, not 100 but 121 units need to be provided, or
so to speak 21 additional spares should have been on hand to
accommodate this situation.
14.3 SPARES PROVISIONING WHEN REPLAC

ING UNITS THAT FAIL BY A PRESCRIBED
OPERATING TIME
The conditional reliability function may be used in the case of replacing
those units that fail by a prescribed operating time [1, Vol. 2, pp. 351-
362]. Identical units operate a prescribed period of time, Tj, from age
zero; those that are found to have failed after T\ hours of operation are
replaced by fresh ones, and the replaced and nonreplaced units operate
an additional T hours. The reliability of 7V0 such units for the first T\
hours of operation is R(T\), and from Eq. (14.7) the number that will
fail by T\ hours of operation is
NF-r(Tx) = No Q(Tx) = JV0 [1 - R(Ti)]. (14.13)
These are replaced by fresh ones and they operate T hours thereafter.
The number of these replaced units that will fail after T additional
hours of operation, using Eq. (14.13), would be
NF.R(T) = JV>_„(r,) Q(T) = N0 [1 - JJ(I\)][1 - R(T)}. (14.14)
The number of those that do not fail by T\ is
Ns(T1) = NQR(Tl). . (14.15)
The number of these units that will fail while operating T additional
hours, using Eq. (14.15), would be
Nf-nbHTuT) = NsiTx) [1 - R(TUT)),
or
g(7j + T)
NF-nk(TuT) = NoR(Ti) l (14.16)
R(TX)
Consequently, the total number of such units that will fail by (T\ + T)
hours of operation, under the condition that those that fail by T\ hours
are replaced, is given by the sum of Eqs. (14.13), (14.14) and (14.16),
or
NFMTi + T) = No [l-UW)]
+N0[l-R(T1)][l-R(T)\
R{TX + T)
+N0 R(T,) 1- (14.17)
m)
Simplification of Eq. (14.17) yields
NfMTi + T) = No [2 - R(T,) - R(T)
+fl(T1)fl(T)-JR(T1+T)]. (14.18)
Eqeuation (14.18) gives the average number of spares that should be
provided for Aô such units with the replacement policy considered here.
Of those that fail by T\ hours of operation and are replaced, the
number that will survive after additional T hours of operation is given
by
NS-r(T) = Nf-r(Ti) R(T) = N0 [1- R{t\)] R(T). (14.19)
Of those that do not fail by T\ hours of operation and operate T

additional hours, the number surviving is given by
Ns-nr(Ti + T) = N0 RM) R(TUT) = N0 Jg(r1)*(!» + T),
or
Ns-nr{Tx + T) = N0 R(T, + T). (14.20)
Out of the iVo that started out, the number of those that survive, after
replacement of those that failed by T\, is given by the sum of Eqs.
(14.19) and (14.20), or
Ns-rM +T) = N0 {[1 - RiTi)} R(T) + fi(T, + T)}. (14.21)
EXAMPLE 14-6
Identical types of bearings have a Weibull times-to-failure distribu
tion with the following parameters:
0 = 2, r\ - 2, 000 hr, and 7 = 0 hr.
Do the following:
1. If 100 of such bearings are operating in identical equipment at
the same application and operation stress level, how many will
survive if each operates T\ — 1, 300 hr at 675 rpm, and how many
will fail?
2. If the failed bearings are replaced by new ones and all of them
operate for T — 700 hr thereafter, how many of the fresh ones
will fail?
3. Of those that survived T\ hours, how many will fail during the
additional T hours of operation?
4. What is the total number of bearings that will fail by (7\ + T)
hours of operation, given that 100 start at age zero and that
those that fail by T\ hours are replaced by fresh ones?
5. What is the total number of bearings that survive after (7\ + T)
hours when we follow the policy of replacing the failed ones by
T\ hours?

1 . The reliability for T\ = 1 , 300 hr is given by
, 1 ,300 \2
i2(l,300hr) = e~{™°°> ,
or
#(1,300 hr) = 0.655406.
The number of bearings that will survive is
Ns(Tr) = JVs(l,300 hr) = NoR^) = 100 x 0.655406,
= 65.5406,
or
-/V5(l,300hr)2 65.
The number of such bearings that will fail is
Nf-r^) = N0 Q(7\) = N0 [1- «Ct|)J,
= 100 x (1 -0.655406),
= 34.4594,
or
iVF_fl(l,300hr)^35.
2. From Eq. (14.14)
nf.r{t) = No [i - «(r,)][i - j?(r)],
where
/ 700 \2
i2(T) = e (w*> ,
or
72(700 hr) = 0.884706.
Then,
NF.R(T - 700 hr) = 100(1 - 0.655406)(1 - 0.884706),
= 100 (0.344594)(0.115294)= 3.97,
or
NF-.R(700 hr) S 4.
Therefore, four out of the fresh bearings will fail while operating
700 hr after replacement.
3. From Eq. (14.16)
NF.NR(TUT) = N0 RM) [1 - R(^J\
and from Case 1
No R(Ti) = Ns(Tx) = 65,

lSl±L\t , 1,300+700 v2
R(Ti + T) = e~( i ) = e~l 2.000 ) = 0.367879.
Then
JVF_Nfl( 1,300 hr;700 hr) = 65 [1 - °'^^],

U.o554Uo
= 65 x 0.438701,
or
NF-nr(1, 300 hr; 700 hr) = 28.52 2 29.

Therefore, 29 of these bearings wil] fail.
4. From Eq. (14.18)
tfjp.HT, + T) = TVo [2 - ACTj) - «(T) + R{TX) R(T) - R{T^ + T)],
7VF_r(l, 300 hr + 700 hr) = 100 [2 - 0.655406 - 0.884706

+ (0.655406)(0.884706) - 0.367879],
or
JVF_r( 1,300 hr + 700 hr) = 100 (0.671851) = 67.19 S 68.
Consequently, 68 such bearings will fail by T\ + T = 2, 000 hr.
The same answer can be obtained from
7VF_T(2,000hr) = 7VF_«(1,300) + iVF_K(700)

+ JVf_Wk(1,300;700),
or
7VF_T(2, 000 hr) = 35 + 4 + 29 = 68.

5. From Eq. (14.21)

Ns-RiTj +T) = N0 {[1 - RiT,)} R(T) + RW + T)},
iVS-R(l,300 hr + 700 hr) = 100 {[1 - 0.655406](0.884706)

+ (0.367879)},
NS-r(2, 000 hr) = 100[(0.344594)(0.884706) + (0.367879)],

or
iVs-R(2,000 hr) = 100 x 0.672743 = 67.27 £ 67.
Therefore, a total of 67 of these bearings will survive.
The same answer can be obtained from
NS-r(2, 000 hr) = N0 + iVF_fi(Ti) - NF.T{Ti + T),

= 100 + 35 - 68,
or
A^5-fl(2,000hr) = 67.
14.4 PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE POLICIES

AND SPARES PROVISIONING
14.4.1 AGE REPLACEMENT POLICY - POLICY I
A unit is replaced preventively once it has reached a specified age, Tp,
and correctively whenever it fails before age Tp [See Section 9.2]. The
optimal replacement age, T* , is so determined that the total expected
cost per unit operating time is minimized using Eq. (9.31), or
R(TP) Q(TP)
CT = C.P£>R{T)dT + aCfrR{T)dT
To determine the spares needed for corrective and preventive mainte
nance of a unit, its corrective and preventive replacement rates need
to be known. Since the term
r
Jo
R{t) dr
gives the mean time between both preventive replacements and cor
rective failures, the total replacement rate, Xt, is given by Eq. (9.22),
or
Ax = —Yi = Xp + Ac.
j0"R{r)dT
As defined in Section 9.5 the total average number of spares over a
long period of operation of the equipment, say t hours, is given by
NSP = -ms-l . (14.22)

So" R(r) dr
The total number of spares at the confidence level, CL — 1 — a, is
obtained from Eq. (9.29) by solving for Nsp which is the actual number
of spares, or
nsp _ cjr„„^
£ e-NSP {*£EL > CL (14-23)
j=o 3'
EXAMPLE 14-7
Consider Example 9-3 and the system of Fig. 9.12. Determine
the total average number of spares for a period of 10,000 hr and the
number of spares at a 95% confidence level.
1. In Example 9-3 the stabilized preventive maintenance, or re

placement rate, is calculated from
R{TP) £(1,000)
Ap =
£>R(T)dT fi^RWdr'
or
Xp = 0.000549 rp/hr.
The stabilized corrective failure rate is calculated from
Q{TP) Q(1,000)
C~ ^R(r)dr- ir°R(r)dr'
or
Ac = 0.000871 fr/hr.
Then, the total average number of spares for a period t = 10,000

hr is given by
~Nsp = Ac t + Xp t,
= (A„ + Ac) t,
= (549 + 871)(10_6)(10,000),
or
Nsp = 14.2 spares.
2. The number of total spares at the confidence level of CL = 95%

is obtained from Eq. (14.23) by solving for Nsp- Substitution of
the value for Nsp from Case 1 yields
TV SP
E e-« liiE > 0.95.

j=0
Using cumulative Poisson distribution tables yields
Nsp = 20 spares.
The normal distribution with mean of 7VSp and standard devi

ation of \J~Nsp may be used to approximate the Poisson distri
bution if the mean of the Poisson distribution is large enough,
say 10 or more. Since the Poisson distribution is discrete and
the normal distribution is continuous, the continuity correction
should be used as follows:
(b + 0.b)-NSP (a - 0.5) - NSP

P(a < X < b) = $ $
SP SP
where
a — lower value of the random variable X ,

6 = upper value of the random variable X ,
or for one-sided cumulative probability
(6 +0.5)- A' Sp
P(X < b) = $ (14.24)
7
Nsp
In this example
NSP
(NspY
CL = P(X < NSP) = £ * -N<
j=0
(NSp + 0.5) - NSp

= $
NSP
or
(NSP + 0.5) -14.2
0.95 = $ [
^14^2
From the cumulative normal distribution tables the probability
of 0.95 yields zQ = 1.645. Then,
(NSp + 0-5) - 14.2
*a = -20.95 = 1-645
3.768
Solving for Nsp yields
NSp = 19.898,
or
Nsp = 20 spares,
at the 95% confidence level.
14.4.2 BLOCK REPLACEMENT POLICY - POLICIES II

AND VII
In these policies a unit is replaced preventively at constant intervals
of length Tp irrespective of its age, and correctively whenever it fails
between preventive replacements [See Sections 9.7 and 11.1]. The op
timal interval between preventive replacements, T", is so determined
that the expected replacement cost per unit time of operation is min
imized using Eq. (11.5), or
CT = £■ {Cp + Cc H0(TP)} , (14.25)
where B0(TP) is the expected, or mean number of failures in a pe

riod (0,TP), is defined as the ordinary renewal function (ORF), and is
obtained by using Eqs. (11.2) and (11.3), or by
H0(T) = £-1Ho(s),
where
H0(s) = /(*)
Ml -/(*)]'
and
f(s) = C[f(T)] = Laplace transform of f(T)
For any given time period
t = j t; + r,
where
r t
j = /ivr (14.26)
LP J
is the total average number of preventive replacement cycles in the
time period, t, and
T = t-jTl (14.27)
is the remaining time after j preventive replacement cycles are com
pleted. The total average number of spares for a unit in the time period
t is the sum of the expected number of spares in j preventive replace
ment cycles which includes j H{T*) spares for corrective replacements
and j spares for preventive replacements, plus the expected number of
spares in remaining time r, H(t), or
NSP = j fl + H(T;)} + H(t), (14.28)
where
H(T*) = expected number of spares needed in a time
interval (0,I£).
One additional spare is added due to a preventive replacement at the
end of each preventive replacement interval.
EXAMPLE 14-8
Given the unit of Example 11-1, determine the following:
1. The total average number of spares for a period of t = 10,000 hr.
2. The number of spares at a 95% confidence level.
1. From Example 11-1 the optimum T* that minimizes the total

cost per unit time of operation given by Eq. (14.25) is determined
to be 300 hr. Then, from Eq. (14.26)
10,000
j = INT = INT 33,
vJ 300
and
t = t-jr;,
= 10,000-(33)(300),
or
r = 100 hr.
Using Eq. (11.10) the expected number of replacements in a T*
interval is given by
4'
300 1 o 300
4- — e 200 — —
(2)(200) 4 4'
or
H{T1 = 300 hr) = 0.512 spares per T* = 300-hr interval.
Also
100 1 _2±92 1
H(t = 100 hr) = -I— e 200
(2)(200) 4 4'
or
#(100) = 0.092 spares.
The total average number of spares for t — 10,000 hr is given by
NSP = 33 [1 + 0.512] + 0.092,
77sp = 49.988,
or
N sp — 50 spares.
2. The number of total spares at the confidence level of CL = 95%

is obtained by using the normal approximation to the Poisson
distribution, then
{Nsp + 0.5) - 49.988
0.95 = $
or
(NSp + 0.5) - 49.988
1.645 =
7.07
The value of Nsp which represents the number of total spares is
then found by solving for Nsp, and it yields
NSP = 61.12,
or
Nsp = 62 spares.
14.4.3 GROUP REPLACEMENT WITH POLICY II

If groups of parts have similar life characteristics then they can be re
placed preventively simultaneously [See Section 9.8]. Assuming that
an equipment consists of n parts, of which 3 parts are replaced pre
ventively every Tp\ hours, k parts are replaced preventively every Tpi
hours, and the remaining parts, n — (k + s) = h, are replaced only
correctively, then by using the renewal theory approach the total cor
rective and preventive maintenance cost per hour of operation of the
equipment for Policy II is given by
i
t [Cpi + Ca H,(Tp3)] £ [Cpj + Ccj Hk(Tpk)}

Ct=^ = + '— =
Tpa ipk
£?, V rrihJ
where
Ha(Tps), Hk(Tpf.) = expected number of failures in inter
vals (0,Tpj,) and (O.Tpfc) for s and k
groups of parts, respectively.
Cp, Cc = preventive replacement cost per unit
and corrective replacement cost per
unit, respectively.
The spares requirement model for any given operating time period t,
or the total expected number of spares for the ith part in Group s is
given by
WSP3 = Ks [l + Hi(T;s)} + H*(t),
» = 1,2, •••,5,
where
Ka = INT
pa J
is the total average number of preventive replacement cycles in the

time interval, t, for Group s and
rs = t- ks t;s.
is the remaining time after Ks preventive replacement cycles are com
pleted.
Similarly, the expected number of spares for the jth part in Group
k is given by
N3SPk = Kk [l + Hl(T;k)\ + HI(t),
3 = 1,2, — ,*,
where
Kk = INT
iT;k
and
rfc = t - Ku T*k.
The expected number of spares for each Group h part is given by
m — 1,2, h.
The actual number of spares for the tth unit in Group s, for example, at
the confidence level CL = 1 — q can be determined by using Eq. (14.23),
or
N'sp, _, (7v'p V
CL= Y,e-NsF'
1=0
(!
i = 1,2, — ,«.
Similarly, the equations for the actual number of spares for the units in
Group k and Group h can be obtained by using appropriate subscripts
and superscripts.
14.4.4 ORDINARY PERIODIC REPLACEMENT SPARES

FOR POLICY III
A unit is replaced preventively at constant intervals, Tp, and restored
to "as bad as old" state by minimal repair at any failure between
adjacent preventive replacements so that the failure rate, A(T), remains
the same as it was prior to failure [See Section 10.1]. The optimum
preventive replacement schedule, T* is so determined that the total
expected cost per unit per hour of operating time, given by Eq. (10.4),
or by
,_ Cp + CmT /0ip A(T) dT
CT = (14.29)
is minimized. The total expected number of spares for a unit in an

operating time period, t, is given by
NSp = NSP = INT (14.30)

T*
LP
14.4.5 MODIFIED PERIODIC REPLACEMENT SPARES

FOR POLICY IV
A unit is replaced preventively at the end of each replacement cycle,
Tcy, and restored to "as bad as old" state by minimal repair at any fail
ure between adjacent preventive replacements. The optimum ordering
schedule, T0, followed by a constant spares procurement lead time, L,
is so determined that the total cost per unit, per hour of operating
time, given by Eq. (10.18) is minimized [See Subsection 10.2.1], or by
Ct = ^, (14.31)
-cy
where
Ccy = Cp + Cc Q(T0) + Cr R(T0)

rT„ rT+L
~\~^mr / / \{x) f(T) dx dT
Jo JT
■tit
+ R{T0) f ° \{x) dx
too
-Cs / R{T) dT,
Jt0+l
and
Tcv = L + f ° R{T)dT. (14.32)

Jo
The total expected number of spares, or the total number of spare
orders in a time period t is given by
NSp = INT (14.33)

cy
EXAMPLE 14-9
Given the units of Example 10-2 with a Weibull times-to-failure
pdf, determine the expected number of spares, or the expected number
of spare orders to be made in a period t = 1, 000 hr of operation.
In Example 10-2 the total cost per unit time of operation given by
Eq. (14.31) is minimized and the optimum ordering schedule is found
to be T* — 23.5 hr. Using Eq. (14.32) the expected cycle length is
found to be Tcy = 29.463 hr. Then, the expected number of spares, or
the expected number of single-unit orders, in time period t = 1,000 hr
is
AT 1,000
SP INT
29.463
or
Nsp = 34 spares, or orders for spares.
14.4.6 AGE REPLACEMENT WITH MINIMAL REPAIR

SPARES FOR POLICY V
A unit is replaced preventively by a new one every Tv time of operation.
If a unit fails, while in operation, but before a time T0 < Tp it undergoes
minimal repair to be brought back into operation while retaining the
same instantaneous failure rate, A(T), it had just prior to failure. If a
failure occurs after T0 but before Tv the failed unit is replaced with a
"less" reliable spare with constant failure rate, A'. It is replaced as often
as necessary with identical spares until the next scheduled replacement
time, Tp [See Subsection 10.2.2]. The optimum switchover time, T* ,
and the preventive replacement schedule, T" are so determined that
the total expected cost per unit time of operation is minimized using
Eq. (10.27), or
CT = jr {Ci + C2 E [jV1[0iTo]] + C3 E [N2[To,Tp]} } , (14.34)

where
E [N1[0,To]} =Nrv = I °KT) dT (14.35)
is the expected number of minimal repairs in the interval (0,To), and
E [N2[To,Tp]\ = A' [Tp -T0- E(t')} (14.36)
is the expected number of less reliable spares for the units failing in
the interval (T0,Tp). E(r') is the expected residual life of a unit having
age T0 up to time Tp and is given by
!Jl R(T) dT
E(r') = (14.37)
R{TQ) '
Substituting Eq. (14.37) into Eq. (14.36) and adding 1 in anticipation
that at least one failure may occur in the interval (T0, Tp), the expected
number of the "less" reliable spares is given by
&:R(T)dT
NSp = A' T* + 1. (14.38)
R{T0)
EXAMPLE 14-10
Given the units with the gamma times-to-failure pdf of Example
10-3, determine the following:
1. The expected number of minimal repairs during t = 10, 000 hr of
operation.
2. The expected number of spares during t = 10, 000 hr of operation
and the total number of spares at a 95% confidence level.
1. The solution to Example 10-3 provides the optimum switchover

time Tq = 185.5 hr and the optimum preventive replacement
schedule T* = 210 hr. The expected number of minimal repairs
in a cycle is determined from Eq. (14.35). The failure rate func
tion of the gamma pdf is
A(T)
viv + T)'
Then,
or
l^^-Fwm*' (V + T)
E{Nno,T;]}=j-loge(l + -^
For tj = 200 hr the expected number of minimal repairs in a cycle
is given by
The expected number of cycles in 10,000 hr of operation is ob

tained as follows:
t
j = INT
J;,
10,000'
= INT
210
or
J = 47.
Then,
T = t-jT; = 10, 000 - (47)(210) = 130 hr.
The expected number of total minimal repairs in 10,000 hr of
operation is given by
NTp = jE Nl[0tTS] + E Ni[0jT]
Since
130 , / 130\
#1[0, r] 200 " l0ge I1 + 200 J'
or
E [Nlp, 130]] = 0.149 repairs,
then, the expected number of total minimal repairs is given by
Nrp = (47)(0.271) + 0.149,
or
A'rp = 12.886 repairs.
2. The expected residual life, E(t'), in a cycle for the gamma pdf
is given by Eq. (10.41), or
V _ p is
E[t'} = r; + 2 7?-e-^r-(r; + 2 7?)
v + T;
and the expected number of spares in a cycle is given by Eq. (10.42),
or
No w, tp-]] = a' [t; - t; - ^

T£-T^
+2r)-e i (T; + 2r,)
With X' = 0.05 fr/hr, the expected number of spares per cycle
becomes
200
E [N2[T;, t;]] = 0.05 j 210 - 185.5 185.5
200 + 185.5 L
+2 (200) - e-2,02oo55[210 + 2 (200)] }■
= 0.05 [24.5 - (0.5188)(585.5- 539.67)],
= 0.05(24.5-23.78),
or
E ^2(185.5, 210] 0.036.

Then, the expected number of spares during t = 10,000 hr of
operation is
NSp = j{e[n2[t., r;]] + l},
= 47 (0.036+1),
or
7VSp = 48.692 spares.
To determine the total number of spares at a 95% confidence
level, the normal approximation to the Poisson distribution yields
\NSp + 0.5) - 48.692'
0.95 = $
\/48.692
Then,
{NSp -r 0-5) - 48.692
•20.95 = 1-645 =
6.978
Solving for Nsp yields

NSp = 59.67,
or
Nsp = 60 spares.

SPARES WITH RECONDITIONED SPARES
USED FOR POLICY IX
A unit is replaced preventively by a new one every Tp accumulated
hours of operation. If the operating unit fails before time T0 it is
replaced with a new identical item; if the failure occurs after T0, it
is replaced with a "less" reliable, reconditioned spare [See Subsection
11.2.2]. The optimum values of the turnover time, T* , and preventive
replacement schedule, T*, are determined so that the total cost per
unit time of operation is minimized using Eq. (11.44), or
CT = y {Ci + C2E fa[0, To]] +C3E fa[To, jy] } .
The expected number of failures; i.e., spares in a time interval (0,TP)

is the sum of the mean number of failures in the time interval (0,To),
E uVjr0| jyj, aRd the number of failures; i.e., spares in the interval
{T„, Tp), E [N2[To> jy . The expected number of spares in interval
(0, T0) is given by Eq. 11.45), or
E\Nl[QtT:] =h0(t;), (14.39)
where //"o(T') is the ordinary renewal function defined by Eq. (11.2).
The expected number of "less" reliable spares, E \N2[t;, Mm 's ê"
termined by introducing the concept of forward recurrence time, Vj.
Defining the pdf of Vr by Eq. (11.46), the expected number of failures
in the (T0,TP) period can be defined by
£ fare. r;j] = a {t;-t;-e{vt)}, (14.40)
where
\P r' f(r' + T0)
E[VT]
Jo
+ / ° h0(T0 - u) f(u + t') du dr'.

Jo
Then, the expected number of "less" reliable spares in the (T*,T*)

interval is given by Eq. (11.52), or
1 f fTP~To ,
N,2[r,r, r;]j = 1 + A |T; - T* - ^ r /(r' + T0*)
+ J ° h0{T*0 - tt) /(u + r') dul dr'l. (14.41)
EXAMPLE 14-11
Given the units with the gamma times- to-failure pdf of Example
11-3, determine the following:
1. The expected number of spares for the original units during t =
10, 000 hr of operation.
2. The total number of spares at a 95% confidence level.
3. The expected number of "less reliable" spares during t = 10, 000
hr of operation.
1. In Example 11-3 the total expected cost per unit time of oper
ation function, given by Eq. (11.67), is minimized and the opti
mum values of T* and T* are found to be
T; = 300 hr
and
T: = 40 hr.
For the gamma pdf the ordinary renewal function is given by
Eq. (11.37), or
1 _23. 1
i .
4
With »7 = 200, hr it yields
40 r H 1 e ,jl 1,
H0(T; = 40 hr) = —; wo
2(200) 4 4'
or
H0(T* = 40 hr) = 0.01758 spares per cycle.
_.L_
Determine the expected number of cycles during t — 10,000 hr

as follows:
l
j = INT
"10,000
= INT
300
or
j = 33.
Then,
t = t- j Tp" = 10, 000 - 33 (300) = 100 hr.
Since r - 60 = 100 - 60 = 40 = T0*, then
r = t; + 60,
and the expected number of spares during t = 10,000 hours of

operation is given by
NSP = (j + i)h0(t;),
= (34)(0.01758),
or
Nsp = 0.598 spares.
2. The total number of spares at a 95% confidence level is given by

Nsp
0.95 < J2 €~Ns (Nsp)3
j=o
and for Nsp = 2
n^QS / 1 + —77-
0.598 + -^7—
0.5982 .I = 0.9/ 1 .
0.95 < e-0598
1! 2!
Hence,
Nsp — 2 spares.
3. For the gamma pdf the mean number of "less reliable" spares
during the interval (T*, T*) may be found from Eq. (11.66), or
£[JV2[T0.,r„.]] = a jr; - t; j
- i e"-* [t;2 - t; t; + v (2 r; - t; + 2 *)]
e 1 (t; - t;)
+
0 -II (T.
b T'
+1
2 e 1 — + 1 ) -f p"' - - i
(t;-t;) 2
+ 2(2! -t;) + 2V}
t2>
e "—I + 1.
For A = 0.002 fr/hr, it yields
E[N2[t^t;]\ = 0.002<| 300 - 40
1 300
300J - (300)(40)
e '200
200
+200 [2 (300) -40 + 2 (200)]
(300-40)
(300 - 40)
+ 200 +1
200
«
2e - -i°- ( 40
20°l^5 \
+ 1J+e , jo
°' 200 — 1
(3°°-40>2+2(300-40) + 2(200)]
200
40
e 200—I + 1.
Then,
E[N2[t;,t;]] = 0002 I260 - 301.226
+0.136 [(200)(2.3)(1.635)
-(1,258)(0.03286)]}+1,
= 0.002 [-41.226 + 96.664] + 1,

= 1.111.
Therefore, the expected number of the "less reliable" spares is
Nspl = 3 E[N2[T^T-]]
= (33)(1.111),
or
Nspl — 36.663 spares.

'{Nspl + 0.5) - 36.663'
0.95 = $
x/3lT663
or
. RAt, (Nspl + 0-5) - 36.663
1.045 = TTT^rz •
6.055
Solving for Nspl yields
Nspl = 46.123,
or
Nspl — 47 spares.
14.4.8 OPTIONAL REPLACEMENT POLICY SPARES FOR

POLICY XI
In this policy preventive replacement is not obligatory at every re
placement opportunity [See Section 12.1], where the opportunity is
defined as the point in time at which the preventive replacement is
either allowable or possible. The unit is replaced preventively only if a
replacement opportunity occurs and the unit's age exceeds a prespeci-
fied replacement age, Tp. If the age is less than Tp, then the unit is left
to continue operating during the opportunity. The optimal age, T* is
so determined that the total expected cost per unit time of operation is
minimized. If the interval between replacement opportunities is expo
nentially distributed with a constant appearing rate, u, the expected
replacement cost per unit time, Cy, is given by Eq. (12.4), or
C, = "■C. + [(l-«.0C.+ ..t-C,]| (14.42)
L T •
where N is the mean number of failures before the preventive replace

ment age, Tp, is reached, or
1 - R(TP)
N = (14.43)
R(TP) '
L is the mean time to the preventive replacement age, or
foPR(t)dt
L= (14.44)
R(TP) '
/ is the mean time the system remains above the preventive replacement
age, or
f™R(t + Tp)e-utdt
1= (14.45)
R(TP)
and u I is the mean number of preventive replacements above Tp.
The total average number of spares of the component initially aged
T0, N sp, required for both corrective and preventive replacements in
operating period t can be determined as the ratio of the operating
time, t , and the average length of one renewal cycle times the average
number of corrective plus preventive replacements in one renewal cycle,
or
t
NSp = (JV + 1). (14.46)
L+l
EXAMPLE 14-12
Given is a component with the gamma times-to-failure pdf of Ex
ample 12-1, with parameters
/3 = 2.5 and 7/ = 40 hr.
The cost of a corrective replacement is Cc = $100 and the cost of a
preventive replacement is Cp = $20. If the replacement opportunities
are exponentially distributed at the rate of u = 0.01 op/hr determine
the following:
1. The expected number of spares in t = 100 hr for the aptimum
replacement age, T", and the minimum total cost per unit time,
CT-
3. Repeat Case 1 for the opportunity rate of u = 0.04 op/hr.
4. Repeat Case 2 for the opportunity rate of u — 0.04 op/hr.

5. Discuss the results obtained in Cases 1, 2 and 3.
1. For given Cc = $100 and Cp = $20 the ratio Cp/Cc = 0.2. Also,
for u = 0.01 op/hr, /? = 2.5 and 77 = 40 hr the ratio, Cr, of the
mean time to failure to the mean interval between replacement
opportunities is
CR = ^ = (lr)u = (2.5) (40) (0.01) = 1.

u
Then, from Table 12.1 for Cp/Cc = 0.2 and Cr = 1, the optimum
replacement age is T* = 0.25 m hr, where m = (i-rj = (2.5)(40) =
100 hr. Consequently, T* = 25 hr. Using Eq. (14.43) the mean
number of failures, before the preventive replacement age, T£, is
reached, is given by
N *-*TO
where R(T*) is given by
R(T;)= r f(T)dT,
= —^r (-) e't dT. (14.47)
Substitution of the values for /?, t] and Tp yields

R(25 hr) = 0.939991.
Then,
„ = '-°fQ9Qf = 0.D63840.
0.939991
Using Eqs. (14.44) and (14.47) the mean time to the preventive
replacement age, L, is given by
JoT; R(t) dt
R(T;) '
Io5R(t)dt
0.939991 '
or
L = 26.092599 hr.
Using Eq. (14.45) the mean time the system remains above the
preventive replacement age, /, is given by
J~R(t + T;)e-»tdt
/ =
R{T;)
/0°° R(t + 25) e-°-01 « dt
0.939991
or
/ = 48.015763 hr.
Then, the average number of spares for an operating period of
/ = 100 hr is given by Eq. (14.46), or
NSp = (Ar+1),
L+l
100
(0.063840+1),
26.092599 + 48.015763
or
Nsp — 1.436 spares.
2. Using Eq. (14.5), the total number of spares at a 95% confidence

level is given by
"sp (NspY
2 e~Nsp ., > 0.95,
;=o 3-
From the Poisson distribution's cumulative distribution tables

Nsp = 4 spares.
3. For the opportunity rate of u = 0.04 op/hr the ratio C/j is
CR=^- = pJ1u = (2.5)(40)(0.04),

or
Cr = 4.
Then, for the cost ratio Cp/Cc = 0.2 and Cr = 4, from Table
12.1, the optimum replacement age is
T; = 0.37 m = (0.37) (100) = 37 hr.
Using Eq. (14.47) the reliability for the mission duration of T"
hours is
72(37 hr) = /r°° 1

_/<3. /TX"""1
- e" Z■» dT = 0.869486.
J37 f) I (P) \ T] J
Then, the mean number of failures before the preventive replace

ment age, T* , is reached is given by
m 1 - 0-869486 m
0.869486
The mean time to the preventive replacement age, L, is given by
rS7
X = Jo jgg g = 40.717859 hr.
~^(37)
The mean time the system remains above the preventive replace
ment age, /, is given by
/0°° R(t + 37) e-004 ' dt
R(37)
J0°° R{t + 37) e-004 ' dt
0.869486
or
/ = 19.907018 hr.
Then, the average number of spares for an operating period of
t = 100 hr is given by Eq. (14.46), or
100 (0.150105+1),
40.717859+19.907018
or
jVsp = 1.897 spares.
"sr (NspY
J2 e~Nsp V ., ' > 0.95,
j=o J-
3=0 J-
From the Poisson distribution's cumulative distribution tables

Nsp = 4 spares.
5. Comparing results of Cases 1 and 2 to those of Cases 3 and 4,

it can be concluded that the best replacement age increases as
replacement opportunities become more frequent and the aver
age number of spares increases. This is so because the increase
of preventive replacement age results in more frequent corrective
replacements. However, as a consequence of increasing the fre
quency of replacement opportunities the mean time the system
remains above the preventive replacement age decreases, conse
quently, fewer preventive replacements will be needed.
14.5 SPARES PREDICTION WITH GROWTH AND WAR

RANTY [4]
Traditionally, spares prediction is conducted without talcing the un

dergoing reliability growth factor into account. If the equipment has
not reached its maturity, in other words if all the early failure causes
have not been eliminated, traditional spares prediction would lead to
excessive spares and therefore result in unnecessary waste of money
because higher failure rates will be used and the removal of the defec
tive units will not be adequately considered. This method is based on
the knowledge that the growth curve follows the Duane model [1, Vol.
2, pp. 434-438] and if the equipment's number of failures occurring
in any time interval, [<i,<2]> 1S statistically independent, the average
number of spares for the equipment is determined by integrating the
instantaneous failure rate over that interval. By this method the num
ber of spares may be determined in support of the Mean Time Between
Failures Warranty program. The procedure is as follows:
1. Determine the parameters of the MTBF growth curve based on
field data.
TABLE 14.3 Calculation of the annual and cumulative

operating hours of growth in the first seven
calendar years for Example 14-13.
Calendar Number of FUght Operating hours
year operating months hours Annual Cumulative
1 12 24,000 33,600 33,600
2 12 96,000 134,400 168,000
3 12 240,000 336,000 504,000
4 12 480,000 672,000 1,176,000
5 2 168,000 235,000 1,411,200
6 10 672,000 940,800 2,352,000
7 10 720,000 1,008,000 3,360,000
2. Calculate the average number of spares for the specified time

period.
3. Estimate the confidence limits on the spares.
The method is illustrated by the next example.
EXAMPLE 14-13
The reliability growth curve for a single component in a certain type
of aircraft, as given by the manufacturer, is shown in Fig. 14.1, and it
represents the instantaneous MTBF growth curve [1, Vol. 2, pp. 434-
443]. The curve is drawn according to the accumulated operating hours
of growth provided by the customer in Table 14.3 and the specified
4,100-hour MTBF at a maturity of 175,000 total hours of operation.
1. Estimate the parameters of the growth curve.

2. Calculate the total average number of spares for seven calendar
years (CY) based on the accumulated operating hours given in
Table 14.3.
3. Calculate the upper, one-sided and two-sided confidence limits
on the number of spares for each year at the risk levels of 40%,
30%, 10%, 5%, 1%, 0.5% and 0.1%.
1,000,000
100,000
10,000
1,000
100
Fig.
Component
14.1
MTBF
growth
pfor
Example
r14-13.
o-jection
Chours
oupmuelratitvieng
100,000
- 10,000
- 1,000
- 100
-J en
1. The instantaneous MTBF growth curve of Fig. 14.1 is the Du-

ane Model, hence the MTBF function is given by
mt(Ta) = b'T?, (14.48)
where
Trii(Ta) = instantaneous MTBF at growth time Ta,
Ta = accumulated growth time by all equipment
undergoing growth,
a = parameter, growth rate,
b* = instantaneous MTBF at Ta = 1.0, [1, Vol. 2,
pp. 438, 443].
b
b* =
1-a
and
6 = cumulative MTBF at Ta = 1.0 [1, Vol. 2, pp.
438, 443].
The values of a and 6 may be determined as follows:
Take the logarithm of Eq. (14.48), or
log[m,(T0)] = log b* + a logTQ. (14.49)
It may be seen that a is the slope of the line represented by
Eq. (14.49) on log-log scales. Pick two arbitrary points on Fig.
14.1; for example,
mli(Tal = 1 hr) = 100 hr,
and
mi2(Ta2 = 175, 000 hr) = 4, 100 hr.
Then, the slope, a, is
log[mt-2(Ta2 = 175, 000)]- log [mil(Tal = 1)]
(14.50)
logTa2-logTal
Substituting the previous values into Eq. (14.50) yields
= Iog4,100-logl00 m
log 175, 000- log 1
From Eq. (14.49)

b* = mi(Ta = 1.0)= 100 hr.
Therefore, the instantaneous MTBF function is
mi{Ta) = 100 T°-3076, (14.51)

and the cumulative MTBF function [1, Vol. 2, p. 438, 443] is
mc(Ta) = (1 - a) m,(T0). (14.52)
Then,
mc(Ta) = (1 - 0.3076) 100 T°-3076,
or
I
mc(T0) = 69.24 rQ0-3076. (14.53)
2. Theoretically, an estimate of the average number of failures for

all components in the field, in time interval [u;t?]i mav be found
from Eq. (14.1), or
fh i
wsp(h;h) = [ * —-T dTa, (14.54)
or
NSp(h]t2)= F \(Ta)dTa, (14.55)
where
A,(Ta) = instantaneous failure rate function.
The average number of spares from time zero to the time of
175,000 accumulated hours of operation, when these components
reach maturity, or an MTBF of 4,100 hr, using Eqs. (14.51) and
(14.54), is given by
rl75,UUU
175,000 1J
NSp(0\ 175,000 hr) = j£ — T"0"3076 dTa,
175,000
1 j.(l-0.3076)
(1-0.3076)(100) a
= ^24 (175,000)(°-6924>,
__L_
or
NSp{0; 175, 000 hr) = 61.649.
According to the MTBF growth curve, the MTBF after 175,000
accumulated hours of operation should be 4,100 hr. So the av
erage number of spares during the time interval 175,000 hr to
1,411,200 hr, or until the end of the fifth calendar year is
FS,>(178,000 hr; 1.4U.M0 hr, = M11.200-17»,0l»
= 301.512 spares.
For the last two years, or from the end of the fifth year to the
end of the seventh year, the average number of spares is
y„(l,411,200 ^3,300,000 hr) . 3,300,000- 1.411,800

4,100
or
JVSP(1,411,200 hr; 3, 360, 000 hr) = 475.317 spares.
Therefore, the average number of spares, before the time of ma
turity is 61.649, say 62; from the time of maturity up to the end
of the fifth year is 301.512, say 302; during the last two calendar
years is 475.317, say 476; and the total average number of spares
for seven calendar years is
7VSp = 61.649+301.512 + 475.317,
= 838.478 spares,
or
N sp = 839 spares.
3. To calculate the annual requirement of the number of spares the

same procedure as in Case 2 is used. Using Eq. (14.55) and
the value of accumulated hours of operation from Table 14.1 the
average number of spares for the first year is given by
33,600 i
Nsp(0; 33, 600 hr) = / —- T"0-3076 dTa,
Jo IUU
33,600
1
j>(1 -0.3076)
(1 -0.3076)(100)
33,600
* 2^0.6924
69.24
or
JV5P(0; 33,600 hr) = 19.66 spares.
If we assume that the number of failures occurring in any time in
terval is statistically independent of the number of failures in any
interval which does not overlap the first interval, then the non-
homogeneous Poisson process may be applied. Using Eq. (14.5)
the upper, one-sided confidence limit on spares can be calculated
by choosing the smallest Nsp-Ui such that
P[N(t)<NSP-ui}= £ ± L ,
j=o J-
> CL = I -a. (14.56)
At the risk level of a = 5% the upper, one-sided confidence limit
for the first year is given by
"te" (19.66ye-"»» > Q 95

i=o ;!
Using the normal approximation to the Poisson pdf\ i.e., Eq. (14.24),
yields
(Nsp-ui + 0.5) - 19.66
$ = 0.95,
\/l9l36
or
(Nsp-ui + 0.5) - 19.66
= 1.645.
4.434
Solving for Nsp-ui yields
Nsp-ui — 26.454 spares.
Rounding up to the nearest integer yields
Nsp-ui = 27 spares.
For the two-sided confidence limits on the spares, round out to
the next higher integer value of Nsp-L2 such that
P[N(t)<NSP.L2]= £ 1 L ,
j=o
(14.57)
- 2'
and round out to the next higher integer value of Nsp-U2 such
that
NSp-v2 \NSP(t1;t2)Y e-Hspitito)
P[N(t)<NSP-u2}= £ * L ,
> 1 - |. (14.58)
Then, Nsp-L2 and Arsp-(/2 are the two-sided, lower and upper
confidence limits on the spares, respectively.
At the risk level of a = 5% the lower, two-sided confidence limit
on the spares for the first year is given by
*'•"•' * (19.66V _19.66 „ 0.05
El^-"u7 -19.66 <
i\ e - 2 '
,=o 3
or
Nsp-li
(19.66^ e-«u»
^ iif^ ,9.66 < 0>025
,-o i1
Using the normal approximation to the Poisson pdf yields
\(NSp-L2 - 0.5) - 19.661
$ = 0.025,
V19^66
01
(NSp-L2- 0-5) -19.66

= -1.96.
4.434
Solving for Nsp-L2 yields
NsP-L2 = 11-47 spares,
or
N SP-L2 — 12 spares.
At the risk level of a = 5% the upper, two-sided confidence limit
on the spares for the first year is given by
^ (19.66V -19.66 > , _ 0,05

j=0
or
Ns4=?>( 19.66V 1966
Y, r~ e-1966 > 0.975.
i=o •?•
Using a normal approximation to the Poisson pdf yields

\(Nsp-m + 0.5) -19.661
* = 0.975,
\/l^66
or
(NSp-U2 + 0-5) - 19.66
= 1.96.
4.434
Solving for Nsp-U2 yields
Nsp-m = 27.85 spares,
or
NsP-U2 = 28 spares.
For the third calendar year, since the MTBF is constant af
ter 175,000 accumulated operating hours, the average number of
spares during the accumulated time interval (168,000 hr; 504,000
hr) is calculated in two parts; i.e.,
/■175.000 i
7VSp(168, 000 hr; 504, 000 hr) = / -i- T'0^076 dTa
•/168.000 1UU
504,000- 175,000
+ 4,100
175,000
_ ■*■ jiO.6924
+ 80.244,
69.24 168,000
= 1.718 + 80.244,
or
JVSp(168,000 hr; 504, 000 hr) = 81.962 spares.
At the risk level of a = 5% the upper, one-sided confidence limit
on the spares for the third year is given by
yf i^pi .-« > 0.95.

Using the normal approximation to the Poisson pdf yields

{NSP-UI+ 0-5) -81.962
$ = 0.95,
a/81.962
or
(NSp-ui+ 0-5) -81.962
= 1.645.
9.053
Solving for Nsp-u\ yields
Nsp-Ui = 96.354 spares,
or
Nsp-Ui = 97 spares.
At the risk level of a = 5% the lower, two-sided confidence limit
on the spares for the third year and using the normal approxi
mation to the Poisson pdf yields
(Nsp-ia- 0.5) -81.962
$ = 0.025,
V8 1.962
or
{NSp-L2 - 0-5) - 81.962 ■1.96.
9.053
Solving for Nsp-L2 yields
Nsp-L2 = 64.718 spares,
or
Nsp-L2 = 65 spares.
At the risk level of a = 5% the upper, two-sided confidence limit
on the spares for the third year and using the normal approxi
mation to the Poisson pdf yields
{Nsp-U2 + 0-5) -81.9621
$ = 0.975,
781.962
or
(NSp-U2 + 0-5) - 81.962
= 1.96.
9.053
Solving for Nsp-U2 yields
NSp-U2 = 99.206 spares,
r
or
Nsp-U2 = 100 spares.
According to the MTBF growth curve, the MTBF after 175,000
accumulated hours of operation should be at the constant value
of 4,100 hr. Consequently, the average number of spares for the
fourth and subsequent years can be calculated from
1
NSp(h\t2) = (t2~h).
MTBF
For example, the average number of spares for the fourth year is
given by
1,176,000-504,000
JVSp(504,000 hr; 1, 176,000 hr) =
4,100
or
7VSp(504, 000 hr; 1, 176,000 hr) = 163.9 spares.
The upper, one-sided and both the lower and upper, two-sided
confidence limits on the number of spares, at a given risk level,
can be calculated using Eqs. (14.56), (14.57) and (14.58), as il
lustrated for the first and third year.
The upper, one-sided confidence limits on the number of spares,
at various risk levels, are given in Table 14.4 and both lower
and upper, two-sided confidence limits, at various risk levels, are
given in Table 14.5.
14.6 SPARES PROVISIONING WITH COST OF

SPARES CONSIDERATION
14.6.1 PROVISIONING AN OPTIMUM NUMBER OF
SPARES IN A KIT WITH THE DESIRED
CONFIDENCE LEVEL
When valuable equipment is used, it is wise to provide a spares kit
of critical units in it, so that such urgently needed units are available
when needed at a desired confidence level and at minimum cost. An
optimum kit is the kit that provides the needed number of spares at
minimum cost at the desired confidence level.
TABLE 14.4 Upper, one-sided confidence limits on the

number of spares for each year, at the risk
levels of 40%, 30%, 20%, 10%, 5%, 1%,
0.5% and 0.1%, for Example 14-13.
Risk level a
Year Mean 40% 30% 20% 10% 5% 1% 0.5% 0.1%
1 19.660 21 22 23 25 27 30 31 33
2 40.226 42 44 46 48 51 55 57 60
3 81.962 84 87 90 94 97 103 105 110
4 163.900 167 171 175 180 185 194 197 203
5 57.366 59 61 64 67 70 75 77 81
6 229.463 233 237 242 249 254 265 268 276
7 245.850 250 254 259 266 272 282 286 294
TABLE 14.5 — Two-sided confidence limits on the number

of spares for each year, at the risk levels of
40%, 30%, 20%, 10%, 5%, 1%, 0.5% and
0.1%, for Example 14-13.
Risk level a
Year Mean 40% 30% 20% 10% 5% 1% 0.5% 0.1%
1 19.660 17 16 15 13 12 9 8 6
23 24 25 27 28 31 32 34
2 40.266 36 35 33 31 29 25 23 20
46 47 48 51 53 57 58 61
3 81.962 75 74 71 68 65 60 58 53
90 91 94 97 100 105 107 112
4 163.900 154 152 148 144 140 132 129 123
175 177 180 185 189 197 200 206
5 57.366 52 51 49 46 44 39 37 33
64 65 67 70 72 77 79 82
6 229.463 218 215 211 206 201 191 188 181
242 245 249 254 259 268 272 279
7 245.850 234 231 227 221 216 206 203 195
259 262 266 272 277 286 290 297
One method of arriving at this optimum spares kit is illustrated by

the next example.
EXAMPLE 14-14
An optimum amplifier spare parts kit is to be determined for fire
control systems aboard a submarine tender for a pack of 8 submarines
over a 3-year period [5; 6].
The Functional Unit Replacement, FUR, concept is used. If a mal
function occurs in one of the fire control sub-systems, the entire offend
ing sub-system is removed and replaced by a spare. This reduces the
repair process aboard the submarine to a minimum, increases the sys
tem's reliability, reduces downtime, and thereby increases the system's
availability or utilization time. The actual number of various classes
of amplifiers to be provided in this kit are based on the following:
1. The failure rates of the six classes, or different types, of amplifiers
that are needed.
2. A chosen, desired confidence level of function of these amplifiers,
defined as the probability that either the system does not fail due
to amplifier malfunction, or if the system does fail an amplifier
replacement is available to assure continued successful operation
of the system. This way the reliability is extended to include the
system and its spares.
3. Minimum cost spares will be provided under the constraints of
Cases 1 and 2.
Determine the optimum spares kit that complies with the previous
requirements.
The technique to be used was developed by Black and Proschan [6].
The concept used is this: Suppose I have a kit made up of Na spares
of Component A and Nb spares of Component B. Denote such a kit
by (Na,Nb)- This kit provides a certain assurance, P/v, that a spare
for Component A will be available in case of need. This assurance can
of course be increased by adding another spare of Component A to the
kit. This makes the kit [(N + 1)a,Nb] and increases the assurance to
Pn+i- As the number of spares of Component A increases, the ratio
P(N+i)-A ~ Pn-a
Cost per spare A
rapidly shows a condition of vanishing returns. Black and Proschan call
this ratio the marginal assurance. If {Na,Nb) is an optimum kit then
the marginal assurances for spares for Components A and B should be
equal. In this example the following are assumed:
TABLE 14.6 - Types of amplifiers, failure rates, cost per

unit and the number of units in the assem
bly of Example 14-14.
Unit cit Ni,
number, Amplifier A„ cost/unit, number of units
i type fr/106 hr $ in the assembly
1 A 102 500 7
2 B 52 500 11
3 C 71 500 7
4 D 34 500 5
5 E 88 500 2
6 F 100 500 1
1. The failure rates of the amplifiers are constant.
2. Amplifier failures occur independently.

3. When spares are needed they can be easily obtained from the
supply system, in this case the submarine tender.
The type of amplifier, failure rates, cost per unit and the number of
units in the assembly are given in Table 14.6.
The total time for which the spares will be provided is determined
in unit-hours of operation of the equipment over a three-year period,
for eight fire-control systems in eight submarines.
Three cases are considered:
1. 48,000 operating hours, based on 2,000 hr of operation per year,

for three years, per submarine (8 in all), or 2, 000 X 3 X 8 = 48, 000
hr.
2. 9,600 operating hours, based on 100 hr of operation per 90-day
patrol, or 400 hr per year per submarine, or 400 X 3 X 8 = 9, 600
hr.
3. 28,800 operating hours, based on a time midway between that of
Cases 1 and 2.
The calculations for Case 1 only are given, but the results for all
three cases are given in Fig. 14.2. The expected number of spares for
each type of amplifier used during the specified 48,000 hr of operation
is given by
1 1 r
Case 1 - 48,000 equipment hours - 3 years, 8 assemblies
(assumes 2.000 hr operation per year)
Case 2 - 9,600 equipment hours - 3 years, 8 assemblies
(assumes 100 hr operation per 90 day patrol)
Case 3 - 28,800 equipment hours, midway between that
of Cases 1 and 2-3 years, 8 assemblies
I0r-W
20,000 30,000 40,000 50.000 60.000 70.000 80,000 90.0C0 1C0.0OO
Total cost of kit. $
Fig. 14.2 - Confidence level versus cost of the spare-parts kit

for Example 14-14.
7V5_,- = A, x NtxT, (14.59)

For Amplifier A, Eq. (14.59) yields
~NS-a = 102 x 10-6 x 7 x 48,000,

or
Ns-A = 34.3.
Similarly,
Ns-B = 27.5,
Jjs-c = 23.9,
NS-D = 8.16,
Ns-E = 8.45,
and
~NS-F = 4.80.
The optimum kit of amplifiers is determined using a form of the marginal
assurance as follows:
• _ logio Pna+i - logw Pna
P " Ci
or
P* = ^W10^ 1 (14.60)
x=0
where
xl
is the Poisson term, and N* is the number of a specific amplifier in the
optimum kit
A" = (7v;, n;, n;, n;, n;, n;).
An optimum kit is such that, for a specified confidence level, no better

kit can be found for the same cost.
Start with N* = 50, Ca = $500, NS-a = 34.3 = 7?s-i, and
calculate p*. Next, find JV^ , the optimum number of Type B amplifier
such that the value of p* corresponding to it is equal to, or approaches
from above, the p* corresponding to the choice of JVj"". A^ is found using
the cumulative Poisson tables, through trial and error. N£ , • • • , N£ are
found similarly.
After the optimum kit for the choice of Nf = 50 is determined,
then the confidence level for the whole kit is calculated from
6 *? _ (Ns-iY
t=l x=0
and the optimum kit's cost from

6
C(N') = J2C>N'.
«=i
Next a different choice of Nf is made and the corresponding new

optimum kit is determined with the corresponding P(N') and C(N*).
This way a curve of PIN") versus C(N") can be drawn. Each point
on the curve represents the optimum kit for that particular value of
P(N') and C(N').
In this case, starting with ATj = 50, yields
. 1 0.997007
P ~ 500 °5l° 0.995340'
or
p' = 1.454 x 101-6
Next A^2 is determined by trial and error such that
, E P2(*)
7T log10 -^ > 1.454 x 10'6.
E P2(X)
This yields TV^ = 41. Similarly the number of the remaining amplifiers
in the kit are determined yielding the optimum kit
.V" = (50,41,38,16,17,11),
for a kit starting with TVj* = 50. Then,

P(N') = (0.995340) (0.993758) (0.99717)
■(0.995819) (0.99777) (0.996008),
= 0.9761, (14.61)
or
P{N') = 98%,
and
C{N') = 500 (50 + 41 + 38+16+17+11),
or
C(N') = $86,500.
It must be observed that the values in Eq. (14.61) are the denomi
nators of the logw term in Eq. (14.60) for each N*. To plot the P(N*)
versus C(N*) curve additional points are determined for N{ = 40,
N* = 45 and Nj = 60. These are plotted in Fig. 14.2. The results
and the curves for Cases 2 and 3 are also given.
If a P(N") = 85% is considered adequate then the optimum kit
would be
N* = (45,37,33,14,14,9),
and the cost would be
C(N") = $76,000.
If a P(N') of 95% is considered necessary, then the optimum kit may
start at iVj" = 47. The rest of the kit can then be calculated, or
estimated.
It may also be seen from the curves in Fig. 14.2 that above about a
95% confidence level the expense of increased confidence becomes too
high. For example for Case 3, from P(N*) = 68% to P(N*) = 93%
the cost increase is
—■—J5 '—— = $320 per unit percent increase in confidence.

93% — 68%
From P(N') = 93% to P(N') = 98%, the cost is
58,000-53,500
$900 per unit percent increase in confidence.
98% - 93%
Finally, from P{N*) = 98% to P(N') = 99.95% the cost increment is
$5,745 per unit percent increase in confidence!
THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS 591
14.6.2 THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS

1. In a multiple- component kit there are many possible combina
tions of spares that will meet any specified confidence level. Con
sequently, an optimum kit must be sought such that it costs the
minimum for the desired assurance level.
2. Marginal Assurance Analysis theory developed in economics shows

that an optimum kit is attained when the marginal assurances
for all types of amplifiers used in the kit are equal.
3. If it is not possible to attain this value of the marginal assurance

then no spares are provided at all. An intuitive proof is as follows:
Suppose we omit a spare of Type A, thus reducing the assurance
of the entire kit by APa, and of course reducing the cost by ACa,
or the cost of the spare of Type A. Very likely this will happen
when p* is small, such that
I
p* = is small, and ACa is small.

ACa
Consequently, APa needs to be smaller, and p* is reached for
£ w (NsA-iY
APA = £%-A^-,
e A__ L
t=0
N -0.
Recall that the value of Pa depends on the numbers of spare B's,

C's, etc. If it were possible to buy spares of Amplifiers B, C,
etc., with the sum of money, ACa, in such a quantity that the
assurance was increased by more than APa, then the kit before
the change was not an optimum kit. This is so because a better
one could be found for the same money. If no improvement were
possible, the kit was an optimum. Thus a condition of optimality
is that for all types of amplifiers for which spares are provided,
. APA APB _ APC
P ACA ACb ACc
and for each value of p" there is a corresponding assurance,

P(N"),foT the entire kit.
4. It is shown in [6] that by working with the logarithms of the

probabilities the optimum kit can be found easier.
TABLE 14.7 - Critical units, their failure rate, costs and

the number of each in the system, for Ex
ample 14-15.
Failure Number of
Unit rate, Cost per unit, units in
number fr/106 hr $ system
1 600 300 8
2 500 1,000 6
3 750 1,500 4
4 250 750 2
EXAMPLE 14-15
A system is to be placed in the field. The expensive, critical units
in this system and their characteristics are given in Table 14.7.
Do the following:
1. Determine the optimum allocation of spares for various confi

dence levels at a minimum cost for 5,000 hr of operation, and
the associated minimum cost.
2. Determine the optimum kit for a confidence level of 90% and

determine the associated minimum cost for 5,000 hr of operation.
1. The average number of spares for 5,000 hr of operation is given

by Eq. (14.59), where for Unit 1
7Vs_i = (0.000600)(8)(5,000) = 24 spares,
for Unit 2
JVs-2 = (0.000500)(6)(5,000)= 15 spares,
for Unit 3
]Vs_3 = (0.000750)(4)(5,000) = 15 spares,
and for Unit 4
7VS_4 = (0.000250)(2)(5,000) = 2.5 spares.

The minimum cost spares kit for various confidence levels is found
by trial and error from the cumulative Poisson tables, or from
N,
P(*<iV,) = £p*(z) = E
N, -Ni
m
r=0 x=0
for i = 1,2,3 and 4. These values are given in Table 14.8. To

prepare Table 14.8 it is recommended to start with a value for
Ni = 1.2 N and cover values up to Ni = 1.7 N. This range
assures that the sought P(N*) will be reached quicker. This has
been done for each component using its average number failing
and the previously recommended starting and maximum values
of Ni in Table 14.8.
The calculated marginal assurances are given in Table 14.9. Ta
ble 14.9 is prepared using Eq. (14.60) and log\o. It must be
pointed out that loge can also be used and the results will be
identical, as long as the same logarithmic base is used throughout
the calculations involving logarithms. The various optimum
kits, along with their overall confidence levels and costs, are given
in Table 14.10 and plotted in Fig. 14.3. To find the optimum
kit N* = (36,22,21,6) proceed as follows: Find the marginal
assurance for Nf = 36 from Table 14.9, or p\ = 0.0000046726;
next find JV£ that has a p\ that approaches p\ from above, then
N% = 22 with p\ = 0.0000059220 which is the p* value closest
to p\ from above; next find N% that has a p\ that approaches
p\ from above, then JV3* = 21 with p^ = 0.0000061601 which is
the p" value closest to p\ from above. Similarly, Nf — 6 with
p\ = 0.0000058098 which is the p* value closest to p\ from above.
To find the confidence level of this optimum kit, use the val
ues in Table 14.8 of the cumulative Poisson probabilities corre
sponding to each N* in the optimum kit. In the optimum kit
JV*(36,22, 21, 6), for N{ = 36 the
N'
■-».„ KO'
X!
x=0
value is found to be
36 ,-24(24)a
Wat*)"E = 0.99178809
x=0
TABLE 14.8 Cumulative Poisson probabilities for the

four units of the system for Example 14-
15.
Component 1, Components 2 and 3, Component 4,
Ni TVi = 24 TVz = TVg = 15 774 = 2.5
3 0.75757613
4 0.89117802
5 0.95797802
6 0.98581269
7 0.99575331
8 0.99885975
9 0.99972265
10 0.99993837
14 0.46465371
15 0.56808957
16 0.66412320
17 0.74885875
18 0.81947171
19 0.87521879
20 0.91702909
21 0.94689359
22 0.96725576
23 0.98053543
24 0.98883522
25 0.99381510
26 0.99668810
27 0.99828422
28 0.82253243 0.99913928
29 0.86787641
30 0.90415160
31 0.93223561
32 0.95329862
33 0.96861717
34 0.97943027
35 0.98684496
36 0.99178809
37 0.99499445
38 0.99707951
39 0.99826571
40 0.99901342
TABLE 14.9 - Marginal assurances for the components of

the system of Example 14-15. Logio values
have been used.
Ni Component 1 Component 2 Component 3 Component 4
2 0.0001919688
3 0.0000940509
4 0.0000418553
5 0.0000165846
6 0.0000058098
7 0.0000018037
15 0.0000452212
16 0.0000521513 0.0000347675
17 0.0000391541 0.0000260894
18 0.0000285827 0.0000190551
19 0.0000202665 0.0000135110
20 0.0000139181 0.0000092787
21 0.0000092401 0.0000061601
22 0.0000059220 0.0000039480
23 0.0000036606 0.0000024404
24 0.0000021817 0.0000014544
25 0.0000012537 0.0000008358
26 0.0000006949
30 0.0000442814
31 0.0000324425
32 0.0000230773
33 0.0000160712
34 0.0000109180
35 0.0000072332
36 0.0000046726
37 0.0000029433
38 0.0000018083
39 0.0000010839
40 0.0000006341
100
(40, 26, 2S, 7)
90
80
K 70
$
8
3c
Sa 60
o
O
* (32, 18, 17, 4
50
40 ■•
I 0 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000

C(N'), total cost of kit. $
90,000
Fig. 14.3 - Optimum kits for minimum cost and desired con
fidence levels, P(N"), and N* are plotted versus
C{N*), for Example 14-15.
TABLE 14.10 - Optimum kit, confidence level, and cost of

the kit for the system in Example 14-15.
Confidence Cost of kit,

Optimum kit, level, C(N%
n* = (n;,n;,nz,n;) P(N') $
(32, 18, 17, 4) 0.5213475133 56,100
(33, 19, 18, 5) 0.6655163549 59,650
(34, 20, 19, 5) 0.7530594035 62,450
(35, 21, 20, 5) 0.8208979875 65,250
(36, 22, 21, 6) 0.8954798001 68,800
(37, 23, 22, 6) 0.9302928258 71,600
(38, 24, 23, 6) 0.9529832709 74,400
(39, 25, 24, 7) 0.9768489729 77,950
(40, 26, 25, 7) 0.9853441514 80,750
from Table 14.8. Similarly, for JV~2* = 22, P(22) = 0.96725576,

for N£ = 21, P(21) = 0.94689359 and for JVJ = 6, P(6) =
0.98581269. Then,
t=i
P(N') = (0.99178809)(0.96725576)
•(0.94689359)(0.98581269),
or
P(N9) = 0.8954798001.
The cost of the optimum kit is found from
C(Nm) = 22CiN?t
1=1
C{N") = (300)(36)+ 1,000 (22)
+(l,500)(21)+750(6),
or
C(N') = $68,800.
Figure 14.3 provides the plot of various optimum kits determined
using this procedure.
2. To determine the exact optimum kit, the kits in Table 14.10

that have a confidence level closest to the goal of 90% should be
considered; namely,
N' = (36,22,21,6); P(N*) = 0.8954798001; C(N') = $68,800,
or
N* = (37,23,22,6); P(N*) = 0.9302928258; C(N*) = $71,600.
The first kit does not quite meet the goal. The second kit exceeds
the goal significantly; however, it might be possible to adjust the
units in this kit such that the goal is still met but at a lower kit
cost.
First, try decreasing 7V2 and iV3 by one (1), because they are the
costlier spares. Try
N* = (37,22,21,6); P(N') = 0.898374799; C(N') = $69, 100.
Since the 90% confidence level is still not met, try increasing the
least costly spare, N\, by one (1), then
N" = (38,22,21,6); P(N') = 0.900203220; C(N') = $69,400.
Since the 90% confidence level is met and at the lower cost of
$69,400, and other such adjustments do not yield the goal at a
lower cost than this, then the optimum kit is
JV* = (38,22,21,6).
14.6.3 THE KETTELLE ALGORITHM

Barlow and Proschan [7, pp. 209-225] give an extended application of
the Kettelle algorithm originally presented by Kettelle [8] for the opti
mization of the reliability versus the cost of adding further redundant
units to parallel systems. The algorithm is an optimization problem
which may be applied to determine the best spare parts kit subject to
a budget constraint. The best spares kit can be determined based on
the maximum fill rate criteria with the following assumptions:
1. Demand for spares or failure rate for spares of Type t is a Poisson
process with the constant rate, A,-.
2. There is no delay in repairing the failed units; i.e., repair starts
as soon as a unit fails.
3. The mean time to repair, 7,, of a failed unit of Type i is constant.
Using the fill rate criteria the optimum spare parts kit N = (N\, • • • , Nk)
is determined so that the fill rate, Fr(N), is maximized subject to the
budget constraint
J2Nid<C0, (14.62)
»=i
where
k = number of different types of units to be spared,
d = cost of purchasing a spare unit of Type i,
and
C0 = available budget.
The fill rate, Fr(N), is defined as the expected fraction of demands

that are satisfied without delay, or
Ni-l
(w P-X, I,
t=l j=o
Fr(N) = k
(14.63)
1=1
where
A, = demand or failure rate of a spare of Type i, i = 1, • • •, k,
ti = mean time to repair failed Unit i,
and
Ni = number of spares of Type i.
The algorithm computes a sequence of fill-rate-cost pairs which are
examined to determine a dominating sequence of allocations. The al
location ./V is said to dominate allocation N' if
k k
Fr(N) > Fn(N') while £ JV,- Q <J>? C,-, (14.64)
t=i i=i
k k
Fr(N) = FR(N') while J2Ni d <J2Ni Ci- (14.65)
t'=i t'=i
Then, a complete sequence of dominating allocations is a sequence

NW,---,N(°\ such that
-Ffl(^(1)) < FR(NW) < • • < FR(N<>s)), (14.66)
and
E Np* C, < £ N& C, < ■ ■ ■ < J2 "I* Cu (14.67)

t'=l i=\ t'=l
for which no other dominating allocation can be interpolated. The

method of determining a sequence of dominating allocations results in
the optimum spares kit since no other kit would give a higher fill rate
within the cost constraint, or
Fr(N) > Fr(NW),
and
<£n!s) ch
t=i
while
k
EN*ci <c0.
t'=l
EXAMPLE 14-16
A budget of C0 = $1,500, and the demand or failure rate, mean
time to repair and cost data are given in Table 14.11. Determine
the optimum spares kit containing these four units using the Kettelle
algorithm and maximizing the fill rate of the units.
In order to simplify computations use only the numerator of the fill
rate, Eq. (14.63), since the denominator is constant, or
7V(iV) = EA' E -^T- e ' for i = l, ••-,*:. (14.68)
The optimum spares kit consisting of the four types of units, k = 4,

listed in Table 14.11, is obtained by finding the complete sequence of
dominating allocations. Since there are four types of units, find the
complete sequence of dominating allocations for Units 1 and 2 first
and then for Units 3 and 4. To apply the Kettelle algorithm use the
following steps:
TABLE 14.11 - Demand or failure rate, A,, mean time to

repair, {,-, and purchasing cost, C, for Ex
ample 14—16.
Part Demand Mean time Cost of

type, rate, to repair, the part,
i A,-, fr/hr U, hr cu$ Xt
1 0.01 100 200 1.0
2 0.02 150 100 3.0
3 0.03 60 300 1.8
4 0.01 200 250 2.0
1. Set up a table like Table 14.12 in which each row and column
intersection box contains a pair of numbers representing combi
nation of spares JVj for Unit 1 and JV2 for Unit 2, the total cost of
2
these spares, £ JV, C,-, and the corresponding fill rate numerator
for the given combination of spares.
2. Start filling in the table with (0,0) combination of spares which
gives zero cost and zero fill rate numerator. Proceed with cal
culating the cost and fill rate numerator for one additional unit of
each type. For example, consider combination of spares (N\,N2) =
(1,1). The total cost of spares is given by
2
£ Ni d = 1 (200) + 1 (100) = 300.
The fill rate numerator for this combination is given by
(*2 hY e-A2 «,
■a C •
■i—n J' ■i—n
or
Ni-l Ni-l
JV(1, 1) = 0.01 £ 022- e-1-0 + 0.02 £ £$- e"30,
jmO J- j=0 r-
= (0.01)(0.368)+(0.02)(0.05),
or
JV(1,1) = 0.00468.
602 THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS
TABLE 14.12 - Possible allocations of spares kits with

their associated costs for Units 1 and 2 for
Example 14-16. The marked allocation se
quence connected by a straight line in the
body of the table identifies the dominating
allocations.
Part Type 2 Part Type 1
Number of
spares 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Cost 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400
Fill rate
numerator 0 0.00368 0.00736 0.00920 0.00981 0.00996 0.00999 0.01000
0 (0,0) (1.0) (2.0) (3,0) (4,0) (5,0) (6,0) (7,0)
0 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400
0 0 0.00368 0.00736 0.00920 0.00981 0.00996 0.00999 0.01000
1 (0,1) 11. 1J (2,1) (3,1) (4,1) (5,1) (6,1) (7,1)
100 100 300 500 700 900 1,100 1,300 1,500
0.00100 0.00100 0.00468 0.00836 0.01020 0.01081 0.01096 0.01099 0.01100
2 (0,2) (1.3) (2.2) (3,2) (4,2) (5,2) (6,2)
200 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400
0.00398 0.00398 0.00766 0.01134 0.01318 0.01379 0.01394 0.01397
3 (0,3) (1.3) (2,3) (3,3) (4,3) (5,3) (6,3)
300 300 i 500 700 900 1,100 1,300 1,500
0.00846 0.00846 0.01214 0.01612 0.01766 0.01827 0.01842 0.01845
4 (0,4) (1,4) (2,4) (3,4) (4,4) (5,4)
400 400 ip 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400
0.01294 0.01294 0.01662 0.02030 0.02214 0.02275 0.02290
5 (0,5) (1.5) (2.5) (3,5) (4,5) (5,5)
500 500 ii 700^' 900/1 1,100 1,300 1,500
0.01630 0.01630 0.01998 0.02366 0.02550 0.02611 0.02626
6 (0,6) /(I. 6) /(2,6) (3,6) (4.6)
600 600 * 800 ¥ 1,000 ii 1,200/ 1,400
0.01832 0.01832 0.02200 0.02568 0.02752 0.02813
7 (0,7) (1.7) (2.7) , (3, 7) (4,7)
700 700 900 1,100 if 1,300 1,500,*
0.01932 0.01932 0.02300 0.02668 0.02852 0.02913
(0,8) (1,8) (3,8)
8
800 800 1,000
(2.8)
1,200 1,400 r y
0.01976 0.01976 0.02344 0.02712 0.02896
9 (0,9) (1.9) (2,9) (3,9)
900 900 1,100 1,300 1,500
0.01992 0.01992 0.02350 0.02728 0.02912
10 (0, 10) (1.10) (2, 10)
1,000 1,000 1,200 1,400
0.01998 0.01998 0.02366 0.02734
11 (0, 11) (1.11) (2,11)
1,100 1,100 1,300 1,500
0.02000 0.02000 0.02368 0.02736
12 (0, 12) (1.13)
1,200 1,200 1,400
0.02000 0.02000 0.02368
13 (0, 13) (1,13)
1,300 1,300 1,500
0.02000 0.02000 0.02368
14 (0, 14)
1,400 1,400
0.02000 0.02000
15 (0,15)
1,500 1,500
0.02000 0.02000
Fill out the table completely keeping in mind that the entries are
made only if the cost constraint Ni C\ + Ni Ci < C0 is satisfied.
3. Determine the complete sequence of dominating allocations. Start
ing from the first combination of spares, (0,0), the next domi
nating allocation is the one with the higher fill rate numerator
but with the lowest cost. For example, the next combination is
2
(0, 1) with the total cost of £ N{ d = 100 and the fill rate
numerator of iV(0,l) = 0.001, or the next combination is (1, 0)
2
with the total cost of £ Wi Q = 200 and the fill rate numerator
of N(0, 1) = 0.00368. Since the combination (0, 1) has a lower
cost than the combination (1,0), then the second dominating al
location is (0, 1). To determine the third dominating allocation
consider the combination (1,1) with the total cost of 300 and the
fill rate numerator of 0.00468, and the combination (0, 2) with
the total cost of 200 and the fill rate numerator of 0.00398. Since
the combination (0, 2) has a lower cost than the combination
(1, 1), then the third dominating allocation is (0, 2). Continue
this procedure until the combination (iVi,JV2) with the highest
fill rate and the total cost slightly less or equal to the cost con
straint of C0 = $1,500, is found. If two or more combinations
with the same cost are found, choose one with the highest fill
rate. The complete sequence of dominating allocations for Units
1 and 2 is shown in Table 14.12 by the broken line connecting
the pairs of spares that satisfy the above conditions.
4. Repeat Steps 1 through 3 for Units 3 and 4. Table 14.13 gives
all possible combinations of spares for Units 3 and 4 satisfying
the budget constraint and the complete sequence of dominating
allocations.
5. To determine the complete sequence of dominating spares alloca
tions for all types of units simultaneously; i.e., Units 1, 2, 3 and
4, use combined complete sequences of dominating allocations for
Units 1 and 2 and Units 3 and 4, respectively, and the body of
the table is filled out so that for a given combination of all units,
(Ni,N2,N3,N4), the total cost and the fill rate numerators are
summed up. The complete sequence of dominating allocations is
obtained by using Step 3. The broken line in Table 14.14 rep
resents the resulting sequence of dominating spares allocations
which satisfy the budget constraint of C0 = $1,500. The last
combination in this sequence,
{NUN*N*NA) = (0,6,3,0),
604 THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS
TABLE 14.13 - Possible allocations of spares kits with

their associated costs for Units 3 and 4 for
Example 14—16. The marked allocation se
quence connected by a straight line in the
body of the table identifies the dominating
allocations.
Part Type A Part Type 3
Number of
spares 0 1 2 3 4 5
Cost 0 300 600 900 1,200 1,500
FiU rate
numerator 0 0.00495 0.01389 0.02193 0.02673 0.02892
0 (0,0) (1.0) (2,0) (3,0) (4,0) (5,0)
0 0 | 300^' 600/' 900/ 1,200/ 1,500^»
0 0 0.00495 0.01389 0.02193 0.02673 0.02892
1
250
(0,1)
250 V~ 550 *■
/(2,1) S (3, 1)
850 r 1,150 '
/(4.1)
1,450 i'y
0.00135 0.00135 0.00630 0.01524 0.02328 0.02808
2 (0,2) (1,2) (2,2) (3,2)
500 500 800 1,100 1,400
0.00406 0.00406 0.00901 0.01795 0.02599
3 (0,3) (1.3) (2,3)
750 750 1050 1,350
0.00677 0.00677 0.01172 0.02066
4 (0,4) (1,4)
1,000 1,000 1,300
0.00857 0.00857 0.01352
5 (0,5)
1,250 1,250
0.00947 0.00947
6 (0,6)
1,500 1,500
0.00983 0.00983
afExample
3
The
4
marked
14-16.
clndoornscaeaqtciuoendce
by 0.02896 3,8,0,0 0.02896
(3.8) 1,400 1,400
TABLE
aP14.14
of
kits
lwith
otheir
aUnits
for
socosts
2,
1,
cspares
oai-ctbiloantesd straight
the
in
line
body
iathe
table
ofdleonmtciantfiaoetnsi.ng
0.02862 3.7,0,0 0.02862
(3.7) 1,300 1,300
0.02762 3,6,0,0 0.02762 3,6,0.1 0.02887 3,6,1,0 0.03247

1,200 1,200 1,460 1,600
(3.«)
0.02668 2,7,0,0 0.02668 2,7,0,1 0.02803 2,7,1,0 0.03163

(*.T) 1,100 1,100 1,350 1,400
0.02668 2,6,0,0 0.02568 2,6,0,1 0.02703 2,6,1,0 0.03063

1,000 1,000 1,260 1,300
(*.«)
0.02366 2.5,0,0 0.02366 1,6,0,1
^2,5,0,1 1,050^ 0.02501 2,5,1,0
0.02335 0.02861 2,5,1,1 0.02096 2,5,2,0 0.03755
(2.5) 900 900, 1,150 1,200 1,460 1,500
0.02200 1,6,0,0 200*

0.02 1,6,1,0''
0,6,1,0
1,6,1,0 1,000 0.02493. 1,6,1,1
0.02327_
0.02695 0.02830 1,6,2,0 0.03589
(!.•) 800 800 1,100
900 1,350 1,400
Unit
Type.
0.01998 1,6,0,0 0.01998 1,5.0,1 0.02133 1,5,1,1 1,250 0.02628 1.6,2,0 1,300 0.03387
1.2 700 700 960
0.01832 0,6,0,0 0.01832 0.6,0,1 0.01967 0,6,1,1 -1.150 0.03462 0,6,2,0 1.200, 0.03221 0,6,2,1 0.03356 0,6.3,0 0.04025
600 850 1.500,
(0.«) •00.
S1,450
0.01630 0,5,0,0 0.01630* 0,6,0,1 0.01765 0,5,1,0 0.2125 0,5,1,1 1,050 0.02260
- 0,6,2,0 0.03019 0,5,2,1 0.03154 0,5,3,0 0.03823
(0.5) 500 600 760 800 -^1,100 1,350 '1.400
0.01294 0,4,0,0 0.01294* 0,4,0,1 0.01429 0,4,1,0 0.01789 0,4,1,1 0.01924 0,4,2,0 0.02683 0,4,2,1 0,4,3.0 1,300^0.03487
(0.4) 400 400 650 700 950 1.000 1,250
0.02S18
0.00846 0,3,0,0 0.00846 0,3,0,1 0.00981 0,3,1,0 0.01341 0,3,1,1 0.01476 0,3,2,0 0.02235 0,3,2,1 0.02370 0,3,3,0 0.03039 0,3,3,1 0.03174 0,3,4,0 0.03519
(0.3) 300 300 550 1,150 1,200 1,450 1,500
600 850 900
0.00398 0,2,0,0 0.0039S 0.2,0,1 0.00535 0,2,1,0 0.00893 0,2,1,1 0.01028 0,2,2,0 0.01787 0,2,2,1 0.01922 0,2,3,0 0.02591 0,2,3,1 0.02726 0,2,4,0 0.03071
(O.J) 200 200 450 600 750 1,050 1,100 1,350 1,400
800
0.00100 0,1,0,0 0.00100 0.00235 0,1,1,0 0.00595 0,1,1.1 0.00730 0,1.2,0 0.01489 0,1,2,1 0.01624 0,1.3.0 0.02293 0,1,3,1 0.02428 '0,1,4,0 0.02773
(0.1) 100 100 350 400 1,000 1,260 1,300
660 700 950
JB.1,0,1
0,0,0,0 •"o 0,0,0,1 0.00135 0,0,1

,0 0.00495 0,6,1,1 0.00630 0,0,2,0 0.01389 0,0,2,1 0.01524 0,0,3,0 0.02193 0,0,3,1
1,150
0.02328 0,0,4,0
1,200
0.02673 0,0,4,1
1,450
0.02808 0,0,5,0
1,500
002892
(0.0) 250 300 550 600 850 900
0 0 o.
Unit
Type* numerator
0.00135 00435
0 0.02808 0.02892
3,
4 Sparei Fill
rate (0.0) (0,1) 250 (1.0) 300
(Ml 550 0.00630
(J.o) 600
0.01389
(2.0 850
0.01524
(3.0) 900
0.02193
(3.0 1,160
0.02328
(4.0) 1,200
0.02673
(4.0 1.45U (s.o) 1,500
0 0
Co«l
is the optimum spares kit with the total cost of

4
Y^Ni Ci = $1,500,
and the corresponding fill rate is given by
E A,- £ *iSP e~A" '•

<=i j=o *•
Fr{N) = 4
EA,-
(0.01) 0 + 0.02 £ ^ e"3-° + 0.03 £ ^ff e~18 + (0.01) 0

_ j=o J' j=o J'
0.01 + 0.02 + 0.03 + 0.01

or
FR(N) = 0.575.
It should be noticed that each combination in the sequence of dom
inating spares allocations represents the optimum spares kit for the
total cost obtained for that combination of spares. For example, the
combination
(Ni,N3,N3,N4) = (0,6,2,0),
is the optimum spares kit for a budget constraint of C0 = $1, 200 and
yields the fill rate of
ftOT.""*
v ; 0.07 0.460.
The optimal spares kit and fill rate obtained for a budget constraint
ranging from 0 to $1,500 is given in Fig. 14.4.
If there are more than four (4) types of Units, use the same proce
dure until all types of units are combined and the optimum spares kit
(Ni, ■ • • , Nk) is determined. Apparently, as the number of unit types
increases the number of combinations or allocations that satisfy the
budget constraint increases. In that case computer optimization and
search methods should be used.
The major drawback of this approach is the assumption that all
failures are of the same criticality which is applicable to a single system
without redundancies. In the case of a system with redundancies and
multiple operating modes this assumption is not valid. The UNIRAM
availability model [9] enables the selection of the most critical parts,
units or subsystems by ranking equipment, parts or units based on
their outage rates or unavailability. The model is developed through
several steps as follows:
0.6 - (0,6,3,0)
(0.5.3,0)
(0,4.3,0)
0.5 - (0.6.2.0)
a (0,5,107
2 0.4 - (0,4,2,0)
— (2.5,0,0)
ii. g,6.6ToT
0.3 "
(0.5,0,0)
0.2 - (0,4.0,0)
(0,3,0.0)
0.1 - (0,2 .0.0)
(0,1.0(0) 1,500 -v
(0.0
i i i1 1t 11 4-1
It 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 l
0 200 400 600 8oo ' l.ooo'iioo'i,^'
Cost in dollars
Fig. 14.4 - Optimal spares part kit and the best fill
rate obtained for the various budget con
straints of Example 14-16.
1. Develop the system availability model by drawing a block di

agram representation of the system which reflects logical and
functional relationships among system components.
2. Develop the fault tree model of the system and model the failure
of its subsystems. All the failures that cause unavailability of the
system are modeled down to the component level or basic events
of the fault tree.
3. Analyze all available data, perform a failure modes and effects

analysis (FMEA), and determine the MTBF's and MTTR's for
the components that cause system failure.
4. Perform the component ranking based on the forced outage rate

ranking factor for each component, given by
A MTTR.+MTBF,
A-i MTTR, A "J.
f-> /i|
t=l _ i=l
MTTR, ~ -J. '
MTTR.+MTBF, "*
where
n = total number of system components,

MTTRi = mean time to repair or replace the ith compo
nent,
MTBFi = mean time between failures of the ith component,
A{ = unavailability of the ith component.
5. Formulate the spare parts optimization model based on the Ket-

telle algorithm in which the failure rate weighting is replaced by
the forced outage or unavailability weighting, or by
FR(N)=i=1 >=\_ .
1=1
Maximization of this model is subject to the same budget constraint as

in the case of the fill rate, and it results in the optimum spares kit or
the initial spares inventory which reduces the system's unavailability.
14.7 SPARES PROVISIONING AND INVENTORY

COSTS CONSIDERATION
14.7.1 UNDERSTOCK VERSUS OVERSTOCK COST

MODEL
In case a single order of spares must last a fixed time period, or a fixed
number of spares undergo repairs and be returned to the spares kit, to
last a certain period of time, the understock versus overstock model can
be used. A typical example would be a Navy ship whose maintenance
facilities must be supplied with enough spares before a cruise, and the
spares are expected to be used for some fixed time period. The model
[10] balances the cost of having excess parts that are never used versus
the cost of being short of parts when needed.
If the variable x denotes the number of spares in stock supplied for
a certain period of time, then the expected number of spares in stock
for the case when the actual demand is less than the stock level x, is
given by
X^(* - 0 Pi, (14.69)

i=0
where
Pi = P[N(t) = i] = probability of demand of i units.
Similarly, a shortage of spares occurs when the actual demand of spares
is higher than the stock level. Then, the expected number of shortages
is given by
X) («-*)»■ (14.70)
i=x+l
The total inventory cost is the sum of the expected overstocking plus
expected cost of understocking, or
Ct(x) = Ch X](a' - 0 Pi + c*h Yl (» ~ x) P" (14.71)

i=0 i=x+l
where
Ch = holding cost per one unit,
C'sh — shortage cost per one unit.
The optimum stock level which minimizes the total expected cost is
given by
P[N(t) <x0-l}< °s" < P[N(t) < x0}. ( 14.72)
EXAMPLE 14-17
A repair crew is to obtain enough spares for 3 equal units, having a
failure rate of A =1/6,000 fr/hr, for a field repair mission which should
last 4,000 hr. If the cost of carrying a spare is Ch — $1,000 and the
penalty cost of not having a spare when needed is Csh — $10,000,
determine the optimum number of spares in the kit.
Assuming a constant failure rate, A, the number of failures, or the
demand in the time period of / = 4,000 hr for 3 units, is Poisson
distributed, with the expected number of spares, or expected demand,
given by
3
Nsp = X>>,,
1=1
3
= Aj>,
1=1
-(4,000 + 4,000 + 4,000),

6,000
1
12,000,
6,000
or
Nsp = 2 spares.
The probability of having exactly i failures in the given time period is
given by
P[N(t) = i] = ^-ê-N^,
and the cumulative probability of having k or less failures in the given

time period is given by
P[N(t)<k] = Y,—T-e~NsP- (14.73)

i=0 *"
TABLE 14.15 - Cumulative Poisson probabilities for the

expected number of failures, Nsp, of Ex
ample 14-17.
fc P[N(t) < fc]
0 0.135
1 0.406
2 0.677
3 0.857
4 0.947
5 0.983
6 0.995
7 or more 1.000
To determine the optimum spares kit Eq. (14.72) yields

10,000
P[N(t) < xQ - 1] < < P[N{t) < x0],
10,000+ 1,000
or
lo- 1 \T ' T° AT l
Y ±SPe-NSP < 0.909 < £ **£_e-"s,.
(14.74)
2!
i=0 «=o
To determine the value of the optimum spares kit, x0, create a table,
with the cumulative Poisson probabilities of Eq. (14.73), as given in
Table 14.15. From Table 14.15 the value of the optimum spares kit
which satisfies the inequality of Eq. (14.74) is x0 = 4, or
_SP_e-NSP
E^f'"*" < 0.909 < J2
:=0 i=0
or
0.857 < 0.909 < 0.947.
If the spares kit is determined based on the confidence level or proba

bility that there will be enough spares, then, for example, for the confi
dence of 99% Table 14.15 yields 6 spares. By considering overstock and
understock costs a trade-off is found between these two costs. Appar
ently, this method is valid in the case of high penalty costs of aborting
the mission due to a shortage of spares.
If the system consists of m units for which a spares kit is to be de

termined by applying this method, then the probability of not running
out of all spares in the kit for the whole system is given by
P(A) = f[Pt(xoi),
or
m
P(A) = J[P[N(t)<xoi), (14.75)
»=i
where
P(A) = confidence level, or probability, of not running out of
spares for the whole system,
and
Pifeoi) — confidence level, or probability, of not running out of
spares for the ith unit.
Difficulties that arise in the application of this model are the determi
nation of the penalty costs due to a shortage of spares for all units in
a system. Assuming that the penalty cost is equal for all units, and is
related to the cost of aborting the mission, application of this model
is limited to one shot items or mostly to weapon systems.
14.7.2 A DYNAMIC SPARES PROVISIONING APPROACH

Dynamic spares provisioning models apply when the spares are to be
procured for a long period of time. Holding a large quantity of spares
ordered once at the beginning of the period and for the whole period
is not acceptable because of the high inventory costs, larger storage
space requirement or degradation of the characteristics of the spares
with time. Conceptually, a dynamic inventory model deals with an
"endless" number of orders, an optimized number of units in stock, as
well as the optimum reorder point. An optimization methodology may
be based on either of the following two approaches: reorder of spares
is made upon reaching a fixed reorder level of stock, r, and a quantity
of spares, Q, is ordered, or reorder of spares is made at constant time
intervals and the quantity of spares ordered, Q, is based on the current
stock level.
A simple dynamic model [10] illustrates the first approach. The
total inventory cost expression to be optimized consists of the cost of
ordering a quantity of spares, Q, and the holding cost of the units
not demanded during an order interval. The approximate total cost of

inventory of spares is given by
PrW, = ^ + 2f (14.76)
where
D — average demand of identical units over the total pro
visioning time,
Ch = holding or carrying cost of a unit per ordering inter
val,
C0 = order cost of a quantity Q, or
Co — Cs + Cu Lj, (14.77)
where
Cs = setup cost per order ,
and
Cu = cost of a unit.
Substitution of Eq. (14.77) into Eq. (14.76) yields
Ct(Q) = ^+DCu + ^ (14.76')
To determine the optimum ordering size, Q* , find the first derivative

of the total cost function with respect to Q, equate it to zero and solve
for Q, which yields
2DCS
Q' = (14.78)
ch
From Eq. (14.78), it can be seen that the optimum ordering size, Q' ,
is a function of the_average demand of identical units over the total
provisioning time, D, the setup cost per order, Cs, and the holding or
carrying cost of a unit per ordering interval, C/,.
The reorder point, r, is a function of the procurement lead time and
the desired probability of having enough spares during the lead time.
If z represents the demand during the lead time and assuming that the
units have a constant failure rate, then the Poisson process governs the
number of failures, and the reorder point is given by
r-z + k\/l=zn-ka, (14.79)
where k = 1.282 assures 90% probability of having enough spares dur
ing the lead time, k = 1.645 assures 95% probability, k = 2.326 assures
99% probability and A; = 3 assures 99.9% probability of having enough
spares during the lead time.
EXAMPLE 14-18
An inventory of spares for Traveling Wave Tubes (TWT) is to be
established. The expected tube usage over a 2-year period is D = 500
units and the holding cost of a unit during the stocking period is C/> =
$300. The setup cost of each order is Cs = $800, the cost per unit
is Cu = $50 and the procurement lead time is 2 months. Determine
the optimum ordering quantity, Q", reorder point, r, and the ordering
cost, C0-
Using Eq. (14.78) the optimum ordering size is
Then, from Eq. (14.77) the ordering cost corresponding to the opti
mum ordering size is
Co = ^s + Cu Q,
= 800 + (50)(51.64),
or
Co = $3,382 per order.
Since the average demand of spares, D, is given for the period of 2
years, then the average demand of spares during the lead time of 2
months is given by
_S_ 500
2x12 24 '
or
2 = 41.67 spares.
Rounding up to the nearest integer yields
z = 42 spares.
The 3 a level is the value of three standard deviations, or
3\/i=3 \/41.67= 19.36.
or
3 V^ = 20 spares.
Using Eq. (14.79) the reorder point, r, is given by
r = z + 3 %/l,
= 41.67+19.36 = 61.03.
or
r = 62 spares.
Hence, when the stock level reaches the level of 62 units an order of size
181 units is made. The reorder level of 62 units assures with 99.9%
probability that there will be enough spares to supply the demand
during the procurement lead time of 2 months. Figure 14.5 shows a
typical stock of spares flow, with the stock parameters Q and r that
were calculated previously.
14.7.3 MAXIMIZATION OF AVAILABILITY PER COST

RATIO MODEL [11]
Consider the case where there are n identical units which operate
within their useful life with the constant failure rate, A. Upon failure
a unit is replaced instantaneously with negligible replacement time.
The inventory of spares for n operating units is maintained. The level
of inventory is reviewed continuously and when it reaches the reorder
level, r, an order of size Q is placed. The ordered quantity arrives
after a random lead time, t, during which the failed units are being
replaced by the spares whose quantity, r, should satisfy the demand
until the ordered quantity arrives. In case of shortages they are back-
ordered. The objective function to be minimized, CPA(Q,r), is given
as the ratio of the total expected inventory cost per unit time and the
availability of spares is represented by the probability of having enough
spares during a cycle. The optimum pair (Q,r) is so determined that
the cost-spares availability ratio is minimized; i.e., the availability of
spares is maximized. Fig. 14.6 shows a typical inventory of spares
flow with inventory parameters. The total expected inventory cost,
C't(Q,t), consists of the expected purchasing cost, the average order
H 2224
h
1
18i
Q
quantity,
irdcr
=
62
level,
Reorder
r=
20 Example
14-18.
flow
for
of
stock
Typical
Fig.
14.5
spares-
6
18
16
112
8
14
4
20
(
\
Re
\
Lead \
itime
i\\
i\i \
i\i \
1 H
(——
1
months
T,
Time,
\
Lead \
timei
1
Hr
i\ \
i\i\
i \1
i
200- 180- 160- 140- 120- £

100- 80- 60
1- 40- 20-
r i'
o a ■o a. i o0
b £
en >— Oi
Time, T, years
Fig. 14.6 - Typical inventory of spares flow with the inven

tory parameters given.
or setup cost, the expected holding cost and the expected shortage
cost, and is given by [12, pp. 54-93]
CT(Q,r) = C D + C0^
+Ch | + r-JB(x) + Csh^-^, (14.80)
where
C = spare part purchasing cost,
D = average demand, units/year, or
D = 7i A (365), (14.81)
C0 — cost per order or setup cost,
Ch = holding cost per unit per year,
Q — order quantity per cycle,
and
r = inventory reorder level.
The expected demand, E(x), is given by
f°°
E(x) = / x f(x) dx, (14.82)
Jo
where
f(x) = pdf of demand, X, during lead time, t.
The expected shortage, S(x), during lead time is given by

— f°°
S{x)= / (x-r) f(x)dx. (14.83)
The probability density function of demand during lead time, /(x), is

given by
/(i)= / g(x,t)l(t)dt, (14.84)

Jo
where
g(x,t) = conditional pdf of demand, x, during lead time, t;
i.e., probability of having exactly x failures out of n
operating units during lead time, t,
and
l(t) = pdf of lead time, t.
Assuming that the lead time is lognormally distributed, then
1
l(t)
t a/2 7T 0ff
r*^)1 (14.85)
where
t' = loge t for 0 < t < oo.
The mean and standard deviation of the variable /' are given, respec
tively, by
fh> = log, (14.86)
and
ot< = (14.87)
where /z* and o^ are the mean and standard deviation of the straight
times, t. Since all n units are identical with constant failure rate, A,
then the overall arrival rate is (n A) and the conditional pdf of demand,
x, is given by
9(x |1)=(!*0!e-<«A0 (14.88)
Since g(x,t) is a discrete pdf then the pdf of demand, x, given by Eq.
(14.84) can be written as
\/2x ov Jo xlt K '
The expected demand during lead time, E(x), given by Eq. (14.82),
can be written as
E{x)= J2X P(x)> (14.90)

i=0
L._ _
and the expected shortage during lead time, S(r), given by Eq. (14.83),
may be written as
oo
S(r) = £(* - r) p(x). (14.91)
X=T
At the beginning of each cycle there are k units in operation, or

n-[E(x)-r] i{E(x)<r
n UE(x)>r. {i^Z)
-{
The number of spares for these k operating units is
m = Q + [r - E(x)}. (14.93)
Since the overall failure rate for k units is (k A), then the probability of
having enough spares in a cycle, or the availability of spares, is given
by
A(Q,r) = £;Mê-<**K (14>94)

where
tcy — expected duration of a cycle,
or
*cv = |- (14-95)
Since the values of k and m are real, round them up to the nearest
integers. The modified cost function is given by
CPA{Q'r) = gMQ$' (14-96)
where Cr(Q,r) is given by Eq. (14.80) and A(Q,r) is given by Eq.

(14.94). To optimize the modified cost function determine the values
of the order quantity, Q, and the reorder inventory level, r, so that the
total modified cost is minimized.
EXAMPLE 14-19
An inventory of spares is to be maintained for n = 20 identical units
in operation whose failure rate is A = 0.0025 fr/day and the purchasing
cost per unit is C = $65 /unit. The order cost, or setup cost, per
order is C0 — $23 /order, the holding cost of a unit per year is Ch =
$50 /unit/year and the shortage cost is Csh = $66 /unit/year. The
mean value of the procurement lead time is 90 days with the standard
deviation of 45 days. Determine the optimum ordering quantity, Q,
and the inventory reorder level, r, so that the total expected modified
cost is minimized.
To determine the modified cost function, CPA(Q,r), the first step
is to calculate the discrete pdf of demand, p(x). For given values of
Ht = 90 days,
and
<rt = 45 days,
the mean and standard deviation of the lognormal pdf of the lead time
are obtained from Eqs. (14.86) and (14.87), or
90
IH> = l°ge
f*W'\
= loge[80.498],
or
Hf = 4.388,
and
Of
i
loge 1 +
(sy
= \/0.223,
or
at. = 0.472.
Then, the pdf of the demand, p{x), during the lead time, given by Eq.
(14.89), is
v(x) = ___i r [(20X0-0025) ty m (o.oo25) t]e^c^jîf
yy ' JT^ (0.472) Jo x! * '
or
P(I) = '— r fi*2r<" irtHprt «. (14.97)

" ' s/TH (0.472 Jo xU
From Eq. (14.81) the expected annual spares demand is

D = n X (365),
= (20)(0.0025)(365),
or
D = 18.25 spares/year. (14.98)
The expected demand during the lead time is obtained from Eqs.
(14.90) and (14.97), or
oo
£(x) = ^xp(z) = 4.866 units. (14.99)
Since Eq. (14.97) can not be integrated directly, then Eq. (14.99)
must be solved numerically; i.e., for each value of x the integral given
by Eq. (14.97) should be determined by using, for example, Simpson's
rule with the sufficient number of intervals.
Using Eqs. (14.80), (14.91), (14.98) and (14.99) the total expected
inventory cost is given by
1 o or
Q
CT(Q, r) = (65) (18.25) + (23)-^ + 50 J + r - 4.866
(66)(18.25)^2», > , >
+^75 £(* - r) P(*).
or
419 15
CT(Q,r) = 1, 186.25 + ^p + 50 5 + r - 4.866
+^^ f> - r) p(x). (14-!00)

W x=r
From Eq. (14.94) the probability of having a spare when needed during
a cycle is given by
A(Q,r) = ±{-^le^"^,
i=0
or
A(Q,r) = f^[k (°-00f } tcy3'e-^ (°-0025> ««J. (14.101)
i=0
The total expected modified cost is given by the ratio of Eqs. (14.100)
and (14.101). Since there is no analytical solution to this optimiza
tion problem, numerical optimization should be used. A simple search
technique may be applied using the following algorithm:
1. Calculate CPAmin(r) = CPA(Q,r) and r = 1, Q = 1.

2. As long as CPAmin(r) < CPAmin(r - 1) increase r, or r = r + 1,
determine CP..4m,n(r).
3. Q = Q + l ,r = 1 and repeat Step 2. As long as CPAmin(Q,r) <
CPAmin(Q - l,r) repeat Step 3.
Table 14.16 gives the minimum total expected cost per spares availabil
ity ratio and the optimum reorder level, r, for a given order quantity,
Q. The overall minimum modified cost is
CPAmin(8,5) = 1.360 x 104 $/year,
the optimum order quantity is Q = 8 units and the optimum reorder
level is r = 5 units. From Eq. (14.92) k = n or k = 20 units and from
Eq. (14.95) the expected cycle duration is
c
tcy ~ 18.25 = 0.438 years,
or
tcy = (0.438)(365) = 159.87 days. (14.102)
From Eq. (14.93) the total expected number of units ordered in a cycle
is
m = Q + [r - E{x)},
= 8 + [5 -4.866],
or
m = 9 units. (14.103)
Then, from Eqs. (14.101), (14.102) and (14.103) the maximum proba
bility of having a spare when needed during a cycle is given by
4(8,5) = V* - (Q-0025) <c*]' c-f* (0.0025) tcy)
t=0
9
= £ [(20) (0.0025),'! (159.87)]' [(20) (00025) (15987)]
i=0
(0.000338) ^(7-",35)'
i=i l-
or
4(8,5) = 0.7182. (14.104)
Hence, for given minimum total cost, the maximum probability of not
running out of spares in a cycle is 71.82 %.
"0 (O mm ttSo>«r«t(oa)fiNticBOr<t(P(OOr<<reoOf<niAM])Nn>nsaNt
Ob r- p- r- r- t.NK(ooo«no»ftftO)SiJ)8oooo»"""H*,"WM«Nr)nnnntt
c l« W « W « I Ci P* C* ' (N « N M I
a
oo Co oi^ n»i-h-»or)«-iOQaa«OQP«-» — c*rtcovio«r-«aQ«wn -!■ iO CD p- 01
ic„J«wr)ioiotop«*iDsS»«â«)pNt»floortT«)BonioNO) — CO m P- 01
t- r- r- r- m> sr-i-ctCBiuiBttOiftftoOOOO- — — — " r< m ts n n co co co co co
iN««MC*r»r«wp<oip«c*ciwe»»
TiOWNOOOlO'-nfWtt
p. «■ t- ms toAONtiSNOiH(>)iAhO)*ninNOi^ftpooor«v<Q(CONiosa*<nia
c
cti
3 — I- 1* p- NNnonMfiioiAvtieiAinettNtatoO) Ox n n
cr ▼ r* n c« S
X C (C c
01
CO
tO
micB)o«n»Ncjif»nioNsi»-niof»ftH ▼ 5 ee o
ClilCNt-t-r-SSflOOOOOOOWOlClClOftO o 5 o —
CN ■v to
SB
c c
-p p*
0) O
n it.
p* p*
"
i-
p«
nn
a -
c* co
k
r- 0) p- p- Oi 00 oint-QOfflmYntiNdNnnnvmiofflt- o* ro <r to (0 n OS o ••
-o q co o> 00 OO
m
a, o> .- co §
& o o 5
00 t V B O N MS
C 00 CO IO lO to - ~ « n N <N N
iO*WO*C«P*0«IP«NNP«OI
O
i naiBiOBO ▼ l. .... _ ... _ . ._.-._. „.. _-
8 m vW iASBO"nmKoi<"niAhoit<nnNaif<ninKoiMp:
to «o to totoiotototototOgop-r~i^p-F-oooooo«)oocfl0i0)C>io>O©i
i r* c* c* p* p* r* r* <
11 ^
to o n O'
ifl r» n »• . . . . . . iMTBO)*P)lflhO>HniOt»Bi"n(PBOMT(C«
O tO tO tOltO tOtOtOtOlOkOC0tO NhSKBBBBBQOiOlOOlOOOOn'-xx-
54 iW(i«NNNNM<S
tn - ... . .. BRBeeoOO! 0)00"i ...

BOionniQf>clibc>«v<oBO(|tTBB«n>At<o)'<ninso)r<ni
■ ■ 00 00 00 <
3 p. to ^ *r VUiinininiAiOBBBUBNSSNNBBBBBOiOOlOiOlOOl
i « « W N
.2 "H.
E <c n n
•-..■ t
-t- o|«
K.*t uj m
>-- i*- i-« ) in
«k- "i n
•■■. f<
*— O
u.' O)
wj uiBirflNCPBBCCOSOlO^^NW^1 ifiCNtcac-Nr
ntASAnVBBO
5 I to ^ ▼1^ miBBOl-rliflhBOftOBONtBBurtiflNfllw
!TTTlTTTTTM.w.û?v>,c!<P,fi*VNNNr->NiBBBBBO) O101O1O1OOOO —
P* lO CO ■ I Soiaio-'-fionvifliDSBffio-N
r* T P- < Nvsffl"ninsoi«nwKOiN*c
NNNhhVIBB'KaOOIOlOlftOlOOO
C 0 ■ P« P« P*
.2
*» J « co -w — 01 Qoli * B o MOOS io n n « - O O —
o _r PJ fi O O » 00101 O *- CO t » r- o> —
to
CO
to
m
to
P-
to
01
to s I to
tO
p-
to
01
tO
p-cotor-o>^^cotor-oj^-cotooo Q P*
Nt»NI>-f-BBBB00OlCftO)Ol C O
c v P* P»
3*
<*• >
Q) BWMiANHnOpn to p- oo ^r n o n s <c to
n >n v O) V p-Ip- oo 0> O «- CO ^ to oo © >~ co to p-
to
01
■■? *r ^
— CO tO
T*»«WfflONSBBftO»- P« P*
soi-nwt-ft-. n w n ft w v to X
onfl^n n colco co co ^ ^ "T ^ f ^ to to to to »o lO to to to BBfSNSNBBBBBOlO) 0> a
pp P"" P- 4Pt P« — 1— PP PP PP> M — M AM ■a pa p« m « M V pp pa pp M«N*«*«««*Mpa<w*MpM««««MM ■m pa
8
0 8
D
o "0 Pt o CO p- to CO p* O O O O o
3 Pi ro ro
p* *■
-o o
h — p*
*- to
©
9
r-
ro
to
CO »* p- oo
n b
01 pt co to p- 8 8m p*
to to
to eo
tO tO i P*
to to 1 S8 to p-
p« 00
p.
o
CO or CC
to CO
00 S 01 01
s-a >> ■
(- p*
oo n n 01
CO p* olco 01
88 8 S
00
8eo p*
o
CO p*
CO
p-
to So
00
01
to
CO
eo
to
P4
P- so 01
p*
00 00
i
CC cc
O
F
p-
p«
OO
to oc
OD CO
s 00
p*
cr. 01
to S2
iE £s CO r-
D CO
lO
CO
CO
to
o
lO
CO
00
CO
n
o 00
CO
o
co
P-|0>
88
CO
tO
p-
CO
CO
8
CO
0)
CO
o
r~
CO
to P*
to
00
to
tO
0.
tO
p*
to
tO
01
p*
tO
»n m to to to
p-
to
S
to
oo
m
ro
S
P<
to to
to
s
3
a
p»
CO
1
to
00
p-
00
co
p-
ii-i
CO
00
00
p-
01
CO
CO
00
X
CO
CO
CO
oo a
oo ac
tO
oo ac
P-
H .S oi p- CO to O tO
01 00 T p*
a
co ■p co to 8 ro 01 ■f
to
P* 0C p-
co
iO P4 o c
c o CO
I
01
p«
to
— s tO CO
OO
co rt
00 00
CO % 01
CO
p* to 00
to m
OO
§ to tO
to
to to
CO m P-
P.-P-
?. tn
CO GO oo
to a pt •o s- 01 r-
oc PS
■ -r
CN
i lO
CO
lO
00
■J
p-
■J"
w
to ^,
P4 PP
p.
o o
p* oo p- p-
CO
•r 3 00
CO
to
o
m
00
to
CO
lO
O
in
m
t~
to
iO
00
in
s
CO
0) p-
ro m
CO
CO
p- 0)
te cc
p* O 0)
t-
00
r-
co ac 85
CO CO
W ■ CO
— r- CO CO
CO
to
O
00
00
to
"W
^^ in
CO CO CO CO
01
CO JJ
m
in to 00 i cc
p*
ro CO
m a cr
Q
CO
P4
O cc m ro
m p- 01
o
CO
cc
03
tO
CO
V
o
<c oc 01 to it: If w tn m m m tO |Q to tc CO to tc tc P" p> r» cc
■T C-* P*
PD
< 12: p*co^rtntop-oo0iO
624

WITH INVENTORY OF SPARES
Modified block replacement policies with an inventory of spares are
described and the cost models are developed in great detail in Section
11.2. They are dynamic inventory control models which use preventive
maintenance, ordering and inventory control methodologies. The cost
model consists of the expected replacement cost, the expected ordering
costs and the expected inventory costs. The optimal ordering and
preventive replacement interval, T*, is determined so that the total
cost per unit time is minimized and at the same time the stock, S, is
raised to the level that assures the desired probability of not running
out of spares during the replacement interval. Both single and multi-
period models are considered.
14.8 COST AND CRITICALITY OF SPARES

CONSIDERATION
Spare part criticality is ultimately a measure of how much an equip

ment function, mission or completion of a process depends on avail
ability of a particular spare. The cost of a part being out of stock can
be so significant that any inventory purchase and storage costs would
be insignificant. For example, a rolling mill operating at full capac
ity which lost a drive shaft at, say, $30,000 replacement cost could
lose $200,000 per day in lost revenue awaiting a replacement. The
assessment of criticality for this example requires careful analysis of
the ultimate cost. If the unavailability of a spare results in failure
of the whole system then a spare must be provided at all costs. If
the result is not so catastrophic then a life time order of spares or a
stock policy should be considered depending on the spare parts cost.
Apparently, sparing management is dependent on the consequences of
stock-out and the costs of providing the spares. Stock management
policies may be guided by the criticality loss matrix [13] given in Table
14.17. Table 14.17 shows the spare parts classification based on cost
and criticality. The cost relates primarily to purchase cost and it can
be low, moderate or high. Criticality classification is based on the af
fect of not having a spare, when needed, on the system's function or
mission and the resulting cost of stock-out of spares. Criticality can
also be low, medium and high. Spare parts of high criticality affect
the mission's success significantly and the shortage of spares causes
substantial financial losses. Moderately critical parts have a moderate
affect on the mission's success and their shortage causes some financial
TABLE 14.17 - Cost-criticality matrix.

Criticality
Cost Low Medium High
Low III III III
Medium II II I
High II I I
losses. Spare parts of low criticality are not significant either to mis
sion success or to financial losses. If out of stock and needed they can
be substituted by alternate parts or they can be found in the market.
Selection of the optimized inventory policy depends on the accurate
assessment of criticality. Once the cost of purchasing and ordering,
as well as the stock-out cost, are analyzed a decision on a spare parts
provisioning policy can be made. The following methodologies based
on parts classification could be one possible way of decision making:
Strategy 1
If purchase and order costs are high and the criticality is varying;
i.e., the parts are classified in Class I in Table 14.17, keep the safety
stock level of spares which are to compensate lead, repair and shipment
times. Place an order on a one for one basis whenever a failure occurs.
The initial stock level can be calculated by using Eq. (14.5), or
— \k
Ns
E .-*,H k\
= CL,
k=0
which would give a sufficient quantity of spares with the desired confi
dence of having enough spares during lead, shipment and repair times.
Alternatively, Eq. (14.79) may be used if the normal approximation
to the Poisson pdf is used, or
r = z + 3 y/l.
The average demand, z, is taken to be equal to the average number of
spares, N s, and 3 V^ assures 0.999 probability of having enough spares
during the lead time. The average demand, z, may be also estimated
from the field data or past experience.
Strategy 2
If purchase and order costs are medium and criticality is varying, or
the purchase cost is high with low criticality; i.e., the parts are classified
in Class II, inventory costs such as ordering, holding and shortage
PROBLEMS 627
costs should be considered and the appropriate model for this strategy
selected from among the inventory models presented previously.
Strategy 3
This strategy deals with items of low cost and varying criticality
grouped in Class III. If there is no degradation of characteristics, stor
age cost is low and the parts are not instantaneously available in the
market, this type of parts should be ordered in one large quantity or
for the whole mission duration or for the system's life cycle. Ordered
quantity of size, N, should be determined by Eq. (14.5) so that the
desired probability of not running out of spares during the mission,
or the desired confidence level is achieved. If some of the conditions
mentioned above are not satisfied then consider an inventory of spares
model such as in Strategy 2. If the parts are available in the market
when needed, then maintain a stock at a local supplier or use just-in-
time techniques.
It is obvious that the optimum spares provisioning is a very com
plex problem and it requires accurate analysis of all conditions and
factors that may affect the selection of the appropriate sparing model.
Costs of ordering, holding, and understocking should be estimated,
failure rates predicted, criticality analyses performed and preventive
maintenance policies considered. Incorporating all of these elements,
in a well planned methodology, will result in an optimum spares provi
sioning policy with reduced total cost and a maximum confidence level
of having a spare part when needed.
PROBLEMS
14-1. Spares need to be provided for a critical unit in a system for 500
cumulative hours of operation at a confidence level of 95%. If
the unit's failure rate is 0.009 fr/hr, how many spares should be
provided for this period of operation?
14-2. Work out Problem 14-1 again but at confidence levels of 80%,
90% and 99%, and discuss your results comparatively.
14-3. Spares need to be provided for a critical unit in a system for

1,000 cumulative hours of operation at a confidence level of 95%.
If the storage space for the spares to be provided is limited to
150 units what should be the MTTF of the units be so that the
desired confidence level is met?
14-4. Work out Problem 14-3 at the confidence levels of 80%, 90% and
99%, and discuss your results comparatively.
14-5. Identical units have a Weibull times-to-failure distribution with

the following parameters: (5 = 1.75, tj = 3,000 hr and 7 = 0
hr. The replacement policy is as follows: Those units that are
found to have failed at 1,500 hr are replaced with units which
have a Weibull times-to-failure distribution with the following
parameters: fi = 2.5, T) = 1,500 and 7 = 0 hr. Do the following:
(1) If 1,000 such units are operating in identical
equipment at the same application and oper
ation stress level, how many will fail if each
one operates T\ = 1,500 hr?
(2) If the failed ones are replaced according to the
given policy, how many will fail when operat
ing for t = 500 hr thereafter?
(3) Of those that survive Tx = 1,500 hr, how
many will fail during the additional t = 500
hr of operation?
14-6. A system consists of two equal units in parallel. Each unit has a
failure rate of 0.01 fr/hr. Determine the number of spare units re
quired for a 3,000-hr period, if the units found to have failed dur
ing the maintenance action are replaced and all units are kept in
their useful life. Consider the following preventive maintenance
schedule times:
(1) TP = 10 hr,
(2) TP = 150 hr,
(3) Tp = 00 hr.
14-7. A system consists of two equal units in parallel. Each unit has
a failure rate of 0.001 fr/hr. Determine the number of spare
units required for a 3,000-hr period, if the units found to have
failed during the maintenance action are replaced and all units
are kept in their useful life. Consider the following preventive
maintenance schedule times:
(1) Tv = 10 hr,
(2) Tp = 150 hr,
and
(3) Tv = 00 hr.
PROBLEMS 629
Compare the results with those of Problem 14-6.

14-8. Given is a system with three exponential parallel units, each
with a failure rate of 0.002 fr/hr, which is subjected to corrective
maintenance when the system fails and to preventive mainte
nance every 200 hr according to Policy I. Do the following:
(1) Calculate the total average number of spares
for a period of operation of t = 10, 000 hr.
(2) Calculate the total number of spares at the
confidence level of CL = 95% for a period of
operation of t = 10, 000 hr.
7 = 100.0 hr,
(3 = 2.0 hr.
and
t? = 2, 000 hr.
For the preventive replacement schedules of Tp = 10 hr, Tp = 100
hr and Tv = 500 hr determine the following:
(1) The total average number of spares for a pe
riod of operation of t = 10, 000 hr.
(2) The total number of spares at the confidence
level of CL = 95% for a period of operation
of* = 10,000hr.
14-10. Work out Problem 11-1 again and determine the following:
(1) The total average number of spares for a pe
riod of operation of t = 10, 000 hr.
(2) The total number of spares at the confidence
level of CL = 95% for a period of operation
of t = 10, 000 hr.
tained under the Ordinary Periodic Replacement Policy-Policy
$5 and the cost of a minimal repair is $30. Find:
(1) the optimum preventive replacement time,

(2) the minimal total preventive maintenance cost
per unit time of operation, and
(3) the total average number of spares for a period
of operation of t = 1, 000 hr.
14-12. Units that have a Weibull times- to-failure pdf are preventively
Policy rV with a constant lead time. The parameters of the
Weibull pdf are 7 = 0, 0 = 2 and 77 = 400 hr. Cp = $5, Ce = $40,
Cmr = $30, CT = $20, L = 10 hr and C, = $0,001 /hr. Deter
mine the following:
(1) The minimum total cost per unit time of op

eration and the ordering schedule.
(2) The total average number of spares, or the
total average number of spare orders, for a
period of operation of t = 1,000 hr.
14-13. Units with a gamma times- to-failure pdf are preventively main
tained under the Modified Periodic Replacement Policy-Policy V.
The parameters of the gamma pdf are 0 = 2 and 77 = 200 hr.
at failure is $50. The spare replacement cost at failure is $40
and the constant failure rate of the spares is A' = 0.05 fr/hr.
The planned replacement time is Tv = 140 hr. Determine the
following:
(1) The minimum total preventive and corrective

maintenance cost per unit time of operation,
(2) The optimum switchover time, T*.

(3) The expected number of minimal repairs dur
ing t = 1,000 hr of operation.
(4) The expected number of spares during t =
1,000 hr of operation and the total number of
spares at the 95% confidence level.
14-14. New units have a gamma times-to- failure pdf with 0 = 2 and
Tj = 200 hr. The units are preventively maintained under Mod
ified Block Replacement Policy-Policy IX. The planned replace
ment cost is C] = $10. The failed unit's replacement cost with a
new component is Ci = $50. The failed unit's replacement cost
PROBLEMS 631
TABLE 14.18 - Critical units, their failure rates, their cost

and the number of each in the system, for
Problem 14-15.
Unit Failure rate, Cost per unit, Number of units
number fr/106 hr $ in system
1 300 400 4
2 400 1,500 3
3 550 1,000 2
with a "less" reliable component is C3 = $20. The constant fail

ure rate of the reconditioned units is A' = 0.05 fr/hr. Determine
the following:
(1) The minimum total preventive and corrective
maintenance cost per unit time of operation.
(2) The optimum planned replacement time, T*.
(3) The optimum switchover time, T*.
(4) The expected number of spares for the original
unit during t = 10,000 hr of operation.
(5) The total number of spares at the 95% confi
dence level.
(6) The expected number of "less" reliable spares
during t = 10, 000 hr of operation.
(7) The total number of "less" reliable spares at
the 95% confidence level.
14-15. A system is to be placed in the field. The expensive, critical
units in this system and their characteristics are given in Table
14.18. Do the following:
(1) Determine the optimum allocation of spares
for various confidence levels at the minimum
cost for 10,000 hr of operation, and the asso
ciated minimum cost.
(2) Determine the optimum kit at the confidence
level of 90% and determine the associated
minimum cost for 10,000 hr of operation.
14-16. A system is to be placed in the field. The expensive, critical
units in this system and their characteristics are given in Table
14.19. Do the following:
J. _
TABLE 14.19 - Critical units, their failure rates, their cost

and the number of each in the system, for
Problem 14-16.
Unit Failure rate, Cost per unit, Number of units
number fr/106 hr $ in system
1 100 200 5
2 200 1,000 4
3 300 1,200 3
(1) Determine the optimum allocation of spares

for various confidence levels at the minimum
cost for 10,000 hr of operation, and the asso
ciated minimum cost.
(2) Determine the optimum kit at the confidence
level of 90% and determine the associated
minimum cost for 10,000 hr of operation.
14-17. A repair crew is to obtain enough spares for three units having
failure rates Xx = 0.001 fr/hr, A2 = 0.002 fr/hr and A3 = 0.003
fr/hr, respectively. If the cost of carrying a spare is Ch = $1,000
and the penalty costs of not having spares when needed are
C,hi = $9,000, Csh2 = $10,000 and Cshz = $11,000, determine
the optimum number of spares for each unit in the kit.
14-18. A budget of C0 = $3,000 has been provided, with the demand

or failure rate, mean time to repair and cost data given in Table
14.20, where A, I, represents the expected demand during the
mean repair time. Determine the optimum spares kit containing
these six units using the Kettelle algorithm and maximizing the
fill rate of the units.
14-19._The expected demand of a component over a 3-year period is

D = 700 components. The holding cost of a component during
the stocking period is $400 and the total cost of each order is
$8,000. Determine the optimum ordering quantity, Q, reorder
point, r, and the safety stock level if the probability of having
enough spares to supply the demand during the procurement lead
time of three months is 0.999.
14-20. An inventory of spares is to be maintained for 30 identical units

in operation whose failure rate is A = 0.003 fr/day and the pur
chasing cost per unit is C = $70 /unit. The order cost, or setup
REFERENCES 633
TABLE 14.20 - Demand or failure rate, A,, mean time to

repair, 7,, and purchasing cost, C, for Prob
lem 14-18.
Part Demand Mean time Cost of Mean
type, rate, to repair, the part, demand,
i Xi, fr/hr ti, hr Cu% XiU
1 0.020 15 100 0.30
2 0.030 10 200 0.30
3 0.010 5 150 0.05
4 0.015 10 300 0.15
5 0.005 20 100 0.10
6 0.025 20 250 0.50
cost, per order is C0 = $20 /order, holding cost of a unit per

year is C/, = $50 /unit/year and the shortage cost is Cah = $65
/unit/year. The mean value of the lognormally distributed pro
curement lead time is 80 days with the standard deviation of 25
days. Using the maximization of availability per cost ratio model
determine the optimum ordering quantity, Q, and the inventory
reorder level, r, so that the total expected cost is minimized.
REFERENCES
1. Kececioglu, Dimitri B., Reliability Engineering Handbook, Pren

tice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632, Vol. 1, 720 pp.,
Fourth Printing, 1995 and Vol. 2, 568 pp., Fourth Printing, 1994.
2. General Electric Company, Defense System Department, Tables
of the Individual and Cumulative Terms of the Poisson Distribu
tion, D. Van Nostrand Company, 24 West 40th St., New York,
10018, 202 pp., 1962.
3. Molina, E. C, Poisson's Exponential Binomial Limit Tables I &
II, Robert E. Krieger Publishing Co., P. 0. Box 542, Huntington,
N Y 11743, 47 pp., 1949.
4. Kececioglu, Dimitri, B., Jiang, S., Li, D. and Sun, F. B., "Spares
Prediction with Growth and Warranty," Proc. First Beijing In
ternational Conference on Reliability, Maintainability and Safety
(BICRMS'92), Beijing, People's Republic of China, pp. 27-41,
October 12-15, 1992.
5. Roberts, Norman H., Mathematical Methods in Reliability Engi

neering, McGraw-Hill, N Y, 318 pp., 1964.
6. Black, G. and Proschan, F., "Spare Part Kits at Minimum Cost,"
Proc. Fifth National Symposium on Reliability and Quality Con
trol, pp. 281-295, January 1959.
7. Barlow, R. E. and Proschan, F., Statistical Theory of Reliabil
ity and Life Testing - Probability Models, Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, Inc., 290 pp., 1975.
8. Kettelle, J. D., Jr., "Least-Cost Allocations of Reliability In
vestment," Operations Research Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp.
249-265, March- April 1962.
9. Purser, F. E. and Farmer, G. F., "Optimizing Spare Parts In
ventories Using RAM Techniques," Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory (EG&G Idaho), ASME Paper 90-JPGC/Pwr-50, 4
pp., 1990.
10. Harrahy, D.J. and Hinkle, M. L., "Inventory Control Models for
Logistics Planning and Operational Readiness with Cost Con
straints," Annals of Reliability and Maintainability, Vol. 6, pp.
436-448, 1967.
11. Al-Bahi, Ali M., "Spares Provisioning Based on Maximization of
Availability per Cost Ratio," Computers Ind. Engineering, Vol.
24, No. 1, pp. 81-90, 1993.
12. Elsayed, A. A. and Boucher, T. 0., Analysis and Control of Pro
duction Systems, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey,
450 pp., 1985.
13. Sheikh, Anwar K., "Strategies in Spare Parts Management Us
ing a Reliability Engineering Approach," Engineering Costs and
Production Economics, pp. 51-57, 1991.
Chapter 15
DISTRIBUTIONAL TEST AND

REPAIR TIMES IN A TEST AND
REPAIR FACILITY
15.1 HOW TO APPLY

A test-and-repair facility [1, pp. 195-198] consisting of six stations
is used to check out systems. Each system has to pass through each
station. The time spent at each station is a random variable whose
pdf has been estimated from available data and is independent of the
times at the other stations. An estimate of the time required to test
and repair a randomly chosen system is to be found. Total time spent
by a system in the facility is
t = U + h + <3 + U + h + t6-
We need the pdf of t so that we can determine t at the desired con
fidence level. These distributions are shown plotted in Fig. 15.1, and
their parameters are given in Table 15.1.
15.1.1 METHOD 1 - CENTRAL LIMIT THEOREM

The pdf of the average, and therefore of the sum of independent ob
servations from pdf's each with finite mean and variance, approaches a
normal pdf as the number of observations becomes large, with a mean
of
n=6
(15.1)
:=1
635
636 DISTRIBUTIONAL TEST AND REPAIR TIMES
At station No. 1
t, = 11.3hr.
7 8 9 10 iTf 12 13
At station No. 2
f,(t) o-2- t, « 17.5 hr.
. t
16 17 \ 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
At station No. 3
4= 1.9 hr.
(5 I p 3
At station No. 4
t. = 6.3 hr.
0 2 f 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
At station No. 5
U = 0.3hr.
At station No. 6
t« = 9.2hr.
Fig. 15.1 - The times-to-test-and-repair distributions at

each one of six stations in a test-and-repair fa
cility.
HOW TO APPLY 637
TABLE 15.1 - The distributions for test-and-repair times

in hours for a test-and-repair facility.
Station Probability density

number function Parameters
1 N(ft = 10; (7= 1)
2 AT(/i = 20;<r = v/2)
3 /3(t3) = $ (t3)8 e"6 '3 = 9; I; = 6)
4 A(<4) = nro5 (M9 «-*■ <?(/? == 10;t?=1)
5 E(\:= 5)
6 M<) - 2HT5) Ce)4 H *• = 10)
N = normal pdf,
G = gamma pdf ,
E = exponential pdf,
X2 = chi-square pdf,
fi = mean,
a = standard deviation,
/J = shape parameter,
7/ = scale parameter,
v = degrees of freedom.
for the six stations in the previously presented test-and-repair facility,

and if the variables are not correlated then,
n=6
(15.2)
i=l
To find t and at we do not need to know the pdf's, but just the f, and
ati . These can be calculated from the data, by keeping track of the i,-
for each station and obtaining the following results:
Station number
1 2 3 4 5 6
10 20 1.50 10 0.20 10
"1 1 2 0.25 10 0.04 20
Substitution of these values into the Eqs. (15.1) and (15.2) yields
t = 10 + 20 + 1.50 + 10 + 0.20 + 10 = 51.7 hr,
and
o\ = 1 + 2 + 0.25 + 10 + 0.04 + 20 = 33.29 hr.
From the centra] limit theorem the total test-and-repair time can be
approximated by a normal pdf with
t = 51.7hr,
and
at = 733.29 = 5.8 hr.
Using the normal pdf probability tables we can find that
P(t<?+ 1.282 trt) = 90%,
P(t < t + 1.645 at) = 95%,
and
P(t < I +2.326a<) = 99%.
Consequently,
P(t < 51.7 + 1.282 x 5.8) = 90%,
or
P(t < 59.1 hr) = 90%,
P(t < 61.2 hr) = 95%,
HOW TO APPLY
and
P{t < 65.2 hr) = 99%,
or the maintainabilities for these times are

M{t < 59.1 hr) = 90%,
M(t < 61.2 hr) = 95%,
and
M(t < 65.2 hr) = 99%,
or 90% of the test-and- repair times will be equal to or less that 59.1
hr, or will not exceed 59.1 hr, etc. Another interpretation is that, in
the long run and for M — 90%, if up to 59.1 hr of test- and- repair
time are made available then 90% of the test-and-repair actions will
be completed successfully.
Observations on the applicability of the results:
1. Only 6 stations are involved which is not "very many," that Cen
tral Limit Theorem requires.
2. The Central Limit Theorem also requires that variances be of
similar range, or none be much different so that it dominates the
value of <7(. Here Stations 4 and 6 have variances which highly
dominate the value of the total variance. Hence the applicability
of the Central Limit Theorem is questionable, but later we will
be able to check the adequacy of the normal pdf approximation
using more precise methods.
3. One does not need to know the exact pdf's of the t,'s but only
their means and variances.
15.1.2 METHOD 2 - SYSTEM MOMENTS

Find the first four moments for t; and using a Pearson distribution
approximation [1, pp. 220-224], estimate the percentiles of the distri
bution of t. The system moments are
H,l{t)=n'l{z) = z = t = -Mir.s, •,£,)+£ £(0a&V3>

where
Hi(t) = /i'i(z) = first moment about zero,
and
d2h d2h . . _
—j means —j evaluated at the mean value of all
' ' variables involved, or of the t's.
Most books only give the first term of Eq. (15.3) and consider the
accuracy sufficient. The first term only provides an exact result for
our problem because all second and higher order partial derivatives
are zero. Equation (15.3) contains only up to second order terms of a
multivariate infinite Taylor's series. Hence, it is only approximate in
the general case. Also,
ti2(z) = VAR(z) = ol = ti-(ti)2,
where
H2{z) = second moment about the mean.
The Taylor's series expansion for the variance of the system's perfor
mance, with uncorrelated variables and retaining up to third order
terms, is given by
VAR(z) = a?*Yl 1 1 vmu)

'dh
+£ du at? Pafc) (15.4)
t=l L
where ^3{ti) is the third central moment for the ith variate. Most texts
use only the first term, which may be a satisfactory approximation.
The third central moment is given by
any p*(u) (15.5)

t=i
toil
retaining only the lowest-order non-zero term, and the fourth central
moment is given by
vr\ 4
M*) = E 1=1
I) "<"•>
n n— 1
dh dh
VAR(ij) VAR(U) . (15.6)
at. du
HOW TO APPLY 641
If the raw data are available then,

N
M'i(0 = = mean about zero, or raw mean, (15.7)

N
(15.8)
N
IN \
E*3 E«? E* 'eO
Mt) = JV _ 3
.=1 i=i_ , i=±_ + 2 (15.9)
tf N
and
£«? E<, E*3

Mt) = •=1 _ 4 « «
N N N
1 2L \2 N ,
(EM
i=l
E'?
»=1
E'<
1=1
+6 -3 (15.10)
jv
V
These equations are in the most convenient form for calculation, if the
raw data are available. If the pdf's of the data are given then,
/i3(0 = A*3-3/4/*i + 2 (Mi)3- (15.11)
It is related to the coefficient of skewness, 03, which is given by
03 = ^=-^. (15.12)
Also,
m<«) = Mi - 4 M3 Mi + 6 Ma (m'i)2 - 3 04 )4 . (15.13)
It is related to the coefficient of kurtosis, a4, which is given by
<*4 = P2 = §. (15.14)
M2
In general
4(0 = £(«*), !
-jT«*/W*i for A = 1,2,3,4,... (15.15)
= fcth raw moment of the distribution /(t),
= fcth moment about zero, or about the origin,
and
= f° (*-A*'i)*/(0 A; for Jb = 1,2,3,4,... (15-16)

y-oo
= fcth central moment,
= fcth moment about mean.
15.1.3 APPLICATION TO OUR PROBLEM

Let's determine the checkout time, i, in the test-and-repair facility.
t = Z = *! + lj + *3 + 14 + U + <6
or
1 =
2>
t=i
Then,
= _ = l;for,= 1,2,.- ,6,

and
d2z d2t n , •
= 1,2,- •,6.
Therefore;, from Eq. (15.3),

6
t= 4s)-£j«t)-•I*.
•=i •=1
and from Eq. (15.4)
6 6
«]
1=1 «=1
From Eq. (15.5)

6
M*) = /i3(0 = X>3(*.)>
«'=1
and from Eq. (15.6)
M4(z) = m{t) = f^m(||) +6 f;£ VAMfo) VAR(U), for i > j + 1.

•=i i>i+i i=i
The required data are the following:
HOW TO APPLY 643
Station number
1 2 3 4 5 6
Mean 10 20 1.50 10 0.20 10
Variance 1 2 0.25 10 0.04 20
0 0 0.08 20 0.02 80
3 12 0.23 360 0.01 1,680
Then,
t = 51.7 hr; a\ = /x2 = 33.3 hH = ft^x); at = 5.78 hr;
Hs(z) = 0 + 0 + 0.08 + 20 + 0.02 + 80 = 100.1 hr3;

m(z) = (3 + 12 + 0.23 + 360 + 0.01 + 1, 680)
6
+6 VAR^-^VARiU)
i=2
+VAR(t2) ■ £ VAR(ti) + VAR(t3) ■ £ VAR(U)

«=3 t=4
6
+ VAR(t4) ■ ]T VAR(U) + VAR(t5) ■ VAR(t6)
t=5
m(x) = /*4(0 = 2, 055.24 + 6 [1 (2 + 0.25 + 10 + 0.04 + 20)

+2 (0.25+ 10 + 0.04 + 20)
+0.25(10 + 0.04 + 20)
+ 10 (0.04 + 20) + (0.04) (20)],
or
m(z)= 3,864.7 hr4.
Then.
100.1 „ rn
08 = V£ 33.35T = 0.52,
3
Ml
or the coefficient of skewness 03 = y p\ — 0.52. For a normal pdf

03 = 0. Also /?i = 0.27. The coefficient of kurtosis is
- fi4(z) 3,864.7
°* = ^ = If = 133^ = 3'49-
For a normal pdf a4 = 3.00.
Using the upper tail in a Pearson pdf approximation we do the
following:
1. Find
1.1 -1 = 1.
1.2 - a2 = at = y/p,2(z)-
1.3 - $i = &l
1.4 - fa = Q4-
2. Find in Tables 15.2 thru 15.15 the standardized percentile z'a for
a chosen a using /?j and fa.
3. Calculate the estimated 100 a% percentile from
or
ta = t + za at,
and
P (t < to.90) = 0.90.
In this case
*o.90 =1+ 4.90 °t = 51.7 + (1.32) (5.78),

or
?o.9o = 59.3 hr.
z'09Q is found by interpolation from Table 15.3. A precise method
of interpolation is given in the next section.
Also,
P(t< r0.95) = 0.95,
*0.95 = t + Zo.95 °t,

= 51.7 + (1.77)(5.78),
or
?o.95 = 62.0 hr,
where z'Q95 is found in Table 15.4,
HOW TO APPLY 645
and
P (t < to.99) = 0.99,
*0.99 — * + ^0.99 ' ^<»

= 51.7+(2.71)(5.78),
or
^0.99 = 67.4,
where z'Q99 is found in Table 15.6.
15.1.4 INTERPOLATION PROCEDURE FOR z'Q TABLES

To find the z'a value for a given Pi and P\ , to be designated here as ft
and ft, when interpolation is required, do the following:
1. Interpolate z' for ft linearly.
2. Interpolate z' for ft from
z' = (l-0)z'n + 8z'n+1
(15.17)
where
^n — zn+l ~ 2 2„ + zn-l> ^n+1 — zn+2 - 2 Z„+l + zni
and
* = [Pi-Pun)] 10-
The intervals of Pi used in the interpolation of ft must be equal;
i.e.,
A (n) ~ fit (n-1) = 01 (n+1) ~ £l (n)»
EXAMPLE 15-1
Given £ = 3.49 and ft = 0.27, find the upper 10% percentage
point, a = 0.90, z' value.
/$,
expressed
given
for
and
of
62.
points
PBased
"Table
pKrivoy,
•Prepared
by
Raul
eMr.
conarucrsevonetsa,ge
1158 1366 1488 1554 1585 1593 1586 1574 1552 1535 1508 1480 1453 1433 1406 1386 1366 1339 1323 PiNixon
S.
E.
by
snwith
Compiled
Eric
and
JetN.
L.
I).
Amos,
min
roaeandrhnuscdtuosiarnoe,nd,"
).70
1
0.60 1 1.1625
1.1501 1 1.1687 1 1.1530
1 1 1 1.1446
1 1.1424
1 1 1.1373 1
1.1404 1 1.1353
1 1.1710
1 1.1710
1 1.1695
1 1.1675
1 1.1649
1 1
1.1616 1.1593
1 1.1560 1.1499 1.1477
1.1278
u)/a;
10%
of
dspoints
(x
0.10)
the
(a=
Lower
signs
All
tneanvdgiar-adtizevde*
1655 1.1781 1.1837 1.1851 1.1840 1.1816 1.
1. 1. 1.1437 1.1407 1.1387
782 1.1753 1.1714 1.1675 1.1645 1.1606 1.1576 1.1546 1.1516 1.1486 1457
1
0.50
1.1839 1.1965 1.2012 1.2012 1.2007 1.1951 1.1907 1.1861 1.1817 1.1777 1.1729 1.1692 1.1652 1.1615 1.1586 1.1555 1525
1. 1.1494 1.1468 1.1444 1.1418
0.40
1. 1.2183 1.2214 1.2197 1.2155 1.2102 1.2046 1.1990 1.1935 1.1878 1.1834 1.1783 1.1737 1.1697 1.1656 1.1621 1.1592 1.1562 1.1532 1.1501 1.1482 1.1451
2059
0.30
POINTS
PCURVES
OF
ERACERNSTAOGNE
1.2342 1.2454 1.2462 1.2419 1.2354 1.2280 1.2208 1.2135 1. 1. 1.1631 1601
2069 1.2003 1.1943 1.1887 1.1837 1.1786 1.1747 1.1707 1666 1. 1.1571 1.1541 1.1516 1.1491
0.20
1.2394 1.2589 1.2625 1.2585 1.2512 1.2427 1.2341 1.2259 1.2179 1.2108 1.2038 1.1976 1.1916 1.1866 1.1817 1.177S 1.1735 1.1695 1.1655 1.1625 1.1595 1.1565 1.1535 1.1515
0.15
TABLE
15.2
1. 1.1764 1.1724 1.1684 1.1654 1.1624 1.1594 1563
1. 1.2505 1.2406 1.2309 1.2229 1.2151 1.2080 1.2012 1.1952 1.1902 1.1852 1804
1.2747 1.2828 1.2794 1.2710 2609 1. 1544
1.
0.10
0.05
1.3104 1.3074 1.2972 1.
2846 1.2818 1.2596 1.2481 1.2381 1.2293 1.2205 1.2136 1.2066 1998
1. 1.1948 1. 800 1.1760 1.1720 1.1691 1.1661 1.1631 1.1601 1.1573
1890 1.1848 1.
1
1963.
aBVol.
44,
3
Nos.
50,
i5opp.
9ndm-et4r9i8ka,
0.03 1.3189 1.326S 1.3188 1.3057 1.2913 1.2773 1.2643 1.2524 1.2421 1.2329 1.2238 1.2166 1.2093 1.2025 1.1973 1.1915 1.1873 1.1823 1.1783 1.1743 1.1710 1.1680 1.1651 1.1621 1.1590
1.3491 1.3475 1.3342 1.3176 1.

3009 1.2714
0.01 1.2BS4 1. 1.178 1.174 1.171 1.168 1.165 1.162
1.259 1.248 1.238 1.229 1.221 1.213 1.207 1.201 1.196 1.191 1.186 182
1.3856 1.3741 1.3545 1.

3319 1.3144 1.2970 1.2816
0.00 1.268 1.256 1.245 1.236 1.227 1.220 1.213 1.207 1.201 1.196 1.191 1.187 1.183 1.179 1.176 1.172 1.169 1.167
1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 S.O 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.0 6.2 6.4 6.6
\
B2 S.2
o
00
OVOOOOOOOOO
I?
c x:
co^-r^rîoomao^fO 11 *j
-Hro^mvor*.i^.r^Qooo > •««
m oooooooooo -H 3
an M
o
c H0
i/l
0
IM f=
g, o
oovOfM^rôrôfô»-tt^
OWhwnnnuimjio
<
0<Mî/>vOP»r»ooooooooo t/l to.
oooooooooooo 0 IU ifl
>(- m
-H
3 a
U ■a ■
CO
c c en
o o to T
!N"f>0NMO00!Jl<JlOiaiOl in 1
oooooooooooo fc. c
to a
C71
in
0) X T
0.
to 7
IM a.
O C
06 O
OMm\or~ooa>oiwooooo VI u, *
0O0O00O0O"--"--«-<>-« *->u *T
B
•-* ■»■a
o c c
c o to
^*r^«©K}^*r4co<NOis-r^~*»0\0 V c ei
^•■OrâOOiOOOOOOOO© oo
CO
j:
o •
oa©o©~»<-«**'-«-<'^-«'-* *j
c
'-> i/i
o
<u
o —j
^;
E ■
u a
w^Nso^Hrjini^M^siOi/iinui cz in
r^r-at^'to>ôo--M^'inm^*tf(OfN
OOOOO-***-* — -* — -Hrt«-*rt
<M
o XI
>-, •
o
~* ^■ >■
V •o
X>
to •** to
f- C*
ror"*Ki*TCNr*»o*-*CNc^(N«oo*coi"* ^ B —<u
o
000«-H-»-«-<«-H-H — «,„„,< c u w
o
-a ■ 10
a a •^
in u C3
<o 3
o ^j-oirtr^^y^HsoooooocAoor-^^-vKifsi CO 1/1 >
o to B
OOOrt-,*-<-N-H«^-..H — -*.Hi-l-<>-« » <a O
>,
0
1 fc.
in
■tH> -nt- ■a
^M -atoc c
o ~H to t/i
o 3 *i
■
c o ro 1/1
a.
c
■
• •** >,
XI
o
£ •n
0 c
4> 00 >s in o
Jo in
a
•«H
«o
■o b
0
1-.
to o
& -o3o
OM^v000ONn«O00ON^\000ON^\O
c
C)
1- cn
■ wu
D. ca •*■«c
647
. L
„ m O CTi rg vO (Ti rg g3 CO in on in rg
o tO
■o
rr C r- in in \n r- rr r^ MD ~m
r~ CO T CO rr rg
rr V •<T to to to tO to
CT>
rg
00
rg
r-- ■n
m in
rg rg rg rg
to to
rg
o
rO T rT in to r^ CO lH rr CT.
o t0 CO ct.
U1 M7J ■w■w
CO v0 in
rg
O
in CO
r- CT. tO r-.
to
3 fT. IV)
«T rr r*
CO g=>
to
rg m CO r-
to to rg rg rg
\0
rg
in to to
rg rg rg rg rg
d
l?
^ r-- cr. __•T CO rr to rg ^
O CT. 00 CO r^ r- r-- r- so \D
o U") rr cr. r- CO rg CO v£J U-) <J O CO in fT. to
i/) o rg Ci sO
rr rr to
^
rg Ch CO r- <£> m rr rr tO
rg rg rg rg rg rg rg
rg
rg
rg
rg rg
o
In
0
rr CO to rg to CT> ~
on U1 rg O u-
o rg CTi rr in o r- to r- rg r* to
•
r- o> r-. rr rg Oi CO r^ vO m rr to rg rg M
*y rr to to rg rg rg rg rg rg rg rg rg rg
d >1-. <S
a\ r- rr m to LD g= CO V o% rr LO O o
& rg rr O o rg rr to rg to in on
_. r- rg rg to
•— r-
o m rr u-i
f> C r-~ in to o^ CO r-. g-j un rr to to rg
TT r- to rO to rg IN rg rg rg rg rg CM ^-t
o •a
vC
ct> o 00 m rn O CT, r- tO tO CO C ■O
rr î to
o
r-j
00 tO rr en CT, o m rg o
■V rg rr, CO r»
C7i r>j rr on rg
i/l in rr to rg rg
<;
«- -r rr rg rg rg rj rg rg rg eg rg rg rg rg rg
m O
i/>
00 o n to K) L0 O o
vO Ol r- o r» CO
rg LO
r- *y rg
M sC
rg
r-
rr
r- C7> CO CT.
CO rg gO
*—•
g^ g^ rg r- rr
CT. u-i 0O o co r- O lO rr to rg rg O
rr T t tO to to rg rg rg rg rg rg rg rg rg re 5 tn
o " mi
ea
—« tO CTi o tO tO T Oi g^ u->
•T in
M in rg r? rg
o CTi*"g on o LH T «c r>- r*- o\ to r^
%o tO Oi r^ rr rg c fT. r- g^: LD rf tO rg rg
rr *T Kl rO W to rg rg rg rg rg rg rg rg rg
o
l/l
O LTl rO go lO rr
r-. l/l £ O CO cr.
O •^T —rg o
P\ O lo LP, r^
^ O r- CO in in g?
rr.
rr to rr —«
in CT, rr en in r- to
o tO c r-- m rg e Oi
rr rr
o in rr to
rg rg rg rg rg rg
rg rj
rg rg rg rg
Q ene m CT.
00 r*-
o
■DOC
— LTi CO m rT rr tO LO CO rg tn r- r- O O O to to tO I-O tO tO
Kl >o M rg U1 rg rg c: O rg u-i on rg gD g0 rg
o rr r-l C\ o rT rj Q CO r- O in rr to rg o r- r-
v rr to <"M rg rg rg rg rg rg rg
d
re re
pg co an rO tO m Q E .H
O m Oi cr. CO LH TT rr m r- O to r- r-g r~ rg on
o
O
rg
*r
o
rr m
lT rg rT. r* V.*) tO rj rg
rg rg rg r-i rj rg rg r-j rg
■=- en r--
o
sO -* m ct.
rr o g?
U*> "T r- to rr r- —
CC g0 en g^ r- O to r~ —i go —. r- to
o CD r» m CO sD U~> T fO rg rg O r- r-- r-.
o
n rj rg rg rg rg rg rg rg —— >.'*
-/ OO O rg rr go CC C rj rr vO CC o rg rr g= 00 C rg rr o co o rg rr gp
"/ m rg rg rg Kl rO to to to rr rr rr rr rr m in m m u~>
/« -« rg.
/"
648
1.4226 1.3987 1.3783 1.
3606 1.3450 1.3313 1.3190 1.3076 1.2982 1.2892
1.80 of
for
and
>B,
given
Based
"Table
Ppoints
Krivoy
•eby
pRaul
Mr.
cPaonrucrsevonpe,tasrg,ed
sexpressed
by
JCompiled
with
Amos,
O.E.
and
Nixon
Eric
in
L,
N.
m82.
toeanahnsdusaroend,"
1.4076 1.3855 1.3665 1.
3500 1.3354 1.3225 1.3110 1.
3006 1.2913 1.2826
1.70
1.4441 1.4162 1.3927 1.3724 1.3548 3395 1. 1.3138 1.3030 1.2958 1.2845 1.2761
1. 3259
1.60
10*
of
points
sthe
Upper
p)/o;
dt(x
0.90)'
(ct=
aendvairda-izted 1.4258 1.4004 1.3787 1. 38 1.3294 1.3167 3054
3600 1.34 1. 1.2954 1.2910 1.2779 1.2697
1.50
POF
TOINTS
CURVES
ERCAERNTSAOGNE
1.4695 1.4364 1.4089 3856 3656 1.3483 1.3331 1.3198 1.
B459-498,
iNos.
by
Pearson,
S.
50,
aVol.
4,
1963.
E.
3
ntorpp.
mndedutcriokna,
1. 1. 3080 1.2972 1.2880 1.2844 1.2714 1.2635
1.40
CTABLE
15.3
ontin-ued.
1.4470 1.4174 1.3924 1.3712 1.3528 1.3368 1.3227 1.3103 1.

2994 1.
2890 1.2805 1.2750 1.2648 1.2573
1.30
1.4598 1.4273 1.4003 1.3775 1.3578 1.3409 1.3260. 1.3129 1.3013 1.2911 1.2812 1.2733 1.2652 1.2583 1.2514
1.20 49i>4
1.
1.4718 1.4367 1.4078 1.3834 1.3626 1.3446 1.3290 1.3152 1.

3033 1.2925 1.2824 1.2735 1.2661 1.2581 1.2515 1.2457
1.10
1.5344 1.4867 1.4482 1.4166 1.3903 1.

3680 1.3490 1.3324 1.3179
00
1. 1.305 1.294 1.284 1.274 1.266 1.259 1.252 1.245 1.240
1.5003 1.4588 1.4/48 1.3967 1.3730 1.3528 1.3354 1.3203 1.3066 1.2948 1.2844 1.2749 1.2659 1.2585 1.2515 1.2451 1.2391 1.2337
0.90
2960 1.2850 1.2751 1.2661 1.2582 1.2513 1.2443 1.2383 1.2334 1.2274
1.5170 1.4715 1.4346 1.4042 1.3788 1.3572 1.3388 1.3227 1.3088 1.
0.80
3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5.0 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.0 6.2 6.4 6.6
649
s 1 1 1 l 1 1 l i :*» **"* = £ | | . , ; , ,J8 SSSXX S
s 1 | i i 1 1 1 1 8SS sssss s 111 1 i i?5* 3S333 =
^ e •i
s i mil ;Ssr; sssss <
I
5
e
• i | 1 i 1 i :;««? :???? ? £
*i 1 ill'1 I 33SS 3333S &
mmmm •> «.•>■< ■> •>

j * 1 1 1 1 1 1 sssss sssss s £s > urn 2555* *!::! 5
s i mi] {Mil sssse e 1o ]t-,:ta S 8 3 8 •« 8 3 S 5 3 ••
e
| «
vri
I
a> i l|!:! ::!!• ?:::; : e ■ i' 'i ,85 52252
■ •* - mm — mm SCSSS
— m — m m «8
i 6
%
m
}'A«* *> « » r- *- r- r- r- T- X « s
■ ■a>2 1 |*«S£ sr*p* 55332 £ ©
1 '••«««• *••>*>•*« *»*•■* •*
CO *;;o •m»>m XXSSC C
i 3S-- -22*2 - - - Z- 2
[ *• i •:?;?? ssts: sxsss i
o
1 6
c
o
I 8SS? £=:r: = 2£s£ 8
■ i asrss sssss sssss :
i 1 S'S'sSS SSSSS SSSSS I
3
1
, SXSSS SSSSS SSEES 5
i •c 1 ( 33S©3 SSSSS S52S3

■>M«1M MMMMM •*«•••••«• 3M
i I'zll ;;;:: *»**s s 1
•• a » i~ « — »••■••#» «an«n Q
■•••• ©coco o«a«e ©
e I
•s s rsss: sssxx tssss s s s sssss sssss sssss g
* •»•-•« © (a * ■ * o •• - « - o
« u
: , \" sssss ; t
nil: 1 1 1 ;? £;?E* f
! 1 1 Mil
I 8* i i : |h 1 l«fj
Oo — r-. r- »
s 1 1 1 1 1 1 1"? XSISS X
I 8 1 1 ' II 1 ,SSSJ sssss ; 3 1 M IM !"M SSSSS X
1 * 1 MM: |MSS N||H »•
S
; Hill lsss? SSSp J

j ■r
3 3
I
•
|
1
S 1 1 1 1 1? »B«S» sssss s 3 i mi! !;•;; !:::: !
■* i 0 9
e -1 «J ■• m - • ■ 0 «J • rt n
3 0
; 11 l«» e
i 8 ; 1 '385 JtISS SSSSS 5 1 ;!: :!::: :i::: :

0 a
CQ 75 V
/ e
6
■ 1!!*! sxsss !?!!! : 5 |f atl r- »- ^ »- f^ »- *• •• •• • «
£5 { 0
■ If!** sssss SSSSS s 0
, |ttes sssss s2?xa s
■i at
o
1 i|MI XXXX3 SSSSS s e
|SCSS SSSSS SSSSX X
i 6
, •£«•• ■>«••• e , ssrrr sssxs sssss s
0
i 1 sssss sssss SSSSS £
• 0 •
a t
0
1 II3?| |3S3l XMSS I
s
£ St
|
a
; sssss :;;:; « 1 c * S i f a •«««« • X33• oscSc 2 |
?* %zm ;;;;; = /V i .nx"; in^'o ;;;;; <
650
I <»
\ 1 1 1 1 1 in?? 5*555 \
i in 1 1 i i|bj ;??;? ? j
8 j 1 Mill iii ss3S51S 8
***** *
I 1 1 Mill Mill mil *8
i I
1!
1
8 i inn
l 1 l l 1 1 ijflj 51511 ;
|S*s* essts s |
5! '
. I i
1 1 1 1 1
II II 1
sssss *a
111! *****
iISSS ***** *a
88188
1 s* i in 1 1 I-IU !!!.. 2 15sa? SZ.SS
!|- Mill ***** a*
*1 I MM? 5*fH 88:8s 5
!i ' mil 88:=: 8*888 8
***** ***** *
j s|i iiif* ittts ztaas s
88838 a
i i ■ 1 1 1" ***** •*****»
83:38
4 * 1 -- ---_* ***** *
*A
S ?* I I :**=
•>— — ???=?
••«■•■ «ssjs
MM Ml MM sM
d 6 ***** xasea
2 ! i "2.2 SSSSX ***** a*
CQ I < * 1 |SSCS S=8EZ 3JSSS t 1
8
• ■ J ! - ,1881
1 **** ***** ***** *
i |*?ss
r * ■>*»** =ssss
*M**« sssss
***** *: I ! i ill!: 11111 *>*,*£* *
* i itat: :ss:s sssss s
4 '..'•1 ***** ***** «
: i ' ifffi S888S 88=:: •
t
j
! i sssrs sssss zzsss =
--••I* ***** ***** a
lj ' 2:2:: ***** 1111! 2
! i rszes sssss trees s
* -.*** ***** timil *
Si ' 88.81 11888 SS8ZS I
z
1
i 1 !?.:. :..:. ._::: £ 5 i 1 82888 ■erst 88888 «
* 1 ' ***** MM****
S B S283S ssrss SSSSS 8
e — -mm mm *•«*** *MM** Ml s* :. ;X ***** zsSSSSS 88SS8 SSSSZ
y< - ***** MMMMM **•>-- *

*!» *****
****** ■MM •1
8 i i in • :••!! 55!!- : ! J i i :: 1:12: 2

1S 1 1 III 1 ' *S5 =s.m * : i "in >i»! :!!!2 !
i | m ii <8*;s sirs: s S
1 •i i ii iii '*!« .:!.. 2
5 s I hi,. ssss sssss s
• * '•*••■■■■ MM«** •»
| S
C i II Ml !;;;; ;«« » 2 | M||| :=sss
H M M ,. M
3388. .M
•> H M M M
J
I I i||'* ?•»** -5X8« ! 2
! • i 1 1 iSi spsss sssss -
i ! £ | i mil !:..! ::::: :
i , | ,388 8Z88I 88SSS : * 1 i , itsa ss;;; SSSS8 s
ml •
j « £ ; iss:: 8zs:= ===as = II £ | , 8838 3S33S SSS2S T
00 e
1 |3888 E8SSS SSSSS s : ; j ,8838 3S33S 338:; S
c
f
i e | |«p*S *ZS£S XXnn* X S i , ,8838 S33S3 33S33 3
c | • f • * -z — — ••«« nnnn* » c i , s-sx. tssss s.ss. •

\ i
e
| * •SS— ?»!"» S n 2 t, » * c ! ■ tSSSX X«S3S sssss s
1
= z
r- — n •*• a it • n • • — «•>••■ k — 1 • O O * » O ■• r- • - n » • f- ■ *
e 1 ••*(•- ***mm *■*•>« m
S w *••■•» •. n p> c M n r- s © — *. M
I p- * — — •■ «■■ v>n**>*> MM*t«iMi t C I r- m O — f M r)H#3« «tl*< •

— — « •• w f ■ ««Nnri m r* n « *• ci
k : j.;:: %'zzz ::::: ; *=>/l * O m • • ■ S *- » • * c «- » • m e
651
TABLE 15.8
PERCENTAGE POINTS OF PEARSON CURVES
Lower 5% point* of the itandardiaed deviate u. — «■)/», (a - 0.05). Note that for positive akewneas,
lc, mi > 0, the deviate* in thil table are negative.
\8,
0.00 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.10 (1.15 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70
1.2 1.1547 1 0899 1 0355 0 9954

1.4 1.3191 1 2450 I 1828 1.1368 1 0477 0 9771 0 9170
1.6 1 4639 1.3899 1.3270 1 2794 1.1839 1 1055 1 0380 0 9254 0 8331
1.8 1 5588 1 4936 1 4384 1 3960 1 3078 1 2312 1 1614 1 03S9 0 9365 0 8497 0 77461
2 0 1 61 08 1 5556 1 5097 1 4746 1 4007 1 3342 1 2710 1 1516 1 0433 0 9483 0 8656|0 7934
2 2 1 6361 1 5893 1 5513 1 5226 1 4622 1 4074 1 3544 1 2494 1 1463 1 0485 0 959510 8806
2 4 1 6407 1.6064 1.5743 1 5504 1 5006 1 4559 1 4124 1 3247 1 2342 1.1427 1 0534 '0 9699
2 6 1 6495 1 6141 1 5864 1 5659 1 5241 1 4870 1.4511 1 3786 1 3025 1 2223 1 1397 1 0576
2.8 1*4 S3 1.6163 1.5921 1 5742 1 WSJ 1 5067 1 4766 1 4162 1 3526 1 2843 1.2121 ll 1367
3.0 1 6449 1 6160 1.5940 1 3781 1 5464 1 5192 1 4933 1 4422 1 38S7 1 3313 1 2693:1.2030
3.2 1 5264 1 5043 1 4602 1 4145 1 3658
1 3130J 1.2558
3.4 1 4727 1 4331 1 3912 1 3460 1 2969
3.6 1 4466 1 4100 1 3709 1 3285
3.8 1 1 4241 1 390011 3528
4.0 ! 1 4042 jl 3716
4.2 I 3862
' i
X 0.8O 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 ' 1.30 1.40 l.SO |

1
I
1 6u 1.70
1
1.80
2 2 0 8107 0 7484 |
2.4 0.8944 0 8267 0 7659 0 7109
2 6 0.9792 0 9068 0 8412 0 7820 0 72S2 0 6788 1 1
2 8 1.0608 0 9872 0 9179 0 8545 0 7966 | 0 7440 0 6956 0 6509
3.0 1.1337 1.0632 0.9938 0 9277 0 8663 10 8100 0 7584 0 7110 0 6672 1
3.2 1 1947 1 1304 1.0646 0 9993 0 9362 | 0 8769 0 8222 0 7716 0 7251 0 6820 0 6419
3 4 1.2437 1 1868 1 1269 1.0653 1 0036 | 0 9435 0 8863 0 8332 0 7836 0 7380 ; 0 6957
3.6 1 2824 1 2326 1.1793 1 1232 1 0652 1 1 0069 0 9496 0 8946 0 8427 0 7946 0 7498
3.8 1.3127 1 2692 1.2222 1 1720 1 1192 | 1 0646 1 0093 0 9546 0.9017 0 8514 0 8046
4 0 1.3363 1 2982 1.2569 1.2124 1 1650 1 1.1151 1 0634 1 0109 0 9587 0 9078 1 0 8591
4 2 1.3550 1.3212 1.2848 1.2454 1 2031 ! 1 1581 1 1108 1 0617 1 0117 0 9618 10 9129
4 4 1.3698 1 3400 1.3072 1 2722 1 2346! 1 1943 1.1514 1.1064 1 0596 1 0120 0 9642
4.6 1.3545 1.3254 1.2938 1.2605 1 1.2244 1.1857 1 1448 1 1018 1 0572 1.0117
4.8 1 3403 1.3121 1.2819 1.2494 1.2145 1.1775 1.1383 1 0971 1 0545
5.0 1.3268 1 2995 1.2701 1.2387 1.2052 1.1695 1 1318 1 0924
5.2 1.3142 1 2876 1 2391 1.2286 1 1962 1.1618 1.1255
6.4 1.3022 1.2762 1 2484 1 2189 1 1875 1.1542
6.6 1 2907 1 2653 1.2383 1 2092 1.1790
6.8 1 3030 1 2797 1.2549 1 2285 1 2005
6.0 1.2920 1 2691 | 1 2448 1 2190
6.2 1.2814! 1.2589 1 2351
6.4 1.2711 1 1 2490
6.6 ! 1.2612
HOW TO APPLY 653
TABLE 15.9
PERCENTAGE POINTS OF PEARSON CVRVES
Upper 5% pointa of the lUndardiMd aerial* It. — »)/«. (• - 0.9S).
0.00 0.01 003 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 OJO 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70
*
12 1.1547 1 2056 1.2326 1.2458 1.2579
1 4 1 3191 1.3751 1 4106 1.4271 1.4438 1 4436 1 4348 1.4042
1.6 1 4038 1 3249 1.5618 1 5832 1.6128 1 6249 I 6258 1 6031 1.5604
18 1 5588 1 6151 1.6517 1.6751 1.7138 1.7390 1 7558 1 7687 1.7546 1.7153 1 659S 1 6005
2 0 1.6108 1 6602 1.6941 1 7168 1.7376 1 7881 1.8129 1 8503 1 8721 1.8748 1.8538 1 8078
2.2 1 6361 1 6793 1.7100 1 7310 1.7702 1 8011 1 8279 1.8741 1 9127 1 9426 1 9606 1 9609
2.4 1 6467 1 6849 1 7126 1 7318 1.7682 1 7977 1.8238 1 8709 1.9138 1 9535 1 9888 2 0174
2 6 1 6495 1 6837 1.7088 1.7203 1.7600 1 7874 1 8119 1 8569 1.8991 1 9400 1 9799 2.0181
2 8 1 6483 1.6792 1 7021 1.7183 1 7493 1 7746 1.7975 1.8394 1.8792 1.9183 1.9574 1 996S
3 0 1 6449 1.6733 1 6944 1.7093 1.7380 1 .7616 1 7827 1 8216 1.8585 1 8949 1.9317 1 9690
3.2 1.7488 1.7686 1.8046 1.8388 1.8724 1 9064 1.9410
3 4 1.7890 1.8207 1 8517 1 8830 1 9148
3 6 1 8041 1.8330 1 8618 I 8911
3 8 1.8160 1 8423 1 8698
4.0 1 825S 1 8508
4.2 1 1.8338
!
0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.80
2 0 1 7453 1 6803
2 2 1 9377 1 8886 1 8221 1.7532
2 4 2 0350 2 03S4 2 0119 1.9614 1 8924 1 8210
2 6 2.0531 2.0832 2 1007 2.1022 2 0792 2 0285 1.9580 1.8847
2 8 2 0360 2 0743 2 1100 2 1402 2.1602 2 1632 2 1415 2.0910 2 0197 1 9451
3.0 2 0073 2.0464 2 0859 2 1249 2.1618 2.1935 2 2152 2.2200 2.1997 2 1499 2.0782
3.2 1.9767 2.0136 2 0513 2.0912 2.1314 2 1715 2 2096 2 2429 2 2665 2.2733 2 2547
3 4 1 9476 1 9816 2 0170 2.0640 2 0926 2 1325 2 1736 2 2147 2 2543 2 2893 2 3148
3 6 1.9211 I 9523 1.9847 2 0185 2 0S41 2 0913 2.1304 2 1711 2 2130 2 2554 2 2965
3.8 1.8975 1 9259 1.9555 1.9864 2 0187 2.0526 2 0884 2.1261 2 1658 2 2073 2 2503
4.0 1.8763 1 9026 1 9296 19577 1.9871 2 0179 2.0503 2 0848 2.1207 2 1589 2 1993
4.2 1.8575 1.8817 1 9067 1.9324 1 9592 1 9872 2 0166 2 0475 2 0801 2 1146 2 1511
4.4 1.8407 1.8631 1 8861 1.9100 1 9345 1.9601 1.9868 2.0148 2 0443 2 0753 2 1082
4.6 1.8466 1 8679 1.8899 1 9126 1.9361 1.9606 1.9861 2 0128 2 0409 2 0704
4.8 1.8517 1.8722 1.8932 I 9148 1.9374 1.9608 1 9852 2.0107 2 0374
5 0 1 8562 1 8758 1 5959 1 9166| 1.9383 1 9607 1 9840 2 0084
5.2 1 8602 1.8790 1 8983! 1 918-4 1 9389 1.9606 1 9828
5 4 1.8637 1 8817 1 9003 1 9197 1 9396 l 9003
5.6 1.8670 1.8844 1 9023 1.9203 1 9399
5 8 1.8531 I 8699 1 8867 1.9040 1 9217
6.0 ' 1.8567 1 8725 1.8887 1 9054
6.2 1 1.8596 1 8749 1 8906
6.4 1.8623 1 8771
6.6 i 1 8647
| 1
TABLE 15.10
PERCENTAGE POINTS OF PEARSON Ct'RVES
Lower 2.5% point* of the standaniued deviate it. — »)/», (a - 0.035). Note: If mi > 0, the variatea
in thil table are negative.
0.00 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.30 0.40 1 0.50 0.60 0.70
1.2 1 1547 1 0S99 1 0155 0 9954

1 4 1 3223 2461 1 1835 1 1371 1 0477 0 9771 0.9170
16 1 4955 1 4115 1 3409 1 2886 1 1870 1.1064 1 03S1 0 9254 0 8331
18 1 6454 5615 1 4906 1 4372 1 3304 1 2426 1 1665 1 03M U 9365 0.8497
2 0 1 7567 1 6785 1 6129 1 5631 1 4613 1.3744 1 2962 1 159' 1 0448 0 94 S3 0 8656 0.7934
2 2 1 8332 1 7625 1 7037 1 6583 I 5677 1 4879 1 4139 1 2785 1 1572 1 0514 0 9600 0 8806
2 4 1 8847 1 8210 1 768S 1 7295 1 6488 1 5779 1 5114 1 3852 1 2665 1 IS6S 1 0581 0 9710
2 6 1 9197 1 861G 1 8149 1 7801 1 7089 1 6465 1 587$ 1 4746 1 3645 1 2579 1 1571 1 0644
2 8 1 9434 1 8903 1 8481 1 8167 1 7533 1 6983 1 6464 1 5463 1 4471 1 3432 1 2SOS 1 1573
3 0 1 9600 1 9100 1 8722 1.8437 1 7866 1 7374 1.6914 1 602- 1 5143 1.4348 1 3344 1 2445
3.2 I 7674 1 7260 1 6469 1 5682 1 4880 1 4057 1.3222
3.4 1 681 i 1 6112 1 5394 1 4653 1 3890
3 6 1 64SS 1 5811 1 5144 1.4452
3 8 1 6152 1 5548 1 4922
4.0 1 1 5883 1 5313
1
4 2 1 5640
t
0.80 0.90 ion 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.80
1
2 2 0 8107 0 74%4
2 4 0 8944 0 5267 0 7659 0 7109
2 6 0 9811 0 9072 0 8412 0 7820 0 72S2 0 8788
2 8 1 0700 0 9903 0 9189 0 8545 0 7966 0 7440 0 6956
3 0 1.1573 1 0747 0 99S5 0 9292 0 8666 0 8100 0 75S4 0 7110 0 6672
3 2 1 2386 1 1568 1 0786 1 0055 0 9385 0 8776 0 8222 0 7716 0 7251 0 6820 0 6419
3 4 1 3112 1 2329 1 1558 1 0815 1 0115 0 9467 0 8874 0 8332 0 7836 0 7380 0 6957
3 6 1 3738 1 3009 1 2272 1 1544 1 0837 1 0166 0 9540 0 8962 0 8433 0 7946 0 7498
3 8 1 4272 1 3600 1 2911 1 2215 1 1524 1 0851 1 0207 0 9602 0 9O40 0 8524 0 8046
4 0 1 4722 1 4106 1 3470 1 2818 1 2158 1 1501 1 0858 1 0240 0 9655 0 9109 0 8603
4 2 1 5100 1 4537 1 3962 1 3348 1 2728 1 2100 1 1474 1 0858 1 0264 0 9699 0 9169
4 4 1 5420 1 4900 1 4366 1 3806 1 3231 1 2640 1 2041 1 1443 1 0853 1 0282 0 9736
4 6 1 4721 1 4200 1 3671 1 3118 1 2555 1 1982 1 1409 1 0844 1 0293
4.8 1 5026 1.4649 1 4055 1 3541 1 3012 1 2470 1.1922 1.1372 1 0829
so 1.4847 1 4389 1.3905 1.3417 1 2908 1.2387 1.1861 1.1333
5 2 1 4679 1.4235 1 3773 1 3297 1 2808 1 2306 1 1800
5 4 1 4519 1 4089 1 3643 1 3183 1 2710 1 2227
5 6 I 4366 1 3948 1 3517 1 3073 1 2612
5 8 1 4611 1 4220 1 3814 1 3395 1 2959
6 0 1 4460 1 4079 1 3685 1.3277
6 2 1 4315 1 3943 1 3559
6 4 1 4176 1 3812
6.6 1 4041
MOH 01 dVAid SS9
31HVI II'SI
30VJA"3DH3d SXNIOd JO \OSav3d S3AH(U>
'»<><'fl %S'Z nned jo »qi pMipjipont w*1"* *x) ~ '•/(* ■) " '(Si6'0
•rS, 00T> io-o ECO SCO 010 sro OZO 0E0 0*0 OSO 090 OiO
ri ptl*l I 9S0Z 1 9ZEZ I 6S*( i 6:sz

I » I CZZC I EZ8E I MI*' I E0E» i
I ESH on* I 9M* 1 Z*0*
1 9 I SS6* I IE9S 1 ZI09 I *IZ9 I r.EM
I ZZM I :6E9 I 0909 I W9S
81 1 MM I 6*U I i9Si I 608i 1
I 9*18 S8Z8 I OCT* i :si8 i nn I S6U 1 S6S9 1 9009
z 0 I LKl EEZ8I I 1998 I 8168 1 1EE6
I 18S6 1 SEZ6 I ££86 I 1696 1 OCT* SMI 1 [CIS
z z I ZCE8 i am 1 E9CT 1 9Z96 z liOO
Z iiEO Z 9090 Z ZOSO Z ►MI Z i960 z tzio c 6iJ0
Z * I i*«8 1 CZM' I Il«6 Z 9900 Z
Z 9190 ZMO Z 9011 MSIZ S Efiit Z 0961 z :66I o 1881
Z 9 I i6I6 i :zi6 I *600 Z RCT0 M10Z
Z 8011 ESEIZ Z *C8l Z i6IZ Z S8»Z Z SS9Z z iiw;
Z 8 I MM I SZG6 z rjzo z :oso Z 0C6O z mzi Z GZSt Z 9661 IKS'* Z SEiZ z zcoc r. ::ze
E 0 I 0096 Z 0900 i :9eo Z 6090 Z 9101 Z OCTI Z 0091 Z Z90Z Z MM Z ZE8Z z :9ic UK'Z
E Z z Z9EI EZ9IZ Z 9iOZ UK't Z SMZ Z Z6IC I OZM
E * z osoz Z DSVZ Z EI8Z Z 6SIE z Z6M
E 9 z to»z Z RSiZ Z 960E I KM
t 8 Z 069Z Z RIOT Z SKI
0* Z SE6Z z c»zc
* z Mi
1
080 060 001 Oil OZI i or o*i osi 091 on 081

^
Z 0 95HI I E089
Z Z I *99« 1 6MR 1 CZZ8 I ZCSi
Z * Z 98SI Z K60I Z IHO i :S9« 1 sZ68 I UIZS
Z 9 Z EISZ Z :99Z Z **€Z Z 6T-8I z SHI Z 99CO I MS6 i :M8
Z S Z 9SM Z ISSE z zcsc Z S9EE z szor z 9fi»z SCilZ Z 9660 z I0Z0 I ISM
E 0 Z I*i£ Z 99«£ uEI*'Z z ZIZ* Z ESI* Z KOO* Z 8S9E Z SUE z zo»z Z MSI r. :sio
C Z Z 6Z8E Z 911* Z liE* Z 98S* z r*:* Z 618* Z E8£* Z £09* z s*z» Z SMC Z 9i6Z
C » HREZ Z *ZI* z IZH Z S69* Z .1*6* Z WIS Z MES E8ESZ Z SMS z HIS I 06£»
£ 9 IMC'I Z 190* z i:c* z z:9» Z 196* Z 9EZS Z C8M Z C695 Z EMS Z 9169 Z UK
C 8 Z CS9E z M«r z CiZ* Z OSS* Z £88* Z IRIS z rik z 0»iS J -80S Z S6IS z i*w
* 0 Z 8WE Z IS8E z est* Z 9SH Z os:* r. 1909 CMC* :s«! Z 9MS I 81Z9 z WW
z* Z l*M Z MiE ao»T. z IZC* Z 919* Z *lfi* z nzs Hit! z *t«s Mir* z oo»«
** Z 9EEE z :I9E Z 006C Z C81* Z R9** z :si» z osos Z SMS Z *MS I SMS z **Z9
* 9 Z 9UE z :*o* Z EZE* Z 009* r. Z88» Z 89TS Z 09K s?:t! z mm
» 8 z :s9C Z 8I6E Z Z8l» Z fi**» z OZi* Z 96** Z 9iZS Z IKS Z 1S8S
OS :tzr'S Z OSO* Z *0£» Z S9S* Z 6Z8* Z 860S iasi ins:
zs ' Z SZ6E Z Oil* Z 81** Z U9* z sze*
Z MIS «KZ
S * Z EM* Z 182* z ezs* z »i* Z 6I0S z Sizs
S 9 Z ZSI* z net Z IZ»» Z 6S8* l OOIS
It Z CEO* Z 99Z* Z Z8*» IIIKl z im*
9 0 Z 9EI* z zsc» Z EiS* Z S6i*
it z zcz* t mt Z 6S»»
9♦ Z «C* Z OCS*
9 9 z om
1
TABLE 15.12
Lower 1% pom u of the iUndardixed varute U. — »)/», (a - 0.Q1). Note: If »i > 0, the deviatca
in this Uble *rc n«>u«t
0.00 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70
1.2 1 1547 1 0899 1 0355 0 9954

14 1 3229 1 2468 1.1835 1 . 1371 1 0477 0.9771 0 9170
1.1 1 5079 1 4192 1 3453 1 2912 1.1876 1 1064 1 0381 0 9254 0 8331
1 S 1 6974 1.5996 1.5176 1.4569 I 3393 1.2462 1 . 1675 1 0396 0 9365 0 8497
2 0 1.8687 1.7685 1.6842 1 6212 1.4963 1 3946 1 3070 1.1617 1 0451 0 94S3 0 8656 0 7934
2.2 2 0097 1 9121 1.8304 1 7689 1 6450 1 5413 1 4494 1.2915 1 1609 1 0521 0 9600 0 8806
2 4 2.1207 2 0279 1.9509 1 8929 1 7753 1 6751 1 5K44 1 4226 1 2S25 1 1621 1 0594 0 9712
2 6 2 2067 2 1193 2 0475 1 9936 1 8842 1 7904 1 7042 1.5466 1 4042 1.2766 1 1642 1 0665
2 8 3 2737 2 1915 2 1244 2.0745 1 9734 1 $866 1 8065 1 6576 1 5190 1 3901 1 2722 1 1665
3 0 2 3263 2.2488 2 1861 2.1397 2 040! 1 9660 I 8920 1 7535 1 6223 1 4968 1 3783 1 2684
3 2 2 0314 1 9631 1 S350 1 7124 1 5934 1 47S2 1 3681
3 4 1 9037 1 75)00 1 6785 1 56S.S 1 4617
3 6 1 8562 1 7522 1 6492 1 5470
38 1 8159 ] 1 7196 1 6232
4 0 11 7809 1 5899
4.2 1 7495
1
SI 0.80 0.90 I.on 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40
1
1.51) 1.611 1.70 ISO
i
2 2 0 8107 0 7484 i
2 4 0 8944 0 8267 0 7659 0 7109

2 6 0 9816 0 9072 0 8412 0 7820 0 72S2 1
2 8 1 0731 0 9912 0 9189 0 8545 0 7966 0 7440 0 6956
3 0 1 1684 1 0790 0 9998 0 9295 0 8666 0 8100 U 7584 0 7110 0 6672
3 2 1 2648 1 1699 1 0842 1 0075 0 9391 0 8776 0 S222 0 7716 0 7251 0 6820 0 6419
3.4 1 3586 1 2612 1 1709 1 0885 1.0143 0 9477 0 8876 0 8332 0 7836 0 7380 0 6957
3 6 1 4467 1 3497 1.2574 1.1713 1 0921 1.0202 0 9552 0 8966 0 8433 0 7946 0 7498
3 8 1 5274 1 4329 1 3411 1 2534 1.1710 1 0948 1 0252 0 9619 0.9046 0 8524 0 8046
4 0 1 5997 1 5092 1 4199 1.3327 1 2492 1 1703 1 0969 1 0294 0 967K 0 9119 U 8606
4 2 1 6640 1.5781 1 4923 1 4074 1 3245 1 2446 1 1690 1 0982 1 0329 0 9729 0 9181
4.4 1 7208 1.6394 1 5580 1.4763 1.3954 1.3162 1 2399 1 1672 1 0989 1.0355 0 9772
4 6 1 6171 1.5390 1.4611 1.3838 1 3081 1 2347 1 1649 1.0990 1 0376
4.8 1 6699 1.5958 1.5213 1 4466 1 3725 1.2999 1.2296 I 1622 1 0986
5.0 1 6469 1.5757 1.5034 1 4325 1 3614 1.2916 1 2240 1.1591
5 2 1 6251 1 5567 1 4879 1 4185 1 3507 1.2836 1.2183
5.4 1.6045 1 5386 1 4720 1 4059 1 3400 1.2754
5.6 1 5848 1 5211 1 4569 1 3930 1.3295
5.8 1 6268 1 5658 1 5043 1 4424 1.3806
6.0 1 6068 1.5477 1 4880 1 4282
6.2 1.5875 1 5302 1.4724
6.4 1.5690 1.5133
1.5511
6 6
1
MOH 01 V A7J<f iS9
3iavi crsi
3OVXN30H3J SIXKM JO MOSHV3d S3AHH3
rtddq t % noiod p mt patifuvpma *1«iA»p **) - (" '*/ °) - (660
000 100 £00 900 010 910 020 OEO OVO 090 090 010
I 1KI I 9S0Z I 9ZEZ I 89K

1 » I 6ZSE 1 IE8C I 19l» I 80Et 1 £9» t om 1 8W»
1 9 I 6109 1 9819 I 6919 I 69£» 1 £K9 I 9E99 I BZW 1 £909 I W99
1 8 I »i69 MU'1 I 8028 mt'i tUI'l 1 Z918 I 9898 I 0ZE8 I I6U t 00Z1 I 8699
z 0 I 1898 I 196 1 I 6666 Z too Z »W0 Z ►610 Z 9180 Z 1090 Z 9H0 I ZE96 I IVOT I 1E18
ZZ Z 1600 Z 8160 Z SZH Z 9Z1I Z 91IZ Z SIM Z IKZ Z 8KZ Z WEZ Z 9981 Z 9EZ1 Z 1090
I * z 10ZI z woz Z ZI9Z Z 9ZSZ Z EZEE Z ZE9E Z 9E8E Z OEOt Z 600* Z 861£ Z 80>£ Z 8V8Z
Z 9 Z 190Z tat'i Z EEEE Z 6WE Ult'Z Z IZ9» Z 9il» Z £019 : C9Z9 6>ZS'S Z 9609 Z 98i»
Z 8 ttLZZ Z 69K isat'C z oiz> Z £08» Z HI9 Z 69K Z Z199 Z 9EI9 Z 0SZ9 I 80E9 Z 91Z9
E 0 Z £9Z£ Z E96E Z 9W Hi»Z Z 81Z9 Z 6999 Z 1969 Z »ZW Z £919 Z £001 Z 9911 Z iIZi
E Z Z 9Z09 Z 9££9 Z 6Z89 Z UZi Z £191 Z 9H1 Z 1161
S * Z 6Z11 Z 9E91 Z 9181 Z 8918 Z 06E8
E 9 z 9iu Z 1EI8 Z 09W Z EZ18
it Z 1ZE8 Z 6998 Z 1968
V 0 Z 0098 Z ZZI6
» Z z :ez6
'
080 060 1 00 uri Oil Ofl I Of 1 OS 091 | Oil I 08
z 0 I 99H
z z I 1Z16 I 9Vl>N 1 IZZ8
z » z fr>IZZ I HE Z sl)90 I H>96 I SZ68
I 9 Z 9l£» Z UG9E Z ZECZ z :suz Z 91ZI e:io i 1-996
z a Z 1669 Z IZ99 Z Z
1019 ZEVV Z 1E9E Z91Z Z 1981 E 9001 10ZO
E n Hlt't Z 1E01 Z Z
1919 99E9 Z lusv 101! Z ISZf Mt'I i«
91»Z ZU9I z :8:o
E Z Z 9008 Z IZ08 Z Z
9»61 £911 Z I9H ZZ01 I 6£» z tut b ii»» 69E6 z nvut
£ > Z 0998 Z ZG9S z ita Z WIS Z ii£9k 1Z>8 Z V608 Z 1E91 SZ01 ". :sZ9 Z 9EK
E 9 I 1968 Z GH6 Z 96Z6 Z 88C6 Z IZH E8E6 Z 19Z6 Z 8Z06 1 6:98 S6I8 z ::r:
£ 1 Z 9ZZ6 Z 69*6 Z Z996 Z 1ZS6 z ttlX 9Z00 7.UHJO Z £866 Z 8C86 Z696
* 0 Z COM Z Z196 Z 0166 £ 1ZI0 £ COEO 6HO E 6990 E 9190 £ 9190 EWO £ ►8E0
► Z Z 1E96 Z 8186 E 1100 £ 9ICO £ 9CVO 1E10 S680 E ZEOI £ 11 92 1111 C 6911
Z EZ96 Z ZI66 £ 9810 £ mo E 9890 1160 8111 GUI'S E 99*1 6:si 199
* t £ 99Z0 e can E CSiO EZOI 99ZI t H 89 E Z991 9E81 r.86i
B> e toco C 9190 E i£W) 0601 WEI E 8991 C 6811 ?M1 anz
9 0 C 1090 C 6990 EZII 11EI E EZ9I £ 6981 woz 96ZZ
9 Z £ 9:so I OH OOM 0M'f E V68I SZ1Z 99EZ
9 ^ SEN c i sac BM'I c 9681 StIZ «:n
9 9 £ 18E1 •arc e 9881 ieiz JiK
9 8 •sere E 1191 1 0981 onz 8»CZ
9 0 CKI'C e 0C8I z eioz c ozez
9 Z 8811 c e ccoz e 8:k
U e i86i
9 9 e sit:
TABLE 15.14
Lower 0.5% poinu of the Rudsrdiied deviate U. - »)/«, la - O.OOoi. Note: If m > 0. the riritw
is this uble are nettstive
0.00 0.01 0.03 0.05 a 10 0.15 0.20 0.30 0.4U 0.50 0.60 0.70
1 2 1 1547 1 0899 1 0355 0 9954

1 4 I 3229 1 2468 1 1835 1 1371 1 0477 0 9771 0 9170
18 1.5105 I 4206 1 3459 1 2915 1 1876 1 1064 1 0381 0 9254 0 8331
1 8 1 7147 1 6113 1.5252 1 4620 1 3411 1 2468 1.1680 1 0396 0 936.1 0 8497
2 0 1 9175 1 8057 1.7120 1 5420 1.5075 14«iil 3096 1 1621 1 (M.i 1 0 948.1 0 8656 0 7934
2 2 1.1006 1 9864 1 89U6 1 8190 1 6770 1 .5612! 1 4613 1 2949 1 MM 1 0521 0 116011 0 8X06
2 4 2 2562 2 1437 2 0496 1 9791 1 8375 1 71!I5|1 6152 1 4356 1 2<Wi 1 1632 1 11596 0 '1712
2 6 2 3846 2 2758 2.1854 2 1176 1 9809 1 8054 1 7616 1 5774 1 4185 1 2820 1 165$ 1 1)668
2 S 2 4896 2.3851 2 2990 2 2348 2 1050 1 9946 1 8943 1 7126 1 5.502 1 4050 1 2787 1 1687
3 0 2.5758 2 4758 2 3939 2 3330 2 2105 2 10C2 2 0110 1 *J62 1 6760 1 52S7 1 3952 1 2760
1.1 2 2017 ! 1120 1 9460 I 7915 1 6462 I 5107 1 3SCO
3 4 2 0422 1 8951 1 7547 1 6210 1 4947
3 6 I 9869 1 852S I 7232 1 5986
3 8 1 9400 1 3161 1 6952
4 0 1 8997 1 7836
4.2 1 8634
0.80 0.9O 1.00 1. 10 1.20 1.30 1.40 1.50 1 60 1.70 1.80

*i\
2 2 0 8107 0 7484
2 4 0 8944 0 82G7 0 7659 0 7109
2 6 0 9816 0 9072 0 8412 0 7820 0 7282
2 S 1 0736 0 9912 0 9189 0.8545 0 6956
0 7966 j 0 7440
3 0 1.1713 1 0799 1 0000 0 9295 0 8666 !0 8100 0 7584 0 7110 0 6672
3.2 I 2735 1 1735 1 0854 1 0079 0 9391 |0 8776 0 8222 0 7716 0 7251 0 6820 0 6419
3 4 1.3776 1 2710 1 1752 1 0901 1 0148 !0 9477 0 8876 0 8332 (1 7836 0 73S0 0 6957
3 6 1 4803 1 3697 1 2682 1 1763 1 0941 | 1 0208 0 9554 0 8966 0 84X1 0 7946 0 7498
3 8 1.5783 1 4667 1 3619 1 2650 1 1768 1 0974 1 0261 0 9623 0 WM6 0 8524 0 8046
4 0 1.6700 1 5596 1.4538 1 3542 1 2616 1 1768 1 0999 1 03OG 0 9682 0 9119 0 8606
4 2 1.7540 1.6465 1 5420 1 4416 1 3465 1 2578 1.1761 1 1017 1 0343 0 9734 0 9183
4.4 1.8305 1 7263 I 6246 1 5254 1.4296 1 3388 1 2536 1 1749 1 1029 1 0373 0.9779
4.6 1 7014 1 6041 1 5094 1 4180 I 3309 1 2491 1 1732 1 1034 1 0397
4 8 1 7718 1 6774 1 5848 1 1 4941 1 4064 1 3230 1 2443 1 1710 1 1034
5.0 1 7453 1 6550 1 5661 1 4793 1 3953 1 3150 1 2391 1.1684
5.2 1.7202 1 6336 1.5483 1 4648 1 3842 1 3070 1 2338
5 4 1 6964 1.6132 1 5312 1 4509 1 3731 1 2987
5 6 1 6737 1 5935 1 5144 1 4373 1 3624
5 8 1 7298 1 6519 1 5746 1 4984 1 4238
6.0 1 7061 1 6309 1 5563 1 4827
6.2 1 6836 1 610S 1 5385
6 4 1 6618 1.5912
11 1 6408
HOW TO APPLY 659
TABLE 15.15
Upper 0.5% point* of Um itudtrdisad demia (z. - »)/•, (a - .995).
0.00 0.01 0.03 0.0S 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70
1.2 1.1547 1 2056 1 2325 1 2458

1.4 1 3229 1.3831 1.4151 1.4308 1 4453 1.4440 1 4348
16 1 5105 1 5820 1 6202 1.6388 1.6581 1 6443 1 6432 1 606.1 1 4804
18 1.7147 1 7974 1.8426 1.8655 1.8888 1 8893 1 8778 1.8341) 1 7796 1 7200 1 6498
2 0 1.9175 2 0079 2 0594 2 0870 2.1197 2.1278 2.121 9 2 084-1 2 0248 1.9569 1 8847 1 8137
22 2 1006 2 1946 2 2502 2 2818 2.3242 2.3420 2 345« 2 3251) 2 2784 2 2133 2 1366 2 0547
2 4 2 2462 2 3506 2 4084 2 4426 2.4928 2.5192 2 5322 2.531 t 2 505: 2.4577 2.3928 2 3145
2 6 2 3846 2.4776 2 5362 2 5719 2 6273 2 6603 2 681 0 2.698 1 2 6914 2 6652 2 6212 2 5607
2 S 2 48% 2 5805 2.6389 2 6753 2.7340 2.7715 2.797 6 2.8281» 2.8377 2 8304 2.8072 2.7687
3 0 2 5758 2 6639 2 7217 2 7583 2.8188 2 8594 2 889 3 2 929 2 2 9505 2.9580 2 9521 2 9333
3 2 2.9294 2.963» 3 0084 3 0386 3 0566 3.0636 3 0601
3 4 3 071 2 3 1075 3 1329 3 1492 3.1570
3 6 3.1618 3 1928 3.2157 3.2317
3 8 3 2397 3 2680 3.2898
4 0 3.3092 3 3352
4.2 3 371!
—I—
0.80 0.90 1 00 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.80
2 0 1 7455
o o 1 9733 1 8056 1 8223
2 4 2 227S 2 1383 2 0515 1.9694 1 8928
2 6 2.4854. 2 3996 2 3069 2.212>J 2 1222 2 0373 1.9484
2 S 2 7151 2 6466 2 5653 2 4741 2 3774 2 2804 2 1875 2 1006
3 0 2 9010 2.8550 2.7950 2 7213 2 6356 2 5409 2 4415 2 3426 2.2483 2 1602
3 2 3 0456 3 0197 2.9815 2 9300 2 8654 2 7879 2 6990 2 6019 2 5008 2 4007 2 3056
3 4 3.1561 3 1460 3 1258 3 0949 3 0422 2 9071 2 9289 2 8484 2.7572 2 6483 2.5562
3 e 3.2406 3 2421 3 2360 3 2213 3 1972 3 1624 3 1163 3 0579 2.9869 2.9041 2.8111
3 S 3 3055 3 3158 3 3200 3.3173 3.3072 3.2890 3.2417 3.2239 3.1748 3.1138 3 0406
4 0 3 3565 3 3726 3 3841 3 3902 3 3909 3.3848 3 3717 3.3510 3.3208 3 2805 3 2291
4 2 3 3962 3.4173 3 4339 3 4484 3 4346 3 4579 3 4446 3 4468 3.4318 3 4083 3.3759
4 4 3 4279 3 4513 3 4724 3 4899 3.5038 3 5137 3 4192 3 5202 3.5155 3 5051 3 4875
4 6 3 5031 3.5241 3 6419 3.3464 3.4677 3.5756 3.5793 3.5782 3.5718
4.8 3 3275 3 5510 3.5714 3.3900 3.6043 3.6183 3 6277 3.6335 3 6354
5 0 3.5721 3 5948 3 6136 3 6342 3 6512 3 6647 3 6760 3.6840
5 2 3 6136 3.6364 3.6469 3 6764 3 6937 3.7084 3.7206
5 4 3.6524 3 6755 3 6969 3 7155 3.7328 3.7493
SI 3 6900 3. 7116 3.7333 3 7528 3.7709
5 8 3.7008 3 7245 3.7467 3.7681 3.7873
6 0 3.7341 3.7572 3.7796 3 8010
0 2 3 7645 3.7885 3.8111
0 4 3.7949 3.8183
6 6 3.8247

Do the following:
1. Prepare following table using linear interpolation:
/?i(n_i) = 0.10 /?i(„) = 0.20 pl(n+l) = 0.30 ft(n+2) = 0.40
3.4 1.2911 1.3109 1.3303 1.3493

05 = 3.49 ., = 1.2848 z'n = 1.3041 'n + l = 1.3223 'n + 2 = 1.3406
" 3.6 1.2771 1.2957 1.3125 1.3299
2. Now that we have four values of z corresponding to $\ — 3.49, we
have to interpolate for /?J = 0.27, as follows:
From the previous table
z'n_x = 1.2848,
< = 1.3041, (Si = -0.0011),
z'n+1 = 1.3223, («*+, = -0.0001),
and
z'n+2 = 1.3406.
Using these values, find
6* = 1.3223 - 2 (1.3041) + 1.2848 = -0.0011,
Sl+1 = 1.3406 - 2 (1.3223) + 1.3041 = 0.0001.
These values are used to calculate
9 = [# - ft (n)] 10,
0 = [(0.27) - (0.20)] 10 ■ (0.07) 10,
or
9 = 0.7.
Substitution of these values into Eq. (15.17) yields
z' = (1 - 6)z'n + 9 ■ z'n+l -±9(1-9) (S2 •< + fi»+1 • ~<+1) ,
= (1 - 0.7) (1.3041)+ (0.7)(1.3223)

-i(0.7)(l-0.7)[(-0.0011)(1.3041) + (0.0001)(1.3223)],
= 0.39123 + 0.92561 - (0.0525)[(-0.0014345)+ (0.0001322)],
= 1.31684 - (0.0525)(-0.0013023),
= 1.31684 + 0.000068,
HOW TO APPLY 661
or
z* = 1.316908.
The value of z', z" = 1.3169, corresponds to /3J = 3.49, /?j = 0.27,
and a = 0.90.
EXAMPLE 15-2
Given j3j = 4.92, 0J = 0.76, and a = 0.10 find the lower 10%
percentage point, a — 0.10, z value.
SOLUTION TO EXAMPLE 15-2 i
Do the following:
Prepare the following table using linear interpolation:
A &<„_!) = 0.60 0i(„) = 0.70 A(n + 1) = 0.80 A(n + 2) = 0.90
4.80 1.1593 1.1535 1.1467 1.1391

/?2* = 4.92 'n-l= 1.1573 < =1.1519 'n+l = 1.1455 <+2 = 1.1384
5.00 1.1560 1.1508 1.1447 1.1379
The four z' values found are as follows:

<_, = 1.1573,
2^ = 1.1519, (6l = -0.001),
z'n+1 = 1.1455, (62n+1 = -0.0007),
and
z'n+2 = 1.1384.
Using these values, find
Si = 1.1455 - 2 (1.1519) + 1.1573 -0.001,
Sl+1 = 1.1384 - 2 (1.1455) + 1.1519 -0.0007,
6 = [(0.76) -(0.7)] 10,
and
9 = 0.6.
Substitution of these values into Eq. (15.17) yields

z' = (1-0.6)(1. 1519) +(0.6)(1. 1455)
--(0.6)(1 - 0.6)[(-0.001)(1.1519)+ (-0.0007)(1.1455)],
or
t* = 1.148177.
The value of z', z* = 1.1482, has to have a negative sign because
a = 0.10; consequently, z* = —1.1482, corresponds to /JJ = 4.92,
PI = 0.76, and a = 0.10.
Tables 15.2 and 15.3 were generated using the previously presented
interpolation procedure and the tables given in [4].
The following table provides a comparison of the to.90, *o.95 and £0.99
values obtained using the Central Limit Theorem and the Moments
Method:
Comparison of the results
Central Limit Method of
Theorem, Moments,
hr hr
*0.90 59.1 59.3
<0.95 61.2 62.0
*0.99 65.2 67.4
There is a close correspondence for the 90th and 95th percentiles, but
a significant divergence for the 99th percentile.
The normal pdf approximation is frequently least adequate at the
extreme tails of a distribution. The moments method approximation
"turns out to be better than expected" and the retention of only the
lowest order terms is frequently adequate! The method is limited to
functions to which a Taylor's series expansion about the mean exists
and the partial derivatives are not too difficult to obtain and are mod
erate in number. Numerical methods may be used to find the partial
derivatives.
15.1.5 METHOD 3 - MONTE CARLO SIMULATION

This method is another one for obtaining information about system
performance from component data. It consists of "building" many
systems by computer calculations and evaluating the performance of
such synthesized systems. In the case of the test-and-repair time distri
bution determination and the determination of the various percentiles
thereof, the following Monte Carlo Simulation procedure may be used:
HOW TO APPLY 663
1. Determine the function relating the independent variables to the

dependent variable, or relating the inputs to the output, or
or
i = f(hih,hiU,h,t6)-
2. Determine the distribution of each independent variable, or in

put, or
f(h),f(h)J(h)J(t4),f(h) and /(te),
or the pdf's of the test-and-repair times at each one of the six
stations, as given in Fig. 15.1 and Table 15.1.
3. Determine the cumulative distribution function of each variable,
or input, as shown in Fig. 15.2.
4. Generate a random number, uniformly distributed between zero
and one, for each random variable. Uniformly distributed ran
dom numbers having values between 0 and 1, or U(0, 1), are il
lustrated in Fig. 15.3. The uniform, or rectangular, distribution
function is given by
Ho < t < Mil
/(*;m.,/*i)= (*y elsewhere,
or in this case
Rn<1,
J{RN\Ho = 0,/ii = 1)= |0 el_
elsewhere.
5. Obtain a set of randomly chosen values for each random variable

from
Rn -"-Hi = / /(«.-) dt,

oo or 7
J—oo
where
i: = 1, 2, • • • , 6 = random variables involved,
and
j = 1,2,- ••, 10,000,- •• = number of trials, or sets of random
numbers generated,
or do as shown in Fig. 15.4.
dcthe
i15.2b
DFig.
usemturilebarutm-ivone
vof
fati
urnicatbiloen
F(l2)
cthe
dufor
PFig.
emr15.2a
utolecaretm-diuvnreing
vof
fdaiursntircaitbuiltoien
t\.
cDiuesmtuerliabmtuinvoen
dthe
vfaute
of rnicatbiloen
Fig.
2d
15.
Fig.
dcthe
Di15.2c
uesmtureilrba-umtinvoe
vfof
a£3.
urnicatbiloen
«,
F(l,)
OS
Fig. 15.3 - Uniformly distributed random numbers having

values between 0 and 1.
sfinding
randomly
PFig.
for
15.4b
esr15.4a
leoacledt-cuetrded
vvalue
ofat\.
of
rt6.
iable
F(t6)
vN-U-«,
Rn-u-
8
Finding
Fig.
s10,000
randomly
15.5a
15.5b
eFinding
lormoreec-t-edd
vt\.
of
values
at6.
riable
t,i,10,000
N-ll-S,
10,000
-•
F(g
',.
HOW TO APPLY 669
6. Repeat many times, j = 10, 000 or more preferably, as shown in

Fig. 15.5.
7. Substitute the values of each set; i.e., *i,i; ^2,1; • ■ -;*6,i) mto the
output function, and determine a random value of the output, or
Y\ = /(*i4i*m;,,,;*m)i
Yfl = f(h,N\h,\]---;tn,N),
or
*i = h,i + h,i + h,\ + ^4,1 + '5,1 + *6,i,
tN = i\,N + h,N + <3,N + <4,N + is,N + 'o,N,

where
N = 10,000 or more, preferably.
For example, one set of such random values for each variable
could be
Station number 1 2 3 4 5 6
Random value,
ti, hr 11.3 17.5 1.9 6.3 0.3 9.2
Then, a randomly determined value of the total test-and-repair

time, t\, would be
6
tx = £ ti = 11.3 + 17.5 + 1.9 + 6.3 + 0.3 + 9.2,
t=i
or
fi = 46.5 hr.
8. Arrange these Y , or t, values in ascending value, or order, or

Yi <Y2<Y3<-<YN.
9. Find the a-percentile value desired from the

ranked observation, where N is the total number of observations.

In this example the 90th percentile for N — 100 is obtained from
0.90(100+ 1) = 90.9th,
ranked observation in 100 simulations. If the 90th observation
was 58.8 hr and the 91st was 59.4 hr, the estimate of the 90th
percentile would be
58.8 + (90.9 - 90)(59.4 - 58.8) = 59.3 hr.
Similarly, the 95th percentile would be 61.0 hr, and the 99th
percentile would be 70.3 hr. These compare closely with those of
the previous two methods, as shown in the following table:
Percentile - hr
90th 95th 99th
Method 1 59.1 61.2 65.2
Method 2 59.3 62.0 67.4
Method 3 59.3 61.0 70.3
10. Calculate the four moments from the Monte Carlo values of the
output, or of t, and use these in a Pearson distribution approxi
mation; namely, /?i and /?2, or obtain an empirical fit to the his
togram constructed from the Monte Carlo values and find the ap
proximations to the desired percentiles. The moments calculated
from the Monte Carlo values are very close to those obtained by
the moments method, consequently, similar approximations are
obtained.
11. Fit several distributions which are chosen to be potentially ac

ceptable (empirically and/or phenomenologically) using one or
more of the following techniques:
1. Probability plotting.
2. Maximum likelihood estimators.
3. Matching moments.
4. Least squares.
5. Parameters calculation.
Apply goodness-of-fit tests and criteria, together with the co

efficients of skewness and kurtosis values and phenomenological
HOW TO APPLY 671
Fig. 15.6 - The calculation of the a percentile of t, or ta,

using Eq. (15.18).
considerations to decide on the best distribution to use. The

Q-percentile can then be calculated from
a= r /(t) dt = M(ta), (15.18)

J —00,0,7
as shown in Fig. 15.6. The histogram of the generated simulated

t values is shown in Fig. 15.7.
__ _ i _ _
35
30
25
E
1 20
10
X
From 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0 60.0 65.0 70.0
To 39.9 44.9 49.9 54.9 59.9 64.9 69.9 74.9
Total hours
Fig. 15.7 - Checkout times for 100 simulations.

GENERATION OF RANDOM VALUES 673
15.2 GENERATION OF RANDOM VALUES FOR

VARIOUS DISTRIBUTIONS
The successful implementation of Monte Carlo simulation techniques
requires the efficient generation of random values from the various
distributions frequently used in Reliability and Maintainability Engi
neering. Table 15.16 provides algorithms whereby random values may
be generated for eight different continuous and two different discrete
distributions. The following references give additional algorithms for
generating random values from well known distributions:
1. "Handbook of Mathematical Functions,'' Edited by Milton
Abramowitz and Irene A. Stegun, Dover Publications, Inc., 180
Varvic St., New York 10014, 1046 pp., pp. 952-953, 1970.
2. "Simulation Modeling and Analysis," Averill M. Law and W.
David Kelton, Mc Graw-Hill Book Co., 1221 Avenue of the Amer
icas, New York 10020, 400 pp., pp. 253-271, 1982.
3. "A Note on The Generation of Random Normal Deviates," G.E.P.
Box and Mervin E. Miller, Annals of Mathematical Statistics,
Vol. 29, pp. 610-611, 1958.
15.3 ERROR BOUNDS AND NUMBER OF MONTE

CARLO TRIALS
Monte Carlo estimates have associated error bounds. The larger the
number of trials the more precise the final answer is. Given the error
with which the answer is to be determined the required number of
trials can be determined.
If we want to know the confidence interval about the maintainabil
ity for a test-and-repair time of 60 hr, we can determine it by using the
number of trials involved and binomial distribution confidence bounds.
For example if 94 trials out of 100 gave a total test-and-repair time of
60 hr or less, then,
* = ^ = 0-94- j
If we desire to know the 95% confidence interval about p, then we use
the 95% confidence interval tables for the binomial pdf. Enter Fig.
15.8 with p = 0.94, go to the sample size 100 curves and read off the
95% confidence limits. In this case
!
Ggiven
dsof
various
from
values
random
eitnearinbadutaironds xj
value
random
obtain
Prto
ocedure
y-■
(*H-y\
-l|oge(l
y'
-/?„)
+7.
= **-*»
f.' e+(t+A)«V
'../_ cV
'2
normal,
svalues.
random
and
uniform,
R^,
Ru,
tandard ,{..«.,}
<
\
•el
J
>
/v00,
—00t
y
lJ
''")]),
e{
(L—
/(«)
0<y<oo.
= KiSsfe)]1},
.e{-ib+i
Ae<y<e
+.
Probability
function
density
r~%
1'
1l—
fl,.\
0
<*
</5rt/—*-j
I$je~,»/'1,
/(»)
0<y<oo.
=
ef(y)
<*-W,
A7<i/<oo.
"A
=
[(y_e)»+Asji
y*w
i
-2
/13/J
j^
— r{*>
*'J
fln\ 'J
f(iA
Dito
stribution values
(integral
sbe
imulated
Exponential
Cli -square Lognormal Su
Johnson Sy
Johnson
TABLE
15.16 Gamma
of/?)
P\/
value
random
obtain
rto
ocedure
y'
lowest—
the
is
fc
where
k,
that
such
integer E-i °g,(i-^)>i- /
i#u,
0<
pf, i(
1
RVi
>p,
f
E
E"^+
«Jri
-/?„)]*.
[_loge(l
^ +
7
7,
=
a-r+3-i
3y
where«i
=Sr„-,
i
,/
l
=_ 2,- ,n. 6
l,1= is
and
/fo
d1.
with
normal
the
random
from
i/Z/v
is
sta<rrfi nistmoreeoverrirbvutailon Rfji-
=ueivaabution than
(1,0).
idfrom
When
uniform
the
value
random values
All
dtypical
Rw
is
value
required,
esareorasiaonegnated
1=1
A1=1 *!/'*,=
E
y
rfSrfe^-1
(/^)
i0<y<l.
-y=)" 1. (nMO-p)n-y>
0.1,2,
f(y)
■••,«•
y
=
fPruonbcatbiolnity
density
•-1e-<*)')
h/(»)
0<y<cc.
=
^,
/(»)=**
0,ly
=,2,- .
242-243].
[1,
another
itaken
of
ndpp.
eonependently
CTABLE
o15.16
ntin-ued.
Dito
stribution be
simulated 7)
values
ofn
and
(integral Binomial
Weibull Poisson
Beta
OS 51
-x/n
IHIMtligitllllKtulHOHeU tlOtn OHQIlllldOOUtHtHOHttllUDUfltt »USH
EM 0 0: 0 04 OC* OM 0 10 0 12 0 11 0 M 0.11 0 70 071 0 H a n 0/1 0 30 OH DM OH O.M M 0.41 0 44 0.44 0 10 lit

x/n *■
Fig. 15.8 - 95% binomial confidence limits for p = ■ and

various sample sizes n [5].
ERROR BOUNDS 677
pL2 = 0.875,
and
PU2 = 0.975.
Therefore,
P[0.875 < M{t = 60 hr) < 0.975] = 0.95,
whereas for N = 100 trials
M(t = 60 hr) = 0.94.
To increase the accuracy; i.e., to narrow the confidence bounds about
M(t), the number of Monte Carlo trials, JV, should be increased. For
example for N = 1,000 the confidence limits for a CL = 0.95 become
PL2 = 0.925,
and
PU2 = 0.955,
if 940 of the trials gave t < 60 hr, where now
940
P = 1,000 = 0.940.
Then,
P[0.925 < M(t = 60 hr) < 0.955] = 0.95,
or a significantly narrower interval within which the actual maintain
ability lies, with 1,000 Monte Carlo trials.
The process may also be used to determine the number of Monte
Carlo trials which provide the maximum allowable error, E, in esti
mating M(t). To accomplish this specify E, CL, and p', an initial
estimate of p, or of M(t). For example, I want to be 95% sure that my
M(t) estimate will not differ by more than ±0.05 from the final esti
mated value. Assume an initial estimate of p' = 0.80. If 1,000 Monte
Carlo trials are conducted and 800, or 80%, have values t < 60 hr, the
resulting 95% confidence interval for M(t) is
P[0.775 < M{t = 60 hr) < 0.825] = 0.95,
from Fig. 15.8. Similarly, for N = 400
P[0.755 < M(t = 60 hr) < 0.840] = 0.95,
and for N = 200

P[0.735 < M(t = 60 hr) < 0.852] ■ 0.95.
Because we wish to estimate M(t) within ±0.05 with 95% confidence,
or within 0.750 and 0.850, somewhat more than 200 trials are required.
As we require often more than 1,000 trials and such binomial charts
may not be available, one may estimate the needed N, given E and p'
from the normal pdf approximation of the binomial pdf as follows:
E = ±*i_a ey, (15.19)
where
A, I
P'(l-P')
(15.20)
N
and substitution of Eq. (15.20) into Eq. (15.19) yields
_ ,2 f V f >
E' Z|
1 Q
2
N
Solving for N yields
P'(l-P')
N £2 zl'Ia . (15.21)
Zi^s. is the (1 — a/2) 100 percentile point of the standardized normal

pdf. For
a
CL 0.90=1 -a; a = 0.10; - = 0.05,
■21-0.05 = 20.95 = 1-645,
for
CL = 0.95 = 1 - a; a = 0.05; | = 0.025,
21-0.025 = 20.975 = 1-960,
and for
Q
CL = 0.99 = 1 - a; a = 0.001; - = 0.005,
^1-0.005 = 20.995 = 2.576.
In this case, for a CL = 0.95,

^(0.80)(0.20)
(0.05)2
ERROR BOUNDS 679
or
N £ 246.
This approximation is usually adequate for N p' or N (1 — p') equal to
or greater than 5. If a one-sided bound is needed, instead of two-sided
bounds, then only the difference of the upper (or lower) curve from
the diagonal line of Fig. 15.8 is used to find N. In the equation for N
use zX-a instead of zx_s. , or 1.282 for 90% CL, 1.645 for 95% CL and
2.326 for 99% CL. It must be noted that in finding N, an estimate of p,
or of M(t ), was required, which is the very quantity to be determined
by the Monte Carlo study. This is because the size of the confidence
interval is a function of p, or M (t), as can be seen from examining
Fig. 15.8 and Eq. (15.21) for N. The largest sample size, however, is
required when p = 0.5. Therefore, if p is not known ahead of time, use
p' = 0.5 to get the most conservative sample size. Or conduct some
Monte Carlo trials, get an estimate of p', and use this to obtain N and
the additional trials to get the desired accuracy or error bounds.
To find N for a desired error, E, in estimating the mean of the
output, or t, with a desired CL = 1 — a, the estimate of the standard
deviation, at is needed. Then,
2i-f °t
N = (15.22)
Conversely, after the Monte Carlo simulation trials are completed, N

is known, t and at can be calculated, CL = 1 — q chosen, and the
confidence limits about t determined from
Oj y
(*-*l-| <t<t + Zja CL,
Vn s/Nj
wherefrom the error on t is
E = ±z1_°2 4L.
y/N
15.4 CONCLUDING REMARKS
Overall, the system moments method used in conjunction with the

Pearson or Johnson distribution approximation, appears to be the most
economical approach, and provides an adequate approximation under
most conditions. It also allows us to analyze the relative importance
of each component variable by examining the magnitude of its par

tial derivative. As a result it might be desirable to set more stringent
tolerances on those components that contribute most heavily to the
system's variance. This method does not require a knowledge of the
component distributions, but only estimates of the moments. If the
system is very complex and the moments method cannot be used con
veniently, use Monte Carlo simulation.
EXAMPLE 15-3
A truck repair-and-checkout facility consists of three stations where
each incoming truck gets served by going successively through Stations
1 through 3. The total repair-and-checkout time, t, of this facility is
given by
3
where the t{ are the respective repair-and-checkout times in each sta

tion. The repair-and-checkout- times distributions for each one of the
three stations are the following:
1. Station 1
V \ V )
where
P = 2.0, tj - 3.0 hr and 7 = 0.5 hr.
2. Station 2
t at'V2 tt
where
V = 0.5 loge hr and ert< = 1.0 loge hr.
3. Station 3
where
/? = 6 and 77 = 4 hr.
ERROR BOUNDS 681
Do the following:
1. Find the time to repair-and-checkout for the maintainabilities of
90%, 95% and 99%, using the Monte Carlo Simulation method,
with 100, 1,000 and 5,000 t values.
2. Discuss the simulation results.

Twelve separate, independent simulations were conducted. The
results are given in Table 15.17, for N = 100, 1,000 and 5,000 simula
tions, and for the 90th, 95th and 99th percentiles, respectively.
A substantial variation among the Monte Carlo simulation results
may be seen. These may come from the following sources:
1. The statistical nature of the random number generator; i.e.,
choice of seed, uniformity and independence.
2. Bad algorithm for random sampling.
3. Errors in numerical calculations.
4. The limited number of simulations used.
The mean, range and variance of the results in Table 15.17 are
given in Table 15.18 and plotted in Figs. 15.9, 15.10 and 15.11. It
may be seen that the simulation results converge as the number of
simulations, N , increases; i.e., for a particular value of the percentile,
p, the range and standard deviation values decrease as N increases.
Also, the variation in the simulated percentiles strongly depends on
the value of p; i.e., for the same number of simulations, on the average,
the variation increases as the percentile increases. For example, for the
case of N = 100, the variance for the 99th sample percentile is larger
than that of the 95th and 90th percentiles. This may be explained as
follows:
Consider that the variation of the simulation results is only caused
by the limited number of simulations. Let F(t) and f(t) be the cdf
and pdf of the test-and-repair times, t, and let the ti(i = 1, 2, • • • , M)
be a sample from t of size M, obtained by simulations. Arrange the
ti(i = 1, 2, • • • , M) in increasing value, and denote this set by Q \k =
1,2,--,M). Then £{kM) is the order statistic of t. The f[M)'s are
random variables with the following cdf [1, pp. 124-128]
M
W*) = P(tiM) < ') = £ [*\*)]n[l - F(x)]lM-r.
_L_
TABLE 15.17 - Summary of the Monte Carlo simulation

results for Example 15-3.
TV = 100
J 90th 95th 99th
1 9.856 12.651 21.351
2 8.517 * 11.251 * 36.933 **
3 11.780 15.140 22.030
4 10.699 12.500 19.892
5 12.900 ** 15.980 ** 19.400
6 10.660 15.070 33.200
7 11.766 15.147 22.029
8 9.203 11.611 29.127
9 12.610 15.220 29.660
10 11.600 14.000 22.600
11 12.123 13.400 18.097 *
12 10.319 14.288 31.090
N = 1,000
3 90th 95th 99th
1 11.497 15.122 ** 23.862 **
2 9.659 * 13.614 22.251
3 10.990 14.200 20.800
4 10.963 12.676 * 19.500
5 10.890 13.140 19.830
6 10.640 12.820 21.500
7 10.987 14.203 20.800
8 10.727 13.222 18.619 *
9 11.070 13.910 20.190
10 11.100 13.400 21.000
11 11.511 ** 14.494 23.310
12 10.802 13.482 21.375
// = 5,000t
J 90th 95th 99th
1 11.272 ** 14.085 ** 22.023
2 9.165 * 11.999 * 21.542
3 11.250 13.790 21.659
4 10.560 12.960 20.250
5 10.557 12.417 20.435
6 11.100 13.710 22.080
7 10.511 13.159 20.088 *
8 11.250 13.940 21.890
9 11.044 13.577 21.783
10 11.209 13.701 23.032 "
11 11.122 13.577 21.462
The minimum value in the column.
** The maximum value in the column.
t One simulation missed this case.
ERROR BOUNDS 683
TABLE 15.18 - Statistical comparison of the simulation

results of the 00th, 05th and 00th per
centiles for Example 15-3.
90th percentile
Number of simulations
N = 100 N = 1,000 N = 5,000
Mean, hr 11.011 10.903 10.822" 10.9900f
Range, hr 4.473 1.852 2.107 0.7620
Variance, hr2 1.886 0.224 0.392 0.0997
95th percentile
N = 100 N = 1,000 N = 5,000
Mean, hr 13.850 13.690 13.354
Range, hr 4.729 2.446 2.086
Variance, hr2 2.422 0.519 0.431
99th percentile
N = 100 N = 1,000 N = 5,000
Mean, hr 25.451 21.086 21.477
Range, hr 18.836 5.243 2.944
Variance, hr2 38.624 2.310 0.790
For the case of N — 5,000 there were only 11 simulation results.
Among the 1 1 sets of simulations there was an extreme value
for the 90th percentile, the results listed in this column include
this extreme value.
f Without the extreme value.
N • 100 N • 1,000 N - 5,000
20 -
-^- Range » 4. 4 73
15 Range ■ 1.352
Range • 2.107
E
J
Standard
deviation • 0.626
-— Mean • 10.322
I Mean ■ 1I.311-' j Mean 10. 903 <—L-r-
10
1 * Standard
—
—
*— deviation
» 0.473 - A
i
n—
5-
90th percentiles
Fig. 15.9 - The plot of the simulation results for the 90th
percentile, in terms of the mean, range and stan
dard deviation for Example 15-3.
ERROR BOUNDS 685
N - 100 N « 1,000 N » 5,000
Range • 2.086
/■Standard
viation * 0.657
1
* *-Slean ■ 13.554
Standard
deviation»0."0
9Sth percentiles
Fig. 15.10 — The plot of the simulation results for the 95th
N ■ 100 N - 5,000
Range • IS. Sit -

E7
JS _
Standard
deviation ■
3:
X
X
Meaji.:S.J51
\
z
:s
v~?e ' 5 . C-3
Range ■ :.94J
X
X
1
L
rL- Standard
X deviation » C.339
X
^- Mean - x:i.0S6
Standard
1
i
4c Mean » II. *T
20 deviation » ^ I ■ SCO
*—
99th percentiles.
Fig. 15.11 - The plot of the simulation results for the 99th
PROBLEMS 687
and with pdf

d[$kM(x)]
<PkM(x) =
dx
Let k = [Mp], 0 < p < 1, where A; is the largest integer less than or
equal to Mp. £k is the sample percentile. Let F(ap) = p, where ap
is the percentile of the population. Assume that the pdf of t exists and
is differentiate at ap. It is shown in Appendix 15A that the sample
percentile £k ' is asymptotically normally distributed with mean ar
and standard deviation [l//(op)] • \/p(l — p)/M, i.e.,
dM) ~ * K, 1 IpJX-p) (15.23)

/(«,) M
where ap is the corresponding percentile of the population. Therefore

the following conclusions may be drawn:
1. The errors are not deterministic.
2. For given significance level, a, the maximum error, emaXiQ has
the same order of magnitude as \j\fM.
3. The maximum error is given by
cmM,a
~ Vp(i-p).
/(<*,)
i.e., emax,a depends on the value of p and of f(a) at ap.
4. The larger deviation of the 99th sample percentiles is due to
the larger value of \/0.99 (1 - 0.99)//(o0.99), because /(ao.99) is
smaller.
PROBLEMS
15-1. A truck repair-and-checkout facility consists of four stations where

each incoming truck gets serviced by going successively through
Stations 1 through 4. The total repair-and-checkout time, T, of
this facility is given by
«=i
where t{ is the respective repair-and-checkout time in each sta
tion. The repair-and-checkout-time distributions for each one of
the four stations are the following:
1. Station 1
9E{U) = fuT" '»
where
H = 2 repairs/hr.
2. Station 2
V \ V )
where
fi = 2.5, t? = 3.0 hr, and 7 = 0.5 hr.
3. Station 3
9LN(h) = I* (¥)'
^3 #{' V 2 7T
'3
where
<;3 = 0.6 loge hr, and at< =1.0 loge hr.
4. Station 4
where
/3 = 8, and r? = 5 hr-1.
Do the following:
1. Find the time to repair-and-checkout for the maintainabili
ties of 90%, 95% and 99%, using the Central Limit Theorem
method.
2. Same as in Case 1, but using the Monte Carlo Simulation
method, with 100 and also with 5,000 simulated T values.
3. Discuss comparatively the results of Cases 1 and 2.
4. What is the required number of Monte Carlo Simulations to
determine the 90% maintainability with error of ±0.01 and
90% confidence?
5. What is the required number of Monte Carlo trials to deter
mine the mean time to repair-and-checkout the trucks with
an error on the mean time of ±10% and 90% confidence?
In all cases above write out all equations used and give the step-
by-step procedures used to get your results in addition to the
computer programs used.
PROBLEMS 689

1. Summarize the results obtained by each student for each
case of Problem 15-1.
2. Comparatively discuss the summarized results for each case.
3. List as many recommendations as you can for the following:
3.1 Which method should be used to evaluate M(T) = 90%,
95% and 99%, and why?
3.2 What method in addition to those already submitted
for Problem 15.1 by the class would you recommend
and why?
3.3 Which Monte Carlo Simulation methodology would you
recommend as the best?
3.4 Is the number of Monte Carlo simulations prescribed by
the method used in Case 5 realistic?
3.5 What is the reason for this unrealistic sample size of
Monte Carlo simulations for previous Case 3.4?
3.6 Recommend statistical and mathematical methods of
arriving at more realistic numbers of Monte Carlo sim
ulations.
15-3. A truck repair-and-checkout facility consists of four stations where
each incoming truck gets serviced by going successively through
Stations 1 through 4. The total repair-and-checkout time, T, of
this facility is given by
where 2, is the respective repair-and-checkout time in each sta

tion. The repair- and-checkout-time distributions for each one of
the four stations are are the following:
1. Station 1
9E(h) = l*e~" tl
where
/i = 2 repairs/hr.
2. Station 2
9w(t2) = - (—— ) e V n ) ,
where
P = 2.5, J] = 3.0 hr, and 7 = 0.5 hr.
3. Station 3
«,
9LN(<3) =
» -»(¥"
^=e V 3
'3 °V V ^ *
where
i'3 = 0.1 loge hr, and at> = 0.2 loge hr.
4. Station 4
where
/? = 8, and t? = 5 hr-1.
Do the following:
1. Find the time to repair-and-checkout for the maintainabili
ties of 90%, 95% and 99%, using the Central Limit Theorem
method.
2. Same as in Case 1, but using the Monte Carlo Simulation
method, with 100 and also with 5,000 simulated T values.
3. Discuss comparatively the results of Cases 1 and 2.
4. What is the required number of Monte Carlo Simulations to
determine the 90% maintainability with error of ±0.01 and
90% confidence?
5. What is the required number of Monte Carlo trials to deter
mine the mean time to repair-and-checkout the trucks with
an error on the mean time of ±2% and 90% confidence?
In all cases above write out all equations used and give the step-
by-step procedures used to get your results in addition to the
computer programs used.
15-4. Using the simulated total times to repair-and-checkout trucks of
Problem 15-3, do the following:
1. Calculate the four moments two ways:
1.1 Fit the normal, lognormal, Weibull and the extreme-
value-of-the-maxima distributions to the first 100 simu
lated total times to repair-and-checkout the trucks, i.e.,
find thir parameters. Any good method is acceptable!
Then calculate all four moments using these parame
ters.
REFERENCES 691
1.2 Repeat Case 1.1 using 1,000 or more simulated total

times.
1.3 Use the first 100 simulated total times to repair-and-
checkout the trucks and calculate all four moments di
rectly.
1.4 Repeat Case 1.3 using the 1,000 or more simulated total
times.
2. Calculate /3i and /?2> and using the Pearson pdf approxima
tion find the time to repair-and-checkout for the maintain
abilities of 90%, 95% and 99% using the first 100 simulated
total times.
3. Repeat Case 2 using the 1,000 or more simulated total times.
4. Use the discussion in Chapter 6 of the Hahn and Shapiro
book and decide which distributions may represent the data
best, using the (5\ and /?2 values found in Cases 2 and 3.
In all cases above write out all equations and give the step-by-step
procedures used to get your results, in addition to the computer
programs used.
REFERENCES
1. Hahn, G. T. and Shapiro S. Samuel, Statistical Models in Engi
neering, John Wiley k Sons, New York, N Y, 355 pp., 1967.
2. Lindgren, B. W., Statistical Theory, The MacMillan Company,
Collier-MacMillan, London, 521 pp., 1968.
3. Cramer, H. Mathematical Methods of Statistics, Princeton Uni
versity Press, Princeton, 575 pp., 1951.
4. Krivoy Raul, based on Table of Percentage points of Pearson
Curves for Given y[$ and f32, Expressed in Standard Measure,
Compiled by Johnson, N. L., Eric Nixon and Amos, D. E. with
an introduction by Pearson, E. S., Biometrika, Vol. 1, Table 41,
1954.
5. Pearson, E. S., and Hartley, H. 0., Biometrika, Tables for Statis-
titians, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, Vol.
1, Table 41, 1954.
6. Kececioglu, D., and Jiang, J., Proceedings - Institute of Environ
mental Science, Error Bound Estimation On Monte Carlo Sim
ulations, pp. 124-128, April 23-27, 1990.
692 APPENDIX 15A
APPENDIX 15A
PROOF OF EQ. (15.23) [2, p. 367]
Consider a sample of size M from a continuous distribution, with
cdf F(x) and pdf f(x). Let ap denote the percentile of order p of the
distribution, i.e., the root of the equation F(ap) — p, where 0 < p < 1.
We assume that, in some neighborhood of x = ap, the pdf, f(x) is
continuous and has a continuous derivative f'(x).
Let Q '(k = \,2,---,M) be the ordered statistic of size M in

ascending order of magnitude, i.e.,
AM) f[M) < < AM)
Define fJ+1' to be the corresponding percentile of the sample, where

/ = [pM], is the maximum integer less than pM , provided that pM is
not an integer. If pM is an integer, it is indeterminate case, and the
corresponding percentile may be any value in interval (£i,£/+i). This
is similar to the case of the sample median when the sample size is an
even number. To avoid trivial complications, it is assumed herein that
pM is not an integer.
Let <f>(x) denote the pdf of the random variable fJ+1 . The proba
bility <f>(x) dx, that £/.j is situated in a small interval (x,x + dx) is
equal to the probability that, among M sample values, / are less than
x, one falls between x and x + dx, and remaining M — (1 + 1) are greater
than x + dx.
1. The probability that among M sample values / are less than x is
where F(x) is the population cdf.
2. The probability that among the remaining M — / sample values

there is one in the interval (x,x + dx) is
(M - I) f(x) dx.
3. The probability that the rest of M — (/ + 1) sample values are

greater than x + dx, is
[l-JF(* + <f*)]M-('+1).
APPENDIX 15A 693
Therefore,
<t>(x) dx = (¥\ (M - l)[F(x)}l[l - F(x + dx ]M-<'+1> f{x) dx.
For small dx, F(x + dx) -» F(x), hence
<t>{x) dx = rf\M - l)[F(x)f[l - F(x)}M-V+V f(x) dx,
or
4>(x) dx = (7 )(M - l)[F(x)]l[l - F(x)]M-{l+1) f(x). 15A.1
Now consider a random variable
y = \/JS/(Q')|{,">-0>1' 15/1.2
then
(M) _y />(!-» 1 + ap. 15A.3
G+1 M /(ap)
The pd/ of Y can be expressed as
«,M»
W+l
»<»)-#nMf^+«,
M /(ot) <fy
15A.4
where
<> P(l-P) 1
<fy M f(apy
and <£(•) is defined by Eq. (15A.1). Substitution of Eq. (15A.1)
into Eq. (15A.4) yields
^-Tcbnp* {IM<
"J^^
694 APPENDIX 15A
M-(l+i)
I p (1 - p) y
f i ./p(1~p) y i_„ i
or
AW = ^,/Lllz£)^(w.,)
/(o„) V M ^Z
•[F(z)]'[l - F(z)]w-('+1)/(2),
where
/p(l -p) y
Then,
&(y) =
^ >->>--*£?
M-(/+l)
/(*)
or
/(a.) (WW)
MJ/) = M ■ M ■ A3.
Let M —» oo, then,
p(l~p)M-l M\ , M_,
Al = \l M l-p[l)p{1-p) ■
Using the asymptotic property of the binomial distribution then,

t-Af p
Ip(l-p) M(l-p) v'Af p (1-p) J
A,
V M 1-p >/2 7r M p ( 1 - p)
since (i — M p)/^/M p (1 — p) —* 0, then
1
A, -
'2tt
/(*)
f ("p + V^P/T^
An = -1,
f(°p) /(«p)
APPENDIX 15A 695
and
F{z) 1 - F(z) M-(/+l)
A, =
P 1-P J
If F(ap) = p and F'(ap) = /(ap), expanding ^(z) near j/ = 0,
yields
/p(i-p) y
F(z) = F aP +
M f(ap)
= F(ap) + F>{ap) y + \ F"(ap) y> + 1 (JL) ,

or
^)=-/¥-^^^»(i)
Substituting this into A3 yields
A3 =
M-(i+l)
£— îpO^lO^^-f.-^
(1 - p) M 2 PM /2(ap) •(i)
or
A3 = /•//,
AsM-oo,PM^!,M-(/+ 1)— M - / -. (1 - p) M = n.
Let
V / yT2 / /2(Qp) y + Ia/7'

and
p 1 pOj-p) no,) + 0(^),
A2^/ry^^-^4^4,2
n 2 n /2(ap)
then,
/ = e< Pogfi+A,)]
cl [A,-i A' + i A?--]
_ 1 _
696 APPENDIX 15A
or
/ = e{'>/3F»+iMl-F)^f»-i(l-F)»
P (1-P)3/2 /'(°p) „3_I P2 (1-P)2 [/'(°p)'
and
_ en [-A2-I A|-| Aj~]

= c{- vT v-i p (i-P) ^ vM p y2
P3/2 (1-P) /'(°p) „3_I P2 (1-P)2 [ />p) 1 "'
Hence,
As = I II,
_ e[i v^ v-n vT H o-p) vM p y2+°(^)]
[v/p M (1-p) v-v/(1-p) M p r-i 3/2+o(^!?)]
or
i
4s- e(-"2 v2).
Therefore
1
Ky)-- = e" *•
or Y is asymptotically standard normally distributed.

Comparing this result with Eqs. (15A.2) and (15A.3) shows that
£/+J is asymptotically normally distributed with mean ap and
standard deviation [l//(ap)] ■ \/p (1 — p)/M .
REFERENCES
1. Lindgren, B. W., Statistical Theory, The MacMillan Company,
Collier-MacMillan Limited, London, 521 pp., 1968.
2. Cramer, H., Mathematical Methods of Statistics, Princeton Uni
versity Press, Princeton, 575 pp., 1951.
Chapter 16
THE WEIBULL PROCESS OF

REPAIRABLE UNITS
16.1 THE WEIBULL PROCESS AND ITS

CHARACTERISTICS
The WeibulJ process is a non-homogeneous Poisson process with a fail
ure rate function
Consider a repairable equipment that operates from age zero, fails at

age T\, gets repaired immediately, operates again, fails later at age
T2, gets repaired again, operates again and the process gets repeated.
If the repair time is negligible, or the repair time is excluded from
the calendar time ellapsed and only the actual time of operation is
considered, a sequence of cumulative operating times-to-failure data
are thus obtained; i.e.,
Tx < T2 < ■ ■ ■ < TN.
Consider a fixed time interval [0, t], during which the number of fail
ures, denoted by N(0, t), or N(t) for short, is a random variable. Then
N(t) is a Weibull process, if it satisfies the following two properties:
Let N(t, t + At) denote the number of failures in the time interval
(t, t + At), then
Condition 1 is
P[N(t, t + At) = 0] = 1 - A(t) At + o(At), (16.2)
697
698 THE WEIBULL PROCESS OF REPAIRABLE UNITS
P[N(t, t + At) m 1] = X(t) At + o(At), (16.3)

and
P[N(t, t + At) > 1] = o(At), (16.4)
where o(At) denotes a function tending to zero more rapidly than At,
or the higher order terms in A*, such as the probability of two failures
in A* given by [X(t) At]2, and X(t) is the failure rate function defined
by Eq.(16.1).
Condition 2 is
N(t, t+At), completely independent of the failures that occurred in
the interval [0, t], meaning that the repair action restores the equip
ment to its original age condition as just before the failure. Conse
quently, as illustrated in Fig. 16.1, the failure rate of the equipment
is restored to the value it had just before failure through the repairs
performed after failure. It is to be understood that the failure is due
to the surfacing of a latent which the repair action is now removing
thus resulting in the continuing decrease of the failure rate.
Condition 1 says that in a small time interval (t, t + At), a failure
occurs at most once, and the probability of the failure is in proportion
to \(t) and it is time dependent. Condition 2 says that the failures
after time t are independent of the failures that occur before time t.
It has been proven that Ti , the times to the first failure, are Weibull
distributed with pdf
/i(T,) = £(ii—2) e <• n r,7<T,<oo, (16.5)

v V v J
( T, -1 )fi
Ri(Ti) = e * n } , 7 < Ti < oo. (16.6)
The conditional reliability of Tr, the time to the rth failure, given
the times of the first (r - 1) failures, can be found from
R(TT\ T, = tuT2 - t2,- ■ -,Tr_! = tr-i) = R(TT\ Tr_! = ir_j), (16.7)
by Condition 2; i.e., the distribution of TT, given the times of the first
{r — 1) failures only depends on the time of the (r — 1) failure. Then,
the conditional reliability of surviving by TT, given it got repaired after
the failure at tT-\, or for Tr, and given that Tr_i = tT-\, Eq. (16.6)
becomes
R{Tr\Tr-i=tr-i) = e { « ; K " , (16.8)
THE WEIBULL PROCESS AND ITS CHARACTERISTICS 699
u x failure point
« E
a«
•> *o o end of repair
£ B
>- a
* 0
ou 5o
■M
09
•■* B
<s
Accumulated operating and repair times
Fig. 16.1 - The behavior of the equipment's failure rate with

repairs, whereby the designed-in, or inherent,
failure rate is restored to the value it had just
before failure through the repairs after failure.
ir_i < Tr < oo.

The conditional probability density function is
f(TT\ T1 = t1,T2 = t2, ■ ■ ■, Tr_, = tr-J
= - — [R(Tr\ 7\ = tuT2 =<a,.. .,rr_, - tr-,)),
or
f(Tr\ Ti = h,T2 = i2(- • -,Tr_! = xr_!)
^fZVÎê-^y + C^Py, (16.9)

f? V V J
ir_i < TT < oo.

Consequently, the mean time between the (r— l)th and the ri/i failure,
given the times to the first (r — 1) failures, may be obtained from
m, = / R(Tr\ Tx = tuT2 = i2,- • -,r,_, = tr-0 <ffr,

or
(Tr—y\0 , <-<r-l~7\g
mr = / e V " ; + (- i ; dTT. (16.10)
Rearranging Eq. (16.10) yields

/tr--i-1\0 rOO (Tr-l\(j
mr = eK n ' / e l " ; dTr,
Jtr-l
/tr-1—T\/3 f /-OO /Tr-7Ng /-tr_l (Tr-1\0

= eK i > \ e { i ' dTT- e { <> } dl
(16.11)
where
j("«-(l^l)'ffr-7+fr(l + i).7+|r(i).(i«.u)
In the second integral let z = ( r~'Y)^, then
dTT = | ** " 1 rfi.

THE ESTIMATION OF A WEIBULL PROCESS 701
When Tr = 7, x = 0, and when Tr = tr_x, 1 = {^^-f, then

tr-i-1 )0
y „-x „n4-1*
r <*=*? dTT = 7+ 1 [~
P Jo
e ~ x& dx,
-*f V v J ' fi
(16.13)
where
/(i;n)= Te-'t"-1 dt
Jo
is the incomplete gamma function, and T(n) is the gamma function.
Therefore, from Eqs. (16.11), (16.12) and (16.13) the mean time be
tween the (r - 1) and the rth failure, given the times to the first (r - 1)
failures, becomes
mT = e" 1 ' /r°° e v 1 ; dTr,
1; dTT- I dTT
-JHFfUW-,-}, V I? J ' /J
or
tr-l-7
V ( -7|\' 1
mr = -e (16.14)
'{'G)-'[(^
The values of the gamma function, T(n), and of the incomplete gamma
function I(x;n) in Eq. (16.14), may be found in mathematics hand
books, and usually double linear interpolation has to be used. If a
numerical integration subroutine is available, then a more accurate
result can be obtained by integrating Eq. (16.10) directly.
16.2 THE ESTIMATION OF A WEIBULL

PROCESS
16.2.1 GRAPHICAL ESTIMATES
16.2.1.1 - GRAPHICAL METHOD 1
Here two ways of graphical estimation are introduced. The first one
[1] is as follows:
702 THE WEIBULL PROCESSES OF REPAIRABLE UNITS
Consider the failure process of n independent systems of the Weibull

type which are working from time zero to time /*. The mean number
of failures in n systems, using Eq. (16.1), is given by
E(r) = n f A(T)<fT = n-§/ (T-tf^dT,

Jf If" J-y
or
E(r) = n (t——ty . (16.15)
Logarithmic transformation of Eq. (16.15) yields the straight line
log10(<* " 7) = log10»? + ^ log10^. (16.16)
If it is assumed that the observed failures are independent and 7 = 0,

Eq. (16.16) provides a relationship for every observed failure number,
j, which is the E(r), and the failure time, Tj\ i.e.,
logio Tj = logio V + -q logm [-J .
or
logio (-) = -0 logio V + P logio Tj. (16.17)

n
This is the basic relationship for graphical estimation. If the data
comes from a Weibull process the paired data, (T,, j), will tend to
a straight line on log — log paper. The procedure for this method is
illustrated next.
EXAMPLE 16-1
The accumulated development and test times to a failure, given in
Table 16.1, were obtained for a complex, repairable electronic unit.
1. Determine the parameters of this Weibull process.
2. Use the result in Case 1 to determine the reliability for a mission
of 10 hr after the 15th repair at time 2,400 hr.
3. Determine the mean time between the 15th and the 16th failure,
given that the 15th failure occurred at time 2,400 hr.
4. If such a repairable electronic unit will be used from age zero,
determine the reliability for a mission of 10 hr and the mean time
to the first failure.
TABLE 16.1 - The accumulated development and test

times to a failure for the complex re
pairable electronic unit of Example 16-1.
Failure Accumulated development and Cumulative

number, test time to a failure, failure rate,
; Tj, hr Aj = £,fr/103hr
i 8.5 117.65
2 56.4 35.46
3 86.8 34.56
4 195.3 20.48
5 242.6 20.61
6 267.2 22.46
7 451.9 15.49
8 458.5 17.45
9 757.0 11.89
10 797.0 12.55
11 968.0 11.36
12 1,201.0 9.99
13 1,618.0 8.03
14 1,806.0 7.75
15 2,400.0 6.25

1. The data given in Table 16.1 are obtained from one unit; there
fore, in this case n = 1. The paired data given in Columns 1 and 2 of
Table 16.1 have been plotted in Fig. 16.2 on log-log paper. It may be
seen that the data comes from a Weibull process, because the points
fall acceptably well on a straight line with 7 = 0. From Eq. (16.17),
the value of the parameter tj is just the value of Tj when j = n.
Then (j/n) — 1. Therefore, from Fig. 16.2, entering the ordinate with
j jn = 1 yields tj = 9.7 hr.
Since from Eq. (16.17) the value of /3 is the slope of the straight
line, to find j3 pick any two points on the fine, then,
j*,.*-*,.*
log10 Th - log10 1 jj
(16.18)
In this case, using the values ji/n — 1 with Tj1 = 9.7, and jifn = 10
with Th = 900, yields
0= lQ6io 10 - lQ6io I = Q.5083.
log10 900 - log10 9.7
Therefore, the failure rate function is
0.5083 / T N0-5083-1
or
X(T) = 0.1605 71-04917.
2. From Eq. (16.7) the conditional reliability for T15 = 2,400 hr
and t = 10 hr is
R[Tl6 = (2,400+10) | r, = <!,-• -,T15 = 2,400]
= R[T16 = (2,400+ 10) | T15 = 2,400],
/ 2, 400+1 (K Q.5083 i / 2,400 \Q.5083

= e ^ 9-7 ' T *> 9-7 > ,
= e -16.5007+ 16.4659
or
R[T16 = (2,400+10) | r15 = 2,400] = 0.9658.
CO
. o
* T-
<J> ■
£
.•^ ■—4
u
_c
o
CO
V\ t-
d
3
£
a rth
0 3
a.
r- -,o f*» o
o) £
H •u
p-
>—
o
3E
i
i
T-
P o M
m CD
f F
[ = u 'u/f -iiun »d s3jn]iB4 jo jsquinu 33bj3ab 3i)X .5°
705
3. From Eq. (16.14) the mean time between the 15th and the 16th
failure is
m16 = —
9 7 A/ 2,400
e^
\0.5083 \
9.7 )>
f
{T I
\
- /
M()o\0'5083 1
16 0.5083 1 V0.5083.' 9.7 ) ' 0.5083
where
r f- --I = r(1.9673)
V0.5083/ v ; = 0.9866126,
and
r/2,400\0-5083 1
= 7(16.4659; 1.9673) = 0.9866114.
V 9.7 ) ' 0.5083
Therefore,
m16 = (2.70208 X 108)(0. 9866126 - 0.9866114) = 326.50 hr.
4. The rehability for a mission of 10 hr starting at age zero, from
Eq. (16.6), is
R{TX = 10) = e"( ■» ) =e U.7^ = e-10156 = 0.3622,

and the mean time to the first failure, from Eq. (16.11), is
- " I r (?) - 0^3 r (diss) = <19'0828> r(1-9673)>

or
mi = (19.0828)(0.9866126) = 18.83 hr.
The results of m16 = 326.50 hr, ma = 18.83 hr, R[Tl6 = (2,400 +
10) | T15 = 2,400] = 0.9658 and R{T\ = 10) = 0.3622 tell us that
the rehability of this complex electronic unit has improved greatly
after 2,400 hr of operation during which the defects were detected and
corrected.
1G.2.1.2 GRAPHICAL METHOD 2

The second method to estimate the parameters of a Weibull process is
as follows:
From Eq. (16.15) and for the case of n = 1, the average number of
failures in time interval [7, T] is
j£(r)= (1—L), (16.19)

and the average cumulative failure rate starting from 7 up to T can be

defined as
0-1
0-1 (16.20)
Logarithmic transformation of Eq. (16.20) yields the straight line

l°Sio[*(r)] = ((3 -l) log10(T - 7) -0 log10(i7). (16.21)
Based on Eq. (16.21) the paired data [(Tj — 7), A(T,)] should tend to a
straight line on log — log paper, and its slope would be (/? — 1). Then,
parameter /? can be obtained from
^log^-^-log^-T)""1' (16'22)
and 77 from Eq. (16.20) by substituting this /? in it and solving for 77.
EXAMPLE 16-2
Use Graphical Method 2 to estimate the parameters of the Weibull
process represented by the data given in Table 16.1.
The average cumulative failure rates listed in Column 3 of Table
16.1, are calculated from
where
j = number of cumulative failures up to the accumulated test
time, Tj.
_
The paired data, (Tj,Xj), are plotted as in Fig. 16.3 yielding an
acceptable straight line, hence 7 = 0. Pick two points on the straight
line, as indicated in Fig. 16.3, and use Eq. (16.22) to determine pa
rameter /? from
_ log10(0.0034)-log10(0.033)
P ~ log10(10,000)-log10(100) + " °-5055-
Using Eq. (16.20) the parameter 77 is obtained from

1
»- -^mr ■ (16-23)
CM
pH
E
I
eu
o
i
o
s-
E
V
*j
w
I
c
E
ad
g
£ (X
P D
JS
•«M £0l/JJ '(i)X
708
In this case, for T = 10,000 hr and A(T = 10,000 hr) = 0.0034 fr/hr,
/ioôo0-5065-^05"
' \ 0.0034 J
The results are close to those obtained in Example 16-1 using Graph
ical Method 1.
16.2.2 THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATES OF THE

PARAMETERS OF THE WEIBULL PROCESS
From Eq. (16.9) the conditional pdf of the rth failure, given the times
of the first (r — 1) failures, is given by
f(Tr\ T1 = <1,T2 = i2,---,Tr_1 = fr_1)
■n\ n J
The joint density function of the total of r* times to failure, (T\, • • • , Tr»),
which occur during the test period [0, t], is the product of the individ
ual conditional density functions [2], or
r=l
or
(16.24)
Taking the logarithm of Eq. (16.24) yields
logeX = r" loge/3 - /} r~ \oger) - f^1-12) + (/3 - 1) £ l°Se(Tr - 7).

V " ' r=l
(16.25)
Assuming that 7 is a constant, differentiating Eq. (16.25) with respect

to f3 and 77, respectively, and setting the results equal to zero yields
~w = j~r lo^ - rr~J loge \~~v~

t'
+ £loge(Tr-7) = 0 (16.26)
and
»0*i)__^+/'?hz2y,£=o. (16.27)
dr) t\ \ r) J rj
From Eq. (16.27)
(■!*LZl\ = r\ (16.28)
or
a- rl (16.29)
and from Eq. (16.28)

.= (Tr*-7) (1630)
But, the estimates of 0 and 7) given by Eqs. (16.29) and (16.30) are
biased. An unbiased estimate of (3 is given by [3]
/?t = /3i!lzJi, (16.31)

r*
and a less biased estimate of 17 is given by
i?t=(rr»-7) (1632)
WHEN TESTING MORE THAN ONE UNIT 711
EXAMPLE 16-3
Find the maximum likelihood estimates of the parameters of the
Weibull process represented by the data given in Table 16.1.
From Eqs. (16.29) and (16.31)
16 15 =0.5441,
P- 14
—u
£ioge ( 2aoo\ 27.569
r=l
and
•1) _ 0.5441(15--1)
0tu = 0.5078.
r* 15
From Eq. (16.32)
2,400
f*- = 11.59 hr.
150.5078
The results are close to those of Examples 16-1 and 16-2.
16.3 WHEN TESTING MORE THAN ONE UNIT

Sometimes, two or more identical equipment are tested simultaneously.
Then, two or more sets of test results are available. In these cases,
the three Weibull process parameters estimation methods, namely, the
Graphical Method 1, the Graphical Method 2 and the maximum like
lihood methods are still valid, but they need some adjustments. The
following example illustrates how to apply them to the case of two
identical equipment being tested.
EXAMPLE 16-4
Two prototypes of an electronic system are tested simultaneously,
with the incorporation of repairs, and the cumulative times to failure
are recorded separately for each system. The cumulative test time
at each failure for each system is given in Table 16.2. Assume that
after each failure a repair is performed immediately, and the repaired
system is tested again, or the time to the next failure is the actual
operating time after the previous repair, excluding the repair time.
Assume that the repair time is negligible and this test-fix-test process
follows a Weibull process based on the test times of each individual
system. Do the following:
TABLE 16.2 - The cumulative times to failure of the two

electronic systems of Example 16-4.
Syst 2m 1 System 2
Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative
number of test number of test times
failures, times, failures, to failure,
3 Tj, hr 3 Tj, hr
1 1.30
2 3.50
1 5.75
2 8.50
3 10.70
3 14.55
4 16.65
4 28.25
5 31.55
5 35.30
6 36.50
7 38.85
6 46.95
8 47.75
7 49.05
9 50.55
10 66.00
8 71.10
11 73.85
12 74.50
13 83.60
9 95.35
10 96.50
11 99.35
14 125.95
15 141.25
12 143.05
1. Determine the parameters of this Weibull process using the two

graphical methods.
2. Determine the parameters of this Weibull process using their
maximum likelihood estimates.
3. Predict the value of the failure rate of this system at the total
test time of 500 hr, using the results of Case 1.
4. Same as in Case 3, but using the results of Case 2.

1. The data given in Table 16.2 are obtained from two systems,
therefore, in this case n = 2.
i
Graphical Method 1
The pooled and ranked data, given in Columns 2 and 3 of Table
16.3, are plotted on Fig. 16.4. It must be pointed out that in Table
16.3 the Column 2 values are j/n, but in this case n = 2. Therefore,
j/2 is used based on Eq. (16.17). In Column 3 the pooled clock hours
of the times to failure of both systems are used.
From Eq. (16.17), the value of the parameter n is the value of Tj
when j — n. Then j/n = 2/2 = 1. In this case, for j/n = 1,
77 = 3.0 hr.
Using Eq. (16.18) and the values j\ = 1 with 7^ = 3.0, and j2 = 10
with Th = 78, yields
log1010 - logipl
0= log1078-log103.0'
or
0 = 0.7067.
Then, the failure rate function is
0.7067 / r \07067-1
A(T) ~ "3J" \JS)
or
-0.2933
\(T) = 0.2356
(n)
where the test time, T, is the accumulated test time to failure for each
system.
TABLE 16.3 - The data to plot the Weibull

process of Example 16 — 4.
Test times Cumulative

Failure j/n for Systems failure rate,
number, or 1 and 2, *j ~ 2T} >
3 i/2 T;,hr fr/103 hr
1 0.5 1.30 * 384.615
2 1.0 3.50 * 285.714
3 1.5 5.75 260.870
4 2.0 8.50 235.294
5 2.5 10.70 * 233.645
6 3.0 14.55 206.186
7 3.5 16.65 * 210.210
8 4.0 28.25 141.593
9 4.5 31.55 * 142.631
10 5.0 35.30 141.643
11 5.5 36.50 150.685
12 6.0 38.85 154.440
13 6.5 46.95 * 138.445
14 7.0 47.75 146.597
15 7.5 49.05 * 152.905
16 8.0 50.55 158.259
17 8.5 66.00 128.788
18 9.0 71.10 * 126.582
19 9.5 73.85 128.639
20 10.0 74.50 134.228
21 10.5 83.60 125.598
22 11.0 95.35 * 115.364
23 11.5 96.50 * 119.171
24 12.0 99.35 * 120.785
25 12.5 125.95 99.246
26 13.0 141.25 92.035
27 13.5 143.05 * 94.373
* The ast eriskec times are for System 1.
HI _
10J
Example
16-4
for
Weibull
the
ofpGraphical
easFig.
16.4
rtoaimce-atsers
I::::
— ^
rtfiH
78
hr 10'
ir1
fflPT^ T,
fTime
hr
ato
ilure,
10
,^
3.0
hr
ti
=
1
Method
Graphical
1.
using
y<£-—
0.1
10 2-—
10 0.1
II ~r •a I
en
Graphical Method 2
From Eq. (16.15) the average number of failures of n systems in
time interval [7, T] is
^"(^T2)''
and the average cumulative failure rate, starting from 7 up to time T,
is
"(T) = ^§=T) = ? {T ~ 7)"-1' (16-33)

where
n = number of systems in test,
and
n{T — 7) = unit-hours of test time accumulated by n systems in
time interval [7,T].
Taking the logarithm of Eq. (16.33) yields
log10[A(r)] = (/?- 1) log10(T - 7) " 0 log10i/-
It may be seen that log10[A(!T)] is a linear function of log10(T-7^. Pick
any two points from this linear equation, say [7\, A(Ti)] and [T2, A(T2)],
and solve for the parameters; i.e.,
logio[A(7i)] = ifi- 1) log10(ri -l)-P log^r?,
log,0[A(T2)] = {fi - 1) log10(T2 - 7) - P lQg10i?,
and
^_iog10[A(r2)]-iog10[A(r1)] | L 634)
logio7^ - log10T!
Solving Eq. (16.33) for f\ yields
T? = (16.35)
A(Tx)
The average cumulative failure rates are calculated from
\(Tj) = —± -, (16.36)
n(T} - 7)
where
j = total number of failures up to time Tj,
and
n(Tj — 7) = unit-hours of test time accumulated by n sys
tems in time interval [f,Tj].
Here 7 is an unknown parameter. However, 7 may be assumed to be
zero for the initial plot. If the X(Tj) versus Tj points fall acceptably
well on a straight line, then the assumption 7 = 0 is confirmed. If
the X(Tj) versus Tj points do not fall on a straight line, then there are
two possibilities. The first possibility is that the test-analyze-fix-test
process is not a Weibull process, and the second possibility is that 7 is
not equal to zero. These will be discussed later.
In this example, when 7 = 0, the cumulative failure rates, using
Eq. (16.36), are calculated from
A(Tj) =rtFj = VTj-
These failure rates are listed in Column 4 of Table 16.3.

The paired data, [A(Tj),Tj], are plotted in Fig. 16.5. From Fig.
16.5, it may be seen that the A(T,) versus Tj points fall acceptably
well on a straight line; consequently, 7 = 0. Then, pick two points [500
fr/103 hr, (0.5 fr/hr); 0.6 hr] and [100 fr/103 hr, (0.1 fr/hr); 158 hr]
and use Eq. (16.34) to find (3; i.e.,
- log100.500 - log100.100
13 = log100.6-log10158 +1 = 0-7112>
and Eq. (16.35) to find 77; i.e.,
(n f<0.7112-l\ 0^112
Then, the failure rate function is

0.7112 ' r \ 0.7112-1
X(T) =
3.261 {.261 )
or
-0.2888
A<r>=°-2181Gr§7)
Example
for
Weibull
16-4
the
of
epFig.
Graphical
16.5
saptraiomc-eatesrs
10*
j_
y/
k
10'
Time
T,
failure,
hr
to
10
Method
Graphical
2.
using
K
^
h \i—
0.6
v
\
0.1
103-, 10- 1-
"0.5
fr/hr
"-102-
fr/hr
1
0
£ "o i
00
M
where thetest time, T, is also for an individual system.

If the X(Tj) versus Tjs do not fall on a straight line and they appear
to be concave or convex curves, then 7^0. In the concave upward
case, 7 should take a negative value, and for the convex upward case,
7 should take a positive value, then use Eq. (16.36) to calculate the
X(Tj)'s and replot A(T, - 7)_versus Tj. The value of 7 has to be found
by trial and error. If the X(Tj) versus the Tj points appear to fall
on a broken line, as shown in Fig. 16.6, then the test-analyze-fix-
test process may be described by a composite Weibull process. The
composite Weibull process is discussed in Section 16.4.
2. The maximum likelihood estimates of parameters /? and tj can
be obtained from Eqs. (16.29) and (16.30); i.e.,
P=—i
i ioge {%)
and
For System 1, r* = 12, TT» = 143.5 hr, and

r*-l
E loge (?£) = 18-714,
or
12
A= = 0.6412,
18.714
and
143.05
m = 2.968.
120.6412
For System 2, r' = 15, Tr. = 141.25 hr, and

r'-l
E io& (jr) = 18-7252'
or
15
fo = 18.7252 = 0.8011,
and
fc„iJi2L„u»72.
15o»on
The unbiased estimates of (3 and r\ for System 1 are,
/?} = i_22(o.6412) = 0.5878,

and
t}{I = ——j—
143.05 = 2.0870.
_ nMn
120 5878
For System 2
£ = L__Ji(o.8011) = 0.7477,
15
and
4 » 2£^ = 3.7761.
1507477
Then, better estimates of /3 and 77 may be obtained by averaging them,

or from
p = Ph_£ = 0.5878 + 0.7477 = Q ^
and
?= ^j = 2.0870 + 3.7761 =
' 2 2
Therefore,
0:6678 /_T_Y0.6678-1
v ; 2.9316 \2.9316^
or
/ T \ -0-3322
A(T)
v ; = 0.2278 V2.9316/
(-—— )
.9316,
3. The predicted value of the failure rate of this system at 500 hr,
using the results in Case 1, for Graphical Method 1, is
/500\~0-2933
\{T = 500 hr) = 0.2356 f — J
THE COMPOSITE WEIBULL PROCESS 721
or
A(r = 500 hr) = 0.05254 fr/hr = 52.54 fr/103 hr,
and for Graphical Method 2 is
/ "ifin \ -0-2888
A(T= 500 ta). 0.2181 (_) ,
or
X(T = 500 hr) = 0.05099 fr/hr = 50.99 fr/103 hr.
4. The predicted value of the failure rate of the system at 500 hr,
using the results in Case 2, or the MLE's, is
-0.3322
X(T
v = 500 hr)' = 0.2278 V2.9316/
f^^^
or
A(T = 500 hr) = 0.04132 fr/hr = 41.32 fr/103 hr.
16.4 THE COMPOSITE WEIBULL PROCESS

In some cases the plots of the failure number per system, j/n, versus
the failure time, Tj, do not tend to a straight line on log — log paper,
as in Fig. 16.6. The reason may be that the failure modes of the
repaired units are different during different operating periods. For
example, during the early life period the device would exhibit infant
mortality failures, which after some time of testing are precipitated
and fixed. Then, the failure rate of the unit decreases during the early
life period; consequently, the reliability of the unit increases. After
a long period of operation most components of the unit age and the
unit fails more frequently; consequently, its failure rate increases and
its reliability decreases. Therefore, the data presented in Fig. 16.6
imply that there are more than one failure mode in the process. For
the sake of simplicity, a composite of two Weibull processes may be
used to represent these data.
From the property of the Weibull process, it may be seen that the
failures after time T are independent of the failures in the time interval
[0, T]. So, the data given in Fig. 16.6 can be split into two segments;
i.e., the first for Mode 1 and the second for Mode 2. Hence, the process
can be thought to be a composite of two independent Weibull processes;
i.e., in the time interval [0, T{[ the failures follow a Weibull process
with the failure rate function
nY1-1
e-4
to
o
m
o
CD
u/f 'iiun isd samfTEj jo Jsquinu oSejsab aqj.
722
THE COMPOSITE WEIBULL PROCESS 723
and after time T\ the failures follow a Weibull process with the failure
rate function
«-«
The parameters of these two Weibull processes can be estimated di
rectly from the plot in Fig. 16.6. First two straight lines are drawn to
fit the data. Then, the intersection of these two straight lines, corre
sponding to time T\ = 2, 400 hr, is the watershed of the time domains
of the two Weibull processes. Now consider the two processes sepa
rately, and use the method of Section 16.2.1 to obtain the parameters
as follows:
For the first process, pick two points, say, (7\ = 10, ji/n = 0.1)
and (T2 = 1,650, j2/n = 0.7). Then, from Eq. (16.18),
log 10 IX _ log 10 to.

0i = log10 T2 - log10 Tx '
or
_ log100.7-log100.1 _
^-log^MSO-iog.oio"0-3811'
and for the second process, pick two points, say, (T3 = 2, 650, j'3/n =1)
and (T4 = 6, 000, j4/« = 6.8). Then,
log10 6.8 - log10 1
h= = 2.3457.
log106,000-log102,650
The parameters rji and r^ may be found from the plot directly, for
j/n = 1, yielding
??! =4,000hr,
and
% = 2, 650 hr.
Thus, the composite Weibull process is determined. Its failure rate
function then becomes
0.3811-1
0.3811
A(T) =
4,000 U.oooy
or -0.6189
A(T) = 9.5275 X 10- (j£g) for 0<T<2,400,
and
2.3457 / T \2-3457-1
v ' 2,650 V2,650y
or
1.3457
\{T) = 88.517 X 10-5 f—j 1 , for T> 2,400.
PROBLEMS
16-1. A repairable mechanical equipment operates starting at age zero.

After each failure it is repaired and is put back into operation.
The successive times to failure which follow a Weibull process are
given in Table 16.4. Assume that the repair times are negligible.
Do the following:
(1) Determine the parameters of this Weibull process using the
two graphical methods.
(2) Determine the parameters of this Weibull process using their
(3) Use the results in Case 1 and determine the mean time
between the 10th and the 11th failure, given that the 10th
failure occurred at 1,010 hr, and the mean time to the first
failure.
(4) Same as in Case 3, but using the results in Case 2.
(5) Find the reliability for a mission of 10 hr after the 10th
repair at time 1,010 hr, and find the reliability for a mission
of 10 hr starting from age zero, using the results in Case 1.

Do the following:
failure.
PROBLEMS 725
TABLE 16.4 The accumulated development and test

pairable electronic unit of Problem 16—1.
Failure Accumulated development and

number, test time to a failure,
3 7), hr
1 130
2 300
3 380
4 450
5 500
6 780
7 850
8 900
9 930
10 1,010
11 1,100
12 1,210
13 1,300
14 1,410
15 1,520

pairable electronic unit of Problem 16-2.

number, test time to a failure,
3 Tjt hr
1 140
2 220
3 480
4 530
5 640
6 730
7 780
8 930
9 980
10 1,130
11 1,210
12 1,320


Do the following:

(2) Determine the parameters of this WeibuD process using their
PROBLEMS 111

pairable electronic unit of Problem 16-3.

number, test time to a failure'1
J Tj,hT
1 260
2 380
3 870
4 950
5 1,130
6 1,270
7 1,350
8 1,630
9 1,690
10 1,960
11 2,080
12 2,280
failure.
16-4. Two prototypes of an electronic system are tested simultaneously

and the cumulative times to failure are recorded separately for
each system with the incorporation of repairs. The cumulative
test time at each failure for each system is given in Table 16.7.
Assume that after each failure a repair is performed immediately,
and the repaired system is tested again. Assume that the repair
time is negligible and this test-fix-test process follows a Weibull
process based on the test times of each individual system. Do
the following:

electronic systems of Problem 16-4.
Syst<em 1 System 2
number of test times number of test times
failures, to failure, failures, to failure,
3 Tj, hr 3 Tj, hr
1 11.5
2 30.0
1 57.5
2 84.6
3 111.7
3 137.5
4 173.5
4 229.0
5 282.0
5 305.2
6 327.5
7 370.6
6 419.5
8 422.4
7 475.0
9 551.5
10 660.0
8 701.5
11 742.1
12 748.5
13 834.0
9 923.4
10 950.2
11 1,005.5
14 1,150.2
15 1,381.7
12 1,392.5
PROBLEMS 729

(3) Predict the value of the failure rate of this system at a total
(4) Same as in Case 3, but using the results of Case 2.
the following:

the following:
test time of 1,500 hr, using the results of Case 1.

System 1 System 2
3 7j,hr i Tj, hr
1 140
l 200
2 300
2 380
3 590
3 670
4 720
4 740
5 800
5 880
6 1,020
6 1,070
7 1,130
7 1,270
8 1,280
8 1,340
9 1,410
9 1,540
10 1,670
10 1,800
PROBLEMS 731

Syst em 1 Syst em 2
J Tj,bi 3 Tj, hr
1 180
1 260
2 380
2 490
3 790
3 870
4 950
4 950
5 1,040
5 1,130
6 1,270
6 1,330
7 1,350
7 1,470
8 1,630
8 1,650
9 1,690
9 1,830
10 1,960
11 2,080
10 2,160
12 2,280

time is negligible and this test-fix-test process follows a WeibuU
the following:

the following:

(2) Determine the parameters of this WeibuD process using their

PROBLEMS 733

System 1 Syst am 2
J Th hr 3 rif hr
1 100
1 140
2 220
2 270
3 420
3 480
4 510
4 530
5 570
5 640
6 730
6 730
7 780
7 810
8 910
8 930
9 980
9 1,010
10 1,130
10 1,190
11 1,210
12 1,320

electronic systems of Problem 16—8.
Syst<2m 1 Syst<-m 2
J Tit hr 3 Tj, hr
1 260
1 310
2 460
2 620
3 680
4 750
5 860
3 1,060
6 1,140
4 1,160
5 1,370
6 1,550
7 1,640
7 1,860
8 1,970
9 2,050
8 2,120
10 2,370
9 2,420
11 2,520
10 2,600
12 2,750
11 3,340
PROBLEMS 735

Syst em 1 Syst<am 2
3 Tit hr J Ij.hr
1 190
1 230
2 340
2 450
3 500
4 560
5 640
3 770
4 850
6 860
5 1,000
6 1,140
7 1,210
7 1,360
8 1,450
9 1,510
8 1,560
10 1,750
9 1,770
11 1,860
10 1,910
12 2,040
11 2,440
12 2,540
the following:
16-10. Two prototypes of an electronic system are tested simultane
ously and the cumulative times to failure are recorded separately
for each system with the incorporation of repairs. The cumulative
the following:
PROBLEMS 737

Syst em 1 Syst am 2
J rjfht 3 Tjthx
1 150
1 170
2 260
2 340
3 390
4 430
5 500
3 590
4 640
5 760
6 660
6 860
7 920
7 1,030
8 1,110
9 1,160
8 1,180
9 1,330
10 1,340
10 1,450
11 1,830
12 1,920
REFERENCES
1. Gisela, Hartler, "Graphical Weibull Analysis of Repairable Systems,"
Quality and Reliability Engineering International, Vol. 1, pp. 23-26,
1985.
2. Crow, L.H., "Confidence Interval Procedures for Reliability Growth
Analysis," Army Material systems Analysis Activity Technical Report
197, AD-A044788, Defense Technical Information Center, Alexandria,
VA, 1977.
3. Tsung-Ming, T. Lin, "A New Method for Estimating Duane Growth
Model Parameters," Proceedings Annual Reliability and Maintainability
Symposium, pp. 389-393, 1985.
Chapter 17
RELIABILITY OF COMPONENTS
WITH A POLICY OF I
REPLACING THOSE THAT FAIL
BY A PRESCRIBED OPERATING
TIME
17.1 WHEN AND HOW IT IS APPLIED

Consider the case of identical components operating in different equip
ment subjected to the same application and operation stresses. Let us
find how many of these components will fail, on the average, if they
operate a prescribed nj cycles from age zero. Those that are found
to have failed after n\ cycles of operation are replaced by fresh ones,
and the replaced and non-replaced components operate n additional
cycles. The reliability of N0 such components for n\ cycles of operation
is R{ri\) and the number that will fail by n\ cycles of operation is
NF-R(nx) = N0Q(ni) = N0[1- Bfa)]. (17.1)
These are replaced by fresh ones and they operate n cycles thereafter.
The number of these components that will fail after n additional cycles
of operation, using Eq. (17.1), would be
NF-R(n) = NF-rt»l)Q(*) =*•[!- RM][1 - R(n)). (17.2)
739
740 RELIABILITY OF COMPONENTS
The number of those that do not fail by ni and have to function an

additional n cycles is
Ns(n1) = N0R(n1). (17.3)
The number of these that will fail while operating n additional cycles,
using Eq. (17.3), would be
Nf-Nr(*1**)= -/Vs(m)[l-#(ni,n)],
or
Ri^ + n)
NF-NR(ni,n) = NoRirii) 1- (17.4)
RM
Consequently, the total number of such components that will fail by
(nj + n) cycles of operation under the condition that those that fail by
n\ are replaced, is given by the sum of Eqs. (17.1), (17.2) and (17.4),
or
iVF_r(m + n) = Ne [1 - R(ni)} + N0[1- Ririt)] [1 - R(n)}
R(n! + n)
+N0R(ni) 1- (17.5)
#(ni) J
Rearrangement of Eq. (17.5) yields
JV>_r(n, + n) = N0 {[1 - Jfa)] [2 - R(n)]

+ [R(n1)-R(n1+n))}. (17.6)
Simplification of Eq. (17.6) yields

NF-T(ni + n) = N0 [2 - R(n^ ) - R(n)
+R{n1)R{n)-R(n1 + n)} (17.7)
Equation (17.7) gives the average number of spares that should be pro
vided for N0 such components with the replacement policy considered.
Let us now find the total combined reliability of such components.
Of those that fail by n\ cycles of operation and are replaced, the num
ber that will survive after an additional n cycles of operation is
Ns-R(n) = iVF_H(n!) R(n) = N0 [1 - R(m)] R(n). (17.8)
Of those that do not fail by n\ cycles of operation and operate an
additional n cycles, the number surviving is
NS-NR{ni + n) = N0R(ni)R{nun),
R(n! + n)
= N0R(ni) (17.9)
*M
WITH A POLICY OF REPLACEMENT 741
or
NS-NR(ni + n) = N0 Rfa + n). (17.10)
Out of the N0 that started out, the number of those that survive, after
replacement of those that failed by n\, is given by the sum of Eqs.
(17.8) and (17.10), or
Ns-n(n, +n) = N0 {[1 - R{nx)] R(n) + fiL + »)}. (17.11)
Therefore, the total combined reliability of such components, under
the replacement policy considered, is
Ns-RJni + n)
Rt-r(ti-i + n) = (17.12)
Nn
Substitution of Eq. (17.11) into Eq. (17.12), and simplification, yields
RT-M*i +n) = [1 - JJ(m)] R(n) + R(m + n). (17.13)
A study of Eq. (17.13) reveals that the total combined reliability of such
components, under the replacement policy considered, is given by the
probability that either the components fail by n\ cycles, are replaced,
and function successfully for n cycles thereafter, or they do not fail by
ni cycles and thus function successfully the full (n\ + n) cycles.
In Eqs. (17.7), (17.8) and (17.10) the quantities Rfa), R(n) and
R(n\ + n) need to be calculated.
If it has been established that the times-to-failure distribution of
such components is Weibullian, then
Rim) = e ( n ) , (17.14)
i\e
R(n) = e"(V) (17.15)
R(m + n) = e l i > , (17.16)
and
£(ni + n)
R{n1,n) =
J2(»i) '
or
("1+"-1)0
e v i '
R(nun) = (17.17)
e *
EXAMPLE 17-1
Identical aluminum spindles are operating at an alternating stress
level of 25,000 psi. Their cycles to failure distribution is lognormally
distributed with parameters n' = 5.827 and uni = 0.124. These param
eters are determined using the logarithms to the base 10.
1. If 1,000 such fresh spindles are operating, how many will survive
after 500,000 cycles of operation and how many will fail?
2. If the failed spindles are replaced by new ones and all of them
operate for n = 330,000 cycles thereafter, how many of the fresh
ones will fail?
3. Of those that survived ni cycles, how many will fail during the
additional n cycles?
4. What is the total number of spindles that will fail by (n-^ + n)

cycles given that 1,000 started at age zero, and that those that
fail by rii cycles are replaced?
5. What is the total number of components surviving after (ni + n)

cycles when we follow the policy of replacing the failed ones by
n\ cycles?
6. What is the total combined reliability of the components under

this replacement policy?
7. What is the reliability for (nj + n) cycles without a replacement
policy? Compare the answer with that of Case 6.
1. To determine the number of spindles that will fail after 500,000

cycles of operation, first take the logarithm of i»i, or
it] = 500,000 cycles,
n'\ = logioni>
= logi0500,000,
or
n\ = 5.69897.
Solving for z(n[),
, ,, n\-n' 5.69897-5.827 nnngn
■«>—t"" 0^25 = -103250,
then,
oo
R(ni = 500,000 cycles) = / d>(z)dz = 0.849081.

z(nj )=-1.03250
From Eq. (17.3) the number of spindles that will survive is

Ns(ni = 500,000 cycles) = N0R(m) = 1,000(0.849081), say 849.
From Eq. (17.1) the number of spindles that will fail after 500,000
cycles of operation is
NF-R(ni) = N0 [1 - R(ni)] = 1,000(1 - 0.849091) = 0.150919,
NF-r(tii = 500,000 cycles) = 1,000(0.150919), say 151.

2. The number of fresh spindles, used to replace those that failed,
that will fail after 330,000 cycles can be determined using Eq.
(17.2), then
NF-R(n) = N0[l- Rim)] [1 - R(n)],
where
R(n) = J 4>(z)dz,
z(n')
and
log10330,000-n'
z(n')
<V
or
5.518514-5.827
z(n') = -2.48779,
0.124
and
00
R(n = 330,000 cycles) = / <t>(z) dz = 0.993573.

2(n')=-2.48779
Then,
NF-R(n = 330,000 cycles) = 1,000(1 - 0.849081)(1 - 0.993573),
or
ArF_K(330, 000 cycles ) = 1,000(0.150919)(0.006427) = 0.97, say 1.
Therefore, one spindle out of the 151 fresh, replaced ones will
fail.
3. Of the spindles that survived ni cycles, the number failing during

the additional n cycles can be found from Eq. (17.4), or
NF-NR(ni , n) = JVf_;v.r(500, 000 cycles; 330, 000 cycles),

i?(ni+n)-
1-
R(ni)
From Case 1,
N0R(n1) = Ns(n1) = 849.
oc
R{rii + n) = / 4>(z)dz,
*(m+n)'
, , v logio(ni +n)-n'
z(ni + n) = ,
On'
or
, log10 830, 000 - 5.827

2(500, 000 cycles + 330, 000 cycles)
0.124
= 0.742565.
Therefore,
oo
#(500, 000 cycles + 330, 000 cycles) = / <j>{z) dz = 0.228872.
0.742565
and from Eq. (17.4)

/ 0 228872\
7VF_/j(500,000 cycles; 330,000 cycles) = 849 (l - Q"849081j ,
= 849(0.730447),
or
iVF_/}(500,000 cycles; 330,000 cycles) = 620.15, say 620.
Consequently, out of 849 spindles 620 will fail.

4. The total number of spindles that will fail by (ni + n) cycles

given that 1,000 started at age zero and that those that fail by
Tij cycles are replaced, can be determined using Eq. (17.7), or
Nf-t(*i + n) = N0 [2 - R(ni) - R(n)
+R(n1)R(n)-R(n1+n)],
iVF_T(830, 000 cycles) = 1, 000[2 - 0.849081 - 0.993573
+(0.849081)(0.993573) - 0.228872],
or
JVF_r(830, 000 cycles) = 1,000(0.772098) = 772.098, say 772.
Consequently, 772 spindles will fail by ni + n = 830, 000 cycles
of operation.
The same answer can also be obtained by adding the results
obtained in Cases 1, 2 and 3. Then,
7VF-r(830, 000 cycles) = JV>_*(500, 000) + JVF-r(330, 000)
+ NF.NR(500, 000; 330, 000),
or
ArF-T(830,000 cycles) = 151 + 1 + 620 = 772 spindles.
5. The total number of components surviving after (ni + n) cycles

when we follow the policy of replacing the failed ones by n^ cycles
is found from Eq. (17.13), or
Ns-R(ni. + n) = N0{[1 - R{ni)]R(n) + JJ(m + n)},
jVS-.r(830,000 cycles) = 1,000{[1 - 0.84908l](0.993573)
+ (0.228872)},
NS-r(830, 000 cycles) = 1,000[(0.150919)(0.993573)
+ (0.228872)],
or
NS-r(830, 000 cycles) = 1,000(0.37882) = 378.82, say 379.
Therefore, a total of 379 spindles will survive.
The same answer can also be obtained from
Ars-/?(830,000 cycles) = N0 + NF.R(ni) - iVF_T(830,000),
= 1,000+ 151-772,
or
JVS-fl(830,000 cycles) = 379.
6. The total combined reliability of the components, under this re

placement policy, using Eq. (17.13), is given by
Rr-R(ni + n) = [1 - R(ni)]R(n) + R(m + n),
Er-fl(830,000 cycles) = (1 - 0.849081)(0.993573) + 0.228872,
iZr_fi(830,000 cycles) = (0.150919)(0.993573) + 0.228872,

or
#t_k(830,000 cycles) = 0.37882.
Then, the total combined reliability may be found from Eq.
(17.12), or from
Ns-R(ni + n)
Rt-r(ti\ + n)
N0
Using the result in Case 5
378 82
£t_r(830,000 cycles) = —'— = 0.37882.
Therefore the combined reliability is 37.9%.

7. The reliability for (nj + n) cycles without a replacement policy is
determined by
CO
R(n-i + n) — / cf>(z)dz,
*(ni +n)'
u logio (ni +n)-n'

z(ni + n)'
ani
i si log10 830, 000 -5.827

^(830, 000 cycles)' = -212 ^_ ,
_ 5.91908-5.827
0.124
or
2(830,000 cycles)' = 0.742565.
Then,
oo
fl(830, 000 cycles) = I 4>{z) dz = 0.228872, or 22.9%.

0.742565
Consequently,
#(830, 000 cycles) < #(830, 000 cycles)

WITHOUT WITH
REPLACEMENT REPLACEMENT
since
22.9% < 37.9%,
or #(830,000 cycles) with replacement is 65% larger than with
out replacement!
I
EXAMPLE 17-2
Identical types of bearings have a Weibull times-to-failure distribu
tion with the following parameters:
0 = 2, tj = 2,000hr, 7 = 0 hr.
1
1. If 100 of such bearings are operating in identical equipment at
the same application and operation stress level, how many will
survive if each one operates T\ = 1,300 hr at 675 rpm, and how
many will fail?
operate for T = 700 hr thereafter, how many of the fresh ones
will fail?
3. Of those that survived T\ hr, how many will fail during the ad
ditional T hr of operation?
4. What is the total number of bearings that will fail by (Ti + T) hr
of operation, given that 100 started at age zero, and that those
that fail by T\ hr are replaced?
5. What is the total number of bearings surviving after {T\ + T)
hr of operation when we follow the policy of replacing the failed
ones by T\ hr?
6. What is the total combined reliability of the components under
the replacement policy?
7. What is the reliability for (T\ + T) hr of operation without a
replacement policy? Compare the answer with that of Case 6.
1. If 100 of such bearings are operating in identical equipment at the

same application and operation stress level, the number which
will survive, if each one operates T\ = 1, 300 hr at 675 rpm, may
be found by using Eq. (17.14), or
,1,300 *2
R( 1,300 hr) = e"( 2,ooo ) - 0.522046.
The number of bearings that will survive is
NS(Ti) = N0R(T!) = 100(0.522046), say 52.
The number of bearings that will fail after T\ = 1,300 hr of

operation is
Nf-r(Ti) = N0Q(Ti) = N0[1- R(Ti)]%

or
Np-niT-L = 1,300 hr) = 100(1 - 0.522046), say 48.
operate for T = 700 hr thereafter, the number of fresh ones which
will fail can be determined using Eq. (17.2), or
NF-R(T) = N0[1- fi(T,)][l - R(T)],
where
lT\B i 700 i2
R{T= 700 hr) = e"(n» = e~(^^> =0.884706.
Then,
NF-R(T = 700 hr) = 100(1 - 0.522046)(1 - 0.884706),
NF-n(T = 700 hr) = 100(0.477954)(0.115294) = 5.51, say 6.
Therefore, 6 bearings out of the 48 fresh bearings will fail while

operating 700 hr after replacement.
3. Of those that survived T\ hr, the number that will fail during
the additional T hr of operation, from Eq. (17.4), is
R&+T)
NF-NR(TUT) = N0R(T1) 1
Rffl)
From Case 1,
NsiTi) = NoRiTi) = 100(0.522046) = 52.2046, say 52.
and
, Tj+Ts0 ,1,300+700 J
R{Tx + T) = e~[ n i = e~( 2.°°° } = 0.367879.
NF-Nr(1, 300 hr; 700 hr) = 52 (l - "'j?!^) = 52(0.295313),

or
NF.NR( 1,300 hr; 700 hr) = 15.36, say 15.
Therefore, 15 bearings out of the 52 will fail during the additional
T — 700 hr of operation.
4. The total number of bearings that will fail by (T\ + T) hr of
operation, given that 100 started at age zero, and that those
that fail by T\ hr are replaced, is obtained from Eq. (17.7), or
NF.T(Ti + T) = N0[2 - R(Ti) - R(T)
+R(T1)R(T)-R(Ti + T)),
iVF_T(l, 300 hr + 700 hr) = 100[2 - 0.522046 - 0.884706

+(0.522046)(0.884706) - 0.367879],
NFt(1,300 hr + 700 hr) = 100(0.687226) = 68.72, say 69.

Consequently, 69 bearings will fail by T\ + T = 2,000 hr. The
same answer can be reached by
TV>-T(2,000hr) = #>_h(1, 300) + JV>4a(700)
+#f-nh(1,300;700),
or
7\rF-r(2, 000 hr) = 48 + 6 + 15 = 69.
Therefore, the total number that will fail by 2,000 hr of operation

with replacement of those that fail by 1,300 hr is 69.
5. The total number of bearings surviving after (Ti -f T) hr of op

eration when we follow the policy of replacing the failed ones by
2*i hr is found from Eq. (17.11), or
NS-r(T, + T) = N0 {[1 - RiT^RiT) + R(Tt + T)},
Ars-fi(l,300 hr + 700 hr) = 100{[1 - 0.522046](0.884706)

+ 0.367879},
or
NS-r{2,000 hr) = 100[(0.477954)(0.884706) + 0.367879],
NS-r{2,QQ0 hr) = 100(0.790728) = 79.07, say 79.
Therefore a total of 79 bearings will survive. The same answer

can be reached by
iVs_fl(2,000 hr) = N0 + NF-R(T% +T)- NF.T{J\ + T),

= 100 + 48-69 = 79.
6. The total combined reliability of the components under this re

placement policy from Eq. (17.13) is
Rt-r(Ti +T) = [1 - RiT^RiT) + RW + T),
AT-fi(l,300 hr + 700 hr) = (1 - 0.522046)(0.884706) + 0.367879,

= 0.790728,
or
Ns-r^ + T)
Rt-r(T, + T) =
N0
79 07
RT-r(1,30Q hr + 700 hr) = #T_fl(2,000) = ——- = 0.7907.
Therefore, the combined reliability is 79.1%.
7. The reliability for (Ti + T) hr of operation without a replacement

policy is
PROBLEMS 751
5(1, 300 hr + 700 hr) = e"( *.<>™ > ,

or
5(2,000 hr) = e_1 = 0.367879, say 36.8%.
Consequently,
5(2, 000 hr) WITHOUT < 5(2, 000 hr) WITH

REPLACEMENT REPLACEMENT
since,
36.8% < 79.1%,
or 5(2, 000 hr) with replacement is more than double that without
replacement.
PROBLEMS
17-1. Derive the equation for calculating the total combined reliability
if the age of the units which have been put into operation at the
beginning of the mission is not zero, or To ^ 0, but T\.
17-2. Find the total combined reliability for the following replacement
policy: At the prescribed replacement time T\, those that are
found to have failed by T\ are replaced by fresh ones, and p
percent of those that have not failed by T\ are also replaced by
fresh ones.
17-3. Find the optimal value of the p given in Problem 17-2 in terms
of cost, assuming that
C\ = replacement cost per unit,
C<i = unit cost,
Cz = salvage value of an unfailed unit at replacement
time T\,
and
d = failure cost at the end of the mission.
17-4. Give an alternative derivation of Eq. (17.13).

752 PROBLEMS
17-5. Identical aluminum spindles are operating at an alternating stress

level of 25,000 psi. Each one of these spindles has completed
500,000 revolutions (cycles) successfully. Their cycles to failure
distribution is lognormally distributed with the mean n = 500
cycles and standard deviation an = 50 cycles.
1. If 1,000 of such spindles are operating, how many will sur

vive after 500,000 cycles of operation, starting their opera
tion at the age of 500,000 cycles, and how many will fail?
2. If the failed spindles are replaced by new ones and all of
them operate for n = 300,000 cycles thereafter, how many
of the fresh ones will fail?
3. Of those that survived n\ cycles, how many will fail during
the additional n cycles?
4. What is the total number of spindles that will fail by (n\+n)
cycles given that 1,000 started at age zero, and that those
that fail by n\ cycles are replaced?
5. What is the total number of surviving components after
(ni -f n) cycles when we follow the policy of replacing the
failed ones by n\ cycles?
6. What is the total combined reliability of the components
under this replacement policy?
7. What is the reliability for (n\ + n) cycles without a replace
ment policy? Compare the answer with that of Case 6.
17-6. Using the replacement policy of Problem 17-2 determine the

total combined reliability of the components given in Problem
17-5, assuming that the percent, p, of those that have not failed
by n\ = 500,000 cycles, but are replaced, is 30%.
17-7. Identical types of bearings have a Weibull times- to-failure dis

tribution with the following parameters:
0 = 2.8, tj = 2,500hr, 7 = 0 hr.

1. If 100 of such bearings are operating in identical equip
ment at the same application and operation stress level,
how many will survive if each one operates T\ = 1,500 hr
at 675 rpm, and how many will fail?
2. If the failed bearings are replaced by new ones and all of
them operate for T — 800 hr thereafter, how many of the
fresh ones will fail?
PROBLEMS 753
3. Of those that survived T\ hr, how many will fail during the
additional T hr of operation?
4. What is the total number of bearings that will fail by (Ti +
T) hr of operation, given that 100 started at age zero, and
that those that fail by T\ hr are replaced?
5. What is the total number of bearings surviving after (T\ +T)
hr of operation when we follow the policy of replacing the
failed ones by T\ hr?
6. What is the total combined reliability of the components
under the replacement policy?
7. What is the reliability for (T\ +T) hr of operation without a
replacement policy? Compare the answer with that of Case
6.
17-7 assuming that the percent, p, of those that have not failed
by T\ = 1,500 hr, but are replaced, is 30%.
17-9. Identical units have a Weibull times-to-failure distribution with
the following parameters: (3 — 1.75, 77 = 3,000 hr and 7 = 0
hr. The replacement policy is as follows: Those that are found
to have failed at 1,500 hr are replaced with units which have to
have a Weibull times-to-failure distribution with the following
parameters: 0 = 2.50, 77 = 1,500 hr and 7 = 0 hr. Do the
following:
1. If 1,000 such units are operating in identical equipment at
the same application and operation stress level, how many
will fail if each one operates T\ = 1 , 500 hr?
2. If the failed ones are replaced according to the given policy,
how many will fail when operating for t = 500 hr thereafter?
3. Of those that survive T\ = 1,500 hr, how many will fail
during the additional t = 500 hr of operation?
4. What is the total combined reliability of these components
under the replacement policy of Case 3?
17-9 assuming that the percent, p, of those that have not failed
by ni = 500,000 cycles but are replaced, is 30%.
Chapter 18
RELIABILITY OF MAINTAINED
EQUIPMENT WHEN KEEPING
TRACK OF THE AGES OF ALL
COMPONENTS WITH
EXPONENTIAL AND
WEIBULLIAN PDF'S
18.1 RELIABILITY WHILE KEEPING TRACK

OF THE AGES OF ALL COMPONENTS
If the ages of all N components in identical equipment which undergo
only corrective maintenance are kept track of, and all N components
are reliabilitywise in series, then the equipment's reliability for the first
mission may be obtained from
N
Ris(T1)= n*i«-(ri). I18-1)
t=l
where
wo.^^,-^, (18.2)
T\ = age at the end of the first mission, which is also

equal to t, the duration of the first mission,
755
756 RELIABILITY OF MAINTAINED EQUIPMENT
Nci
-r=- = proportion of identical components which fail due
1 to chance causes,
N i
-r— = proportion of the same identical components
1 which fail due to wear-out causes,
N ■
•"ci N ■
, lywx i
Ni + Ni ~ '
anc
N{ = total number of components in the equipment, assum
ing the components exhibit chance as well as wear-out
failures, as would be the general case.
The parameters iVc,-, Nw{, A,-, 7,-, 77; and /?,- in Eq. (18.2) may be de
termined using known techniques [1, pp. 215-263; 271-331].
After the first mission, the reliability of this equipment for the
second mission is given by
N
R2s(Tut) = J[R2i(T2,t),
t=i
where T2 is the age at the beginning of the second mission and t is the
duration of the second mission, or
R2s(Tut) ,fi3ggyA (18.3)
In the general case,

r,+t—« ft
N TV^ .-AiCTi+i . jVî -( * )
Rjs(Tj,t)=ll ,*\-,,.ft (18.4)
t=i jê-W + ê"1* )
Equation (18.4) applies when no component fails during the previ
ous missions and all components are checked out before the next mis
sion is undertaken. It should be ascertained that this next mission's
reliability meets the equipment's reliability goal, or that
Rjs(Tj,t)>RGOAL(t)-
MEAN LIFE 757
If some components fail during the previous mission and are re

placed with fresh ones, the equipment's reliability for any mission may
be obtained from
TV _(**=*>*
%scfyo=n t=i
(18.5)
where the T, are the ages of the respective components and all parame
ters are for these ages, and Tj is the age of the system at the beginning
of the jth mission.
18.2 MEAN LIFE

The mean life of the equipment for the first mission may be obtained
from
M1S= I" Ris(T)dT, (18.6)
Jo
where Ris(T) is given by Eq. (18.1).
The mean life of the equipment for the second mission, if no failures
have occurred during the first mission, may be obtained from
M2S= / R2s(T2,t)dt, (18.7)

Jo
using Eqs. (18.3) or (18.4).
If some components fail during the first mission and are replaced by
fresh ones, then the mean life of the equipment for the second mission
may be obtained from
roo
Mvs = / Rrs(T2,t) dt, (18.8)
Jo
using Eq. (18.5) for j — 2, or in general from
MO
MyS= / RMTj,t)dt. (18.9)
Jo
EXAMPLE 18-1
In a three-unit system, the units function reliabilitywise in series.
Each unit can fail due to chance as well as wear-out causes. The pa
rameters of each unit's times-to-failure distribution are listed in Table
18.1. Assume that only the failed unit is replaced and then the system
is readied for the next mission. Do the following:
1. Find the system's reliability for the third mission of 50 hr, if the
duration of the first and second missions was 35 hr and they both
were successful.
2. If Unit 1 fails at 40 hr during the first 50-hr mission and then
Unit 3 fails at 30 hr during the second 50-hr mission, find the
system's reliability for the third 50-hr mission.
3. Determine the mean fife of the system in Case 2, for the first
three missions.
4. Discuss the results in Cases 1 and 2 comparatively.
The units that fail during a mission are replaced with fresh ones at the
beginning of the next mission.
TABLE 18.1 - The parameters of the times-to- failure dis
tribution of each unit in Example 18—1.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Number
of A,-, 7»i m,
unit * * fr/106 hr hr hr ft
1 0.30 0.70 50 10 400 1.8
2 0.25 0.75 45 50 450 1.5
3 0.20 0.80 70 0 500 2.0
1. From Eq. (18.4) the conditional reliability of the system is given

by
,120--», .0%
#35(70 hr, 50 hr) = fj 70 —u

.(18.10)
1=1 + *e"<
Substituting the parameters of each unit into Eq. (18.10) yields
• 120-10 |'6 '
0 30 e-o.oooo5oxi20+ Q 7Q e-gjg)
#3s(70hr,50hr) =
0.30 e-000005x7° + 0.70 e-*1!^1 "
0 25 e-o.oooo45xi2o + Q 75 e-gg-^ "*

/ 70 — LO \1 -5
0.25 e-o.oooo45x?o + 0.75 e-(~^r]
MEAN LIFE 759
0.20 e-0-000070"20 + 0.80 e-^? °

/ 70-0 \20
0.20 e-0000070x70 + 0.80 e-("556-)
0.932920777^ / 0.954022779 ^\\ /0.953549020\

/0.932920777N /
~" Vo.9763084397 V 0.992219277/ V 0.983495062J
or
#3s(70 hr,50 hr) = 0.8907988.
2. From Eq. (18.5) the reliability of the system, keeping track of the
age of each unit, is given by
N*L e-*i{T>+t) + Np g^^fe31)*

R3>s(n,t) = fi (18.11)
t=i %l e-xiTi + Ufa „-<*=*>*
where t = 50 hr, Tx = 30 hr, T2 = 40 + 30 = 70 hr, and T3 = 0
hr, because Unit 1 having failed during the first mission and
having been replaced with a fresh one at the beginning of the
second mission, operates for 30 hours during the second mission
at which time Unit 3 fails, and the mission is stopped. Therefore
the age of Unit 1 at the beginning of the third mission is only 30
hours. Ti and T3 are determined similarly.
Substituting the ages, the mission time, and the parameters of
each unit into Eq. (18.11) yields '
'0.30 e-o.oooo50x(3o+50) + „ L e-(«±|jptt)«
#3-5(100,50) =
0.30 e-0000050x3° + 0.70 e"*2^)1 8
0.25 e-0-000045X (70+50) + 0 75 e-(3ttjg=2&)

70 + 50-50 M.5
70-50 ■,, 5
0.25 e-°-000045x70 + 0.75 e^Tsr)
/ 50-0^2.0
0.20 e-0000070x50 + 0.80 e V 500 I
i0-0yi n
0.20 e-0000070x0 + 0.80 e-(w
<■ 500 '
/0.969073635\ /0.954022779\ / 0.991341088\

" V0.996371587/ U.9922192777 V
or
R3>s = 0.9270638.
3. The system's mean life for the first mission, is given by Eq. (18.6),
or
Mxs = r Ris(T) dT,
Jo
and from Eq. (18.2)
Jroo »
'Nc
'ii »-A,T i Nw' „-(
M \s + dT,
Ni Ni
or
Mi5=/ {[0.30e-OOOOO5or + 0.70]
•[0.25e-OOOOO45T + 0.75]
.[0.20 e-0000070 T + 0.80 e-(w)2°]} dr
+ y5° { [0.30 e'0000050 T + 0.70 e~<W]
•[0.25e-OOOOO45T + 0.75]
• [0.20 e-0000070 T + 0.80 e-(w)2°]} dT
+ f* { [0.30 e-0000050 T + 0.70 e"<W]
,-0.000045 T
• 0.20 e-°-°°°o7o r + 0.80 e-(w)"'°] } dT.
The use of a numerical integration computer program yields

M1S = 368.61 hr.
For the second mission, from Eq. (18.8),
MVS= / R2>s(T?,t) dt,

Jo
and from Eq. (18.4)
.T.+t-i: J
roo 3 e-A.(T,+t) , N^ -(-%^)
A', * T A7,
M2'S
is WJ
«tt, (18.12)
PROBLEMS 761
where Tx = 0 hr, T2 = 40 hr and T3 = 40 hr. Substituting the

parameters and the age of each unit into Eq. (18.12), and using
a numerical integration computer program, yields
M2>s = 344.56 hr.

For the third mission, from Eq. (18.9),
M3,s= f°° Rys(U,t) dt,

Jo
and from Eq. (18.4)
J/-oo 3
My. Ifr e-A,r. + J^ e-(2^)/3• dt, (18.13)
where Tx = 30 hr, T2 = 70 hr and T3 = 0 hr.

Substituting the parameters and the age of each unit into Eq.
(18.13), and using a numerical integration computer program,
yields
Mz,s = 338.32 hr.
From these results, it may be seen that the system's mean life
for the first mission is the longest. This is always true, because
all units in the system are fresh for the first mission.
4. In Cases 1 and 2, the cumulative mission times are the same and
are equal to 120 hr, but the reliability values are different. The
reliability of the system in Case 2 is greater than that in Case 1;
i.e.,
[iistCase 1) = 89.08%] < [i?s(Case 2) = 92.71%].
The reason is that in Case 2, there are two fresh units which are
the replacements for the two units that failed during the first two
missions.
PROBLEMS
18-1. A machine consists of three units which function reliabilitywise

in series, with the useful life failure rates and wear-out pdf pa
rameters given in Table 18.2. Do the following:
762 PROBLEMS
TABLE 18.2 — The parameters of the times-to-failure dis

tribution of each unit for Problem 18-1.
Number of Ac, T
unit fr/106 hr hr hr
1 0.5 3,000 500
2 1.0 10,000 1,000
3 0.7 5,000 800
Take $ = 0.1 and ty = 0.9.
1. Find the mean life to the first failure of the machine, or when
each failed unit is replaced by an identical one that had op
erated a period equal to the period of operation of the failed
unit that is being replaced by a fresh unit.
2. Find the mean time between the second and third failures if
Unit 1 fails first at the age of 500 hr and is replaced with a
new identical unit, and Unit 3 fails next at the age of 7,000
hr and is replaced with a new identical unit.
3. Find the stabilized mean time between failures of this ma
chine, when the failed units are replaced by fresh units.
4. Calculate and plot the reliabilities for the follow
ing two cases:
4.1 Case 1.
4.2 Case 2.
18-2. In a three-unit system, the units function reliabilitywise in series.
Each unit can fail due to chance as well as wear-out causes. The
parameters of each unit's times-to-failure distribution are listed
in Table 18.3. Assume that only the failed unit is replaced and
then the system is readied for the next mission. Do the following:
1. Find the system's reliability for the third mission of 50 hr, if
the duration of the first and second missions was 35 hr and
both missions were successful.
3. Determine the mean life of the system in Case 2, for the first
three missions.
PROBLEMS 763
TABLE 18.3 The parameters of the times- to-failure dis

tribution of each unit in Problem 18-2.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Number
of A,, 7ii Vi
unit * * fr/106 hr hr hr Pi
1 0.15 0.85 40 20 500 2.0
2 0.20 0.80 45 50 300 1.5
3 0.10 0.90 70 0 400 2.5

The units that fail during a mission are replaced with fresh ones
at the beginning of the next mission.
1 . Find the system's reliability for the third mission of 40 hr, if
both missions were successful.
three missions.
18-4. A machine consists of three units which function reliabilitywise
in series, with the useful life failure rates and wear-out pdf pa
rameters given in Table 18.5. Do the following:
764 PROBLEMS

1 2 3 4 5 6 i
Number
of A,, 7ii Wi
unit * N fr/106 hr hr hr ft
1 0.15 0.85 40 20 500 2.0
2 0.20 0.80 45 50 300 1.5
3 0.10 0.90 70 0 400 2.5
TABLE 18.5 - The parameters of the times-to-failure dis

Number of Ac, T
1 1.5 5,000 900
2 0.9 7,000 500
3 0.7 3,000 800
Take $ = 0.1 and £fr = 0.9.

PROBLEMS 765
TABLE 18.6 - The parameters of the times-to-failure dis

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Number
of A,-, 7.', ■Ki
unit
1
*
0.35
¥
0.65
fr/106 hr
40
hr
20
hr
500
fii
2.0
2 0.30 0.70 45 50 300 1.5
3 0.20 0.80 70 0 400 2.5
2. Find the mean time between the second and third failures if
new identical unit, and Unit 3 fails next at the age of 5,000
hr and is replaced with a new identical unit.
4. Calculate and plot the reliabilities for the following two cases:
4.1 Case 1.
4.2 Case 2.
18-5. Work out Problem 18-1 again taking ^ = 0.2 and ^p = 0.8 and
compare the results with those obtained in Problem 18-1.
18-6. Work out Problem 18-2 with the parameters of each unit's times-
to-failure distribution given in Table 18.6. Compare the results
with those obtained in Problem 18-2.
1. Find the system's reliability for the fourth mission of 50 hr, if
the duration of the first, second and third missions was 50 hr
and all missions were successful.
2. If Unit 1 fails at 30 hr during the first 50-hr mission, then Unit
3 fails at 30 hr during the second 50-hr mission, and Unit 1
fails at 40 hr during the third 50-hr mission, find the system's
reliability for the fourth 50-hr mission.
766 PROBLEMS
TABLE 18.7 The parameters of the times-to- failure dis

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Number
of A,, 7« «i
unit * fr/106 hr hr hr ft
*
1 0.15 0.85 40 20 500 2.0
2 0.20 0.80 45 50 300 1.5
3 0.10 0.90 70 0 400 2.5
TABLE 18.8 The parameters of the times-to- failure dis

Number of Ac, T <*TW,
1 0.5 3,000 500
2 1.0 10,000 1,000
3 0.7 5,000 800
4 0.8 4,000 300
Takef 0.1 and fy = 0.9.
four missions.
18-8. A machine consists of four units which function reliabilitywise in

series, with the useful life failure rates and wear-out pdf param
eters given in Table 18.8. Do the following:
PROBLEMS 767

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Number
of A,, 7*i
unit
1
>
0.20
¥
0.80
fr/106 hr
40
hr
10
hr
500
ft
2.0
2 0.20 0.80 45 40 300 1.5
3 0.20 0.80 70 20 400 2.5
2. Find the mean time between the third and fourth failures if
new identical unit, Unit 3 fails next at the age of 7,000 hr and
is replaced with a new identical unit, and Unit 4 fails next at
the age of 8,000 hr and is replaced with a new identical unit.
18-9. Work out Problem 18-8 again assuming that jf = 0.3 and ^ff- =
0.7 for all three units and compare the results with those obtained
in Problem 18-8.
18-10. In a three-unit system, the units function reliabilitywise in se
ries. Each unit can fail due to chance as well as wear-out causes.
The parameters of each unit's times-to-failure distribution are
listed in Table 18.9. Assume that only the failed unit is replaced
and then the system is readied for the next mission. Do the
following:
1 . Find the system's reliability for the third mission of 50 hr, if
they both were successful.
three missions.
768 REFERENCE
REFERENCE
1. Kececioglu, Dimitri B., RehabiUty Engmeering Handbook, DEStech

4359, Vol.2, 568 pp., 2002.
Index
Accessibility, figures, 55 Central limit theorem, 635

Additional maintenance policy repair time distribution de
multistage replacement pol termination, 636
icy, 402 Composite Weibull process see
opportunistic replacement pol also Weibull process
icy, 413 Conditional reliability
optimal inspection frequency in spares provisioning, 544,
438-441 546-548
maximization of profit, 438 Confidence level, 533, 543, 583
maximization of equipment for spares provisioning, 533
availability, 441 its selection for spare pre
optional replacement policy, diction, 543
385 spares provisioning, 583
preventive replacement pol Corrective replacement,
icy for capital equipment, reliability when replacing those
433 that fail by a given time,
Age replacement policy, 551 739-753
with minimal repair, 560 Cost and criticality of spares,
spares provisioning, 551-554 625
ARINC, 22-23 Cost models
Atlas guidance system, 9 for age replacement with min
Availability, defined, 24 imal repair, 345-347
Availability maximization, 615 for age replacement with min
imal repairs and system
idle time, 351
for MPRP with constant spare
Ball-bearing system, 423 procurement lead time,
Best preventive replacement age, 340-343
386 for MBRP with inventory
Block replacement policy, 554 of spares
769
770 INDEX
multi-period model, 366- Dynamic program, 477-478

368
single-period model, 362- E
366
Equipment repair time, 101
for MBRP with reconditioned
Error bounds, 673
spares, 372-374
of Monte Carlo simulation,
for multiple block replace
673
ment policy with idle time
ERT see Equipment repair time
cost, 378-380
Expected number of failures, 533
for multistage replacement
for spares provisioning, 533
policy, 405
Expected number of spare parts,
for opportunistic replacement
533
policy, 413
Exponential distribution, 93-97
for optional replacement pol
MTTR, 93
icy, 388, 396
Exxon pump failures study, 16
for ordinary block replace
ment policy, 359-361 F
for ordinary periodic replace
ment poh'cy, 335-33(i Failure Rate,
Cost ol âres, 583 corrective for Policy I, 269
Cost of, Forward recurrence time (FRT),
repair and replace, 130 371, 379
preventive maintenance pe definition, 371
riod for Policy I, 274 pdf, 371
Criticality of spares, 625
Generation of random values, 671

Decaying populat ,544 via Monte Carlo simulation,
Design adequacy, , 28 671
defined, 24 Geometric mean time to repair,
Distribu' nal test o35 101-102
in a st and repair facility, Global poli.y, 446
i 15 Golden Section Method, 436
Downtime Government Specifications, 147-
active repair, 123 203
chargeable (CMDT), 172 MIL-STD-470, 148
distributions, 67-90 MIL-STD-471, 148, 150-203
nonchargeable (NCMDT), 172 test methods on, 150-203
Dynamic model, 612 Group replacement policy, 557
INDEX 771
spares provisioning, 557 mean life, 757-761

Maintenance
corrective maintenance, 40
Integrated Logistic Support Fac corrective, 138
tors, 148 defined, 37
Intrinsic availability, defined, 24 maintenance personnel fac
Inventory costs consideration, 609 tors, 44-45
maintenance personnel safety
K factors, 45
maintenance support facili
Kettelle algorithm, 598
for optimum spares kit de ties and equipment, 46
operating time and down
termination, 598
time categories, 41-44
Kit, 583
preventive, 37-40, 138, 243-
optimum number of spares,
583 309
age replacement - Policy
I, 244
block replacement - Pol
Local replacement policy, 446 icy II, 275
Lognormal distribution, 106-111 concepts, 243
M group of parts replacement,
284
Maintainability single exponential unit, 253
A posteriori determination, Man-Hours, mean
115 corrective maintenance, 129
A priori determination, 115 maintenance to repair and
comprehensive definition, 30 replace, 130
defined, 24, 91-93 maintenance to replace, 129
Maintainability Engineering tests, 163, 178-179
benefits derived from, 8-19 Marginal assurance analysis, 585
functions, 77-84 for optimum spare kit de
objectives and benefits, 4- termination, 583
18 Maximum maintenance time, 102-
Maintainability Program Plan see 106
also MIL-STD-470, MBRP see Modified block re
Maintained equipment, placement policy
reliability when tracking ages Mean active corrective and pre
of all components, 755- ventive maintenance time,
757 100-101
772 INDEX
Mean active corrective mainte idle time, 351-352

nance time, 99 cost model, 351
Mean active preventive mainte description, 351
nance time, 100 spares provisioning, 559
Mean time to repair, 93, 97-99 with constant spares procure
MIL-STDs see Government Spec ment lead time, 339-343
ifications, cost model, 340
Military aircraft study, 14 description, 339
Minuteman missile, 9 Monte Carlo simulation
Mission reliability, defined, 24 error bounds, 673
Modified block replacement pol number of trials, 673
icy (MBRP) repair time distribution de
multiple block replacement termination, 636
with idle time cost, 378 MPRP see Modified periodic re
with inventory of spares, 362- placement policy
366 MTBF of a renewable device
multi-period model, cost or system, 475
of, 366 Multiple block replacement pol
multi-period model, descrip icy with idle time cost,
tion of, 366 378-380
single-period model, cost cost model, 378
of, 362 description, 378
single-period model, de Multistage replacement policy
scription of, 362 conditions, 411
with reconditioned spares use, cost model, 405
370-371 introduction, 402
cost model, 371 principle, 404
description, 370 spares requirement model,
spares prediction with recon 412
ditioned spares, 564 system's reliability model, 413
with inventory of spares, 625
O
Modified periodic replacement
policy (MPRP) Operational Readiness, 24, 27-
age replacement policy with 28
minimal repair, 345 defined, 24
cost model, 345 Opportunistic replacement pol
description, 345 icy, 413-422
age replacement with mini application, 423
mal repairs and system conditions, 422
INDEX 773
cost model, 413 cost model, 360

principle, 413 drawback, 361
spares requirement model, Ordinary periodic replacement
423 policy
Optimal cost limits, finite time cost function, 335
horizon, 501 drawbacks of, 338
Optimal inspection frequency, max replacement time, 337
imization of profit, 438 spares provisioning, 559
Optimal inspection interval, 441 Ordinary renewal density (ORD)
maximization of equipment definition, 372
availability, 441 Laplace transform, 372
Optimal overhaul/repair/replace Ordinary renewal function (ORF)
policy, definition, 359
finite time horizon, 478 Laplace transform, 359-360
infinite time horizon, 495 Overhaul
Optimum number of spares, 583 defined, 463
Optimum preventive replacement off-schedule overhaul, 463
age, 436 scheduled overhaul, 463
Optimum replacement time, 337, wear-out distribution,
348, 352, 361, 370, 374 Normal, 470-471
Optimum spare kit, 583 Weibull, 466-468
Optional replacement policy Overhaul policy
conditions, 399 optimal cost limits
cost model, 388 finite time horizon, 501
assumptions, 388 optimal overhaul/repair/replace
entirely regular interval, policy
396 finite time horizon, 478
exponential distributed in infinite time horizon, 495
terval, 388 Overstock cost model, 609
introduction, 385 for spares provisioning, 609
principle, 386
reliability model, 400
spares provisioning, 568 Packaging practices, 57
spares requirement model, Periodic replacement policy, 335
399 Modified periodic replacement
Ordering time, 340 policy (MPRP), 338
optimal, 345 Ordinary periodic replace
Ordinary block replacement pol ment policy (OPRP), 335
icy (OBRP), 359-361 Poisson distribution, 534-535
774 INDEX
for spare parts prediction, concluding remarks, 679

535 error bounds and number of
Preventive maintenance policies, Monte Carlo trials, 673
551 generation of random val
spares provisioning, 551 ues for various distribu
Preventive maintenance tions, 673
mean active preventive main how to apply, 635
tenance time, 100 application, 642
objectives, 40 central limit theorem, 635
Preventive replacement policy for interpolation procedure for
capital equipment, 433- z'Q tables, 645
438 Monte Carlo simulation,
description, 433 662
model, 433 system moments, 639
in a test and repair facility,
635
Repairability, defined, 25
Random number generation, 673
Repairable units, Weibull pro
in Monte Carlo simulation,
cess see Weibull process
673
Repairs see Restorations
Reliability
Replacement rate
denned, 24, 26
preventive for Policy I, 269
comprehensive definition,
Residual life, 346, 351
26
Restoration time
when replacing those units
consistency, 125
that fail by a given time,
efficiency, 125
739-753
Restoration
when tracking the ages of
active, 123
all components, 755-757
corrective, 123
Reliability bathtub curve (RBTC),
533 S
Reliability Engineering
applications, 32-36 Serviceability, 25
defined, 30 Spares provisioning
reasons for, 31-32 at a desired confidence level,
Reliability growth, 573 533
spares provisioning, 573 confidence level selection,
Renewal reward theorem, 340 543
Repair time distribution deter for a decaying population,
mination 544
INDEX 775
for units that fail by a pre Steady State Mean Times, 123-
scribed operating time, 139
546 active repair, 123
inventory costs consideration, corrective maintenance, 138
609 corrective restoration, 123
availability maximization preventive maintenance, 138,
per cost ratio model, 615 243-310
dynamic spares provision Summary of developments of main
ing approach, 612 tenance policies, 446
understock and overstock System Effectiveness, 21-36
cost model, 609 concepts of, 24-25
under preventive maintenance definitions, 24-25
policies, 551 quantification, 27-30
age replacement policy, 551 System moments method, 639
age replacement with min repair time distribution de
imal repair, 560 termination, 638
block replacement policy,
554
group replacement policy, Tapco case study, 11
557 Taylor series expansion, 534
modified block replacement for Poisson pdf explanation,
policy, 564 534
modified periodic replace Theoretical considerations for op
ment policy, 559 timum spare kit deter
optional replacement pol mination, 591
icy, 568 Time categories
ordinary periodic replace active repair time, 25
ment policy, 559 administrative time, 25, 41
with cost consideration, 583 down time, 25
Kettelle algorithm, 598 free time, 25
optimum spares kit, 583 logistics time, 25, 41
optimum spares in a kit, operating time, 25
583 storage time, 25
theoretical considerations, times associated with main
591 tenance, 43-44
with growth and warranty,
U
573
Spares Requirement for Policy Understock cost model for spares
1,273 provisioning, 609
776 INDEX
Uniform distribution, 663

in Monte Carlo simulation,
662
U.S. Navy case studies, 10
Warranty, 573
spares provisioning, 573
Weibull distribution, 111-114
Weibull process
composite Weibull process
721-724,
graphical estimates, 701-709
maximum likelihood estimates,
709-711
when testing more than one
unit, 711-721
WSEIAC reports, 21-22
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Dr. Dimitri B. Kececioglu, P.E., a Fullbright Scholar, a Fellow
of the Society of Automotive Engineers, and a Fellow of the Ameri
can Society for Quality, is considered to be the Deming of Reliability
Engineering. He received his B.S.M.E. from Robert College, Istanbul,
Turkey in 1942, and his M.S. in Industrial Engineering in 1948 and his
Ph.D. in Engineering Mechanics in 1953, both from Purdue Univer
sity, Lafayette, Indiana. He is currently a Professor in the Department
of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering, The University of Arizona;
Professor-in-Charge of a unique ten-course Reliability Engineering pro
gram leading to the Master of Science degree in the Reliability Engi
neering Option; Director of the Annual Reliability Engineering and
Management Institute; Director of the Annual Reliability Testing In
stitute; Director of the Applied Reliability Engineering and Product
Assurance Institute for Engineers and Managers; and a Reliability and
Maintainability Engineering consultant.
This book is based on the following extensive experience of the
author in Reliability Engineering, Maintainability Engineering, Reli
ability & Life Testing, Mechanical Reliability, Environmental Stress
Screening, and Burn-In Testing:
1. He initiated and was the Director of the Corporate Reliability

Engineering Program at the Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Co.,
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, from 1960 to 1963.
2. He started the Reliability Engineering Instructional Program at

The University of Arizona in 1963, which now has more than ten
courses in it. A Master's Degree with a Reliability Engineering
Option is currently being offered in the Aerospace and Mechani
cal Engineering Department at The University of Arizona under
his leadership. He started this option in 1969.
3. He conceived and directed the first two Summer Institutes for 30

college and university faculty in Reliability Engineering ever to
be supported by the National Science Foundation. The first was
in the summer of 1965 and the second in the summer of 1966.
These faculty started teaching Reliability Engineering courses
at their respective universities and/or incorporating Reliability
Engineering concepts into their courses.
777
778 AUTHOR
4. He helped initiate The Professional Certificate Award in Reli

ability and Quality Engineering at The University of Arizona
in 1991. This is a 15-unit program. The certificate's require
ments are met via videotapes of the VIDEOCAMPUS organiza
tion through Extended University. No participant needs to be
present on the campus of The University of Arizona to get this
certificate.
5. In 1963 he conceived, initiated, and has directed since then the

now internationally famous and very successful The Annual Reli
ability Engineering and Management Institute at The University
of Arizona, sponsored by over 15 top companies in the U.S.A.
6. In 1975 he conceived, initiated, and has directed since then the

now internationally famous and very successful The Annual Reli
ability Testing Institute at The University of Arizona, also spon
sored by over 15 top companies in the U.S.A.
7. In 1992 he conceived, initiated, and has directed since then The

Annual Applied Reliability Engineering and Product Assurance
Institute for Engineers and Managers.
8. He has lectured extensively and has conducted over 400 training

courses, short courses and seminars worldwide, and has exposed
over 12,000 reliability, maintainability, test, design, and product
assurance engineers to the concepts of this and his 7 other books.
9. He has been the Principal Investigator of mechanical reliability

research for the NASA-Lewis Research Center, the Office of Naval
Research, and the Naval Weapons Engineering Support Activity
for ten years.
10. He has been consulted extensively by over 100 industries and gov
ernment agencies worldwide on Reliability Engineering, Reliabil
ity & Life Testing, Maintainability Engineering, and Mechanical
Reliability matters.
11. He has been active in the Annual Reliability and Maintainability

Symposia and numerous other Conferences dealing with Relia
bility Engineering since 1963.
AUTHOR 779
12. He founded the Tucson Chapter of the Society of Reliability En

gineers in 1974 and was its first president. He also founded the
first and currently very active Student Chapter of the Society of
Reliability Engineers at The University of Arizona.
13. He has authored and co-authored over 152 papers and articles,
of which over 143 are in all areas of Reliability Engineering.
14. In addition to this book, he authored or contributed to the fol

lowing books:
1_ Bibliography on Plasticity - Theory ar.d Applications, by Dr.
Dimitri B. Kececioglu, published by the American Society
of Mechanical Engineers, New York, 191 pp., 1950.
2_ Manufacturing, Planning and Estimating Handbook, by Dr.
Dimitri B. Kececioglu and Lawrence Karvonen contributed
part of Chapter 19, pp. 19-1 to 19-12, published by McGraw-
Hill Book Co., Inc., New York, 864 pp., 1963.
3_ Introduction to Probabilistic Design for Reliability, by Dr.
Dimitri B. Kececioglu, published by the United States Army
Management Engineering Training Agency, Rock Island, Illi
nois, contributed Chapter 7 of 109 pp., and Chapter 8 of 137
pp., May 1974.
4_ Manual of Product Assurance Films on Reliability Engineer
ing and Management, Reliability Testing, Maintainability,
and Quality Control, published by Dr. Dimitri B. Kece
cioglu, 7340 N. La Oesta Avenue, Tucson, Arizona 85704-
3119, 178 pp., 1976.
5_ Manual of Product Assurance Films and Videotapes, Dimitri
Kececioglu, published by Dr. Dimitri B. Kececioglu, 7340
N. La Oesta Avenue, Tucson, Arizona 85704-3119, 327 pp.,
1980.
6_ The 1992-1994 Reliability, Maintainability and Availability
Software Handbook, by Dr. Dimitri B. Kececioglu and Mr.
Pantelis Vassiliou, 7340 N. La Oesta Avenue, Tucson, Ari
zona 85704-3119, 118 pp., November 1992.
7_ Reliability Engineering Handbook, by Dr. Dimitri B. Ke
cecioglu, DEStech Publications. 1148 Elizabeth Ave., #2,
Lancaster, PA 17601-4359, Vol. 1, 720 pp., 2002.
780 AUTHOR
8_ Reliability Engineering Handbook, by Dr. Dimitri B. Ke-

cecioglu, DEStech Publications, 1148 Elizabeth Ave., #2,
9. Reliability & Life Testing Handbook, by Dr. Dimitri B. Ke-
10_ Reliability & Life Testing Handbook, by Dr. Dimitri B. Ke-
11_ Environmental Stress Screening - Its Quantification, Opti
mization and Management, by Dr. Dimitri B. Kececioglu
and Dr. Feng-Bin Sun, DEStech Publications, 1148 Eliza
beth Ave., #2, Lancaster, PA 17601-4359, 546 pp., 2002.
12_ Maintainability, Availability and Operational Readiness En
gineering Handbook, by Dr. Dimitri B. Kececioglu, DEStech
4359, Vol. 1, 814 pp., 2002.
13_ Burn-in Testing - Its Quantification and Optimization, by
Dr. Dimitri B. Kececioglu, and Dr. Feng-Bin Sun, DEStech
4359, 650 pp., 2002.
15. He has received over 100 prestigious awards and has been rec
ognized for his valuable contributions to the fields of Reliability
Engineering and Testing, Maintainability Engineering. Burn-In
Testing, Environmental Stress Screening, and Mechanical Relia
bility. Among these are the following:
1. Fulbright Scholar in 1971.
2_ Ralph Teetor Award of the Society of Automotive Engineers
as "Outstanding Engineering Educator'" in 1977.
3_ Certificate of Excellence by the Society of Reliability Engi
neers for his "personal contributions made toward the ad
vancement of the philosophy and principles of Reliability
Engineering" in 1978.
4_ ASQ-Reliability Division, Reliability Education Advance
ment Award for his "outstanding contributions to the de
velopment and presentation of meritorious reliability edu
cational programs" in 1980.
AUTHOR 781
5_ ASQ Allen Chop Award for his "outstanding contributions

to Reliability Science and Technology" in 1981.
6_ The University of Arizona College of Engineering Anderson
Prize for "engineering the Master's Degree program in the
Reliability Engineering Option" in 1983.
7_ Designation of "Senior Extension Teacher" by Dr. Leonard
Freeman, Dean, Continuing Education and University Ex
tension, University of California, Los Angeles in 1983.
8_ Honorary Member, Golden Key National Honor Society in
1984.
9_ Honorary Professor, Shanghai University of Technology in
1984.
10. Honorary Professor, Phi Kappa Phi Honor Society in 1988.
11 _ The American Hellenic Educational Progressive Association
(AHEPA) "Academy of Achievement Award in Education"
in 1992.
12_ On the occasion of "The 30th Annual Reliability Engineering
and Management Institute," the President of The University
of Arizona, Dr. Manuel T. Pacheco, presented him a plaque
inscribed: "Your reputation as an outstanding teacher and
advocate of Reliability and Quality Engineering is well es
tablished in the international engineering community. In
your capacity as Director of this Institute, as well as the
Reliability Testing Institute, you have provided the forum
in which many hundreds of our nation's engineers and stu
dents of engineering have received training in Reliability and
Quality Engineering.
I particularly acknowledge your efforts in establishing and
developing funding for the endowment which bears your
name and which will support worthy graduate students in
the future. The 'Dr. Dimitri Basil Kececioglu Reliability
Engineering Research Fellowships Endowment Fund' will
help to ensure that The University of Arizona remains in the
forefront of engineering education and continues to provide
engineering graduates to support our nation's industries. In
this highly competitive world the quality and the reliability
of American products are essential to retaining our position
782 AUTHOR
of world economic leadership. The University of Arizona is

proud to be an important part of that effort and can take
justifiable pride in your own very significant contribution."
16. He conceived and established The Dr. Dimitri Basil Kececioglu

Reliability Engineering Research Fellowships Endowment Fund
in 1987. The cosponsors of his institutes, mentioned in Items 5
and 6, have contributed generously to this fund which has now
crossed the $335,000 mark.
17. He was elected to the presigious Fellow Member grade of the Soci
ety of Automotive Engineers International in 1996 for "his excep
tional professional distinction and important technical achieve
ments" .
18. He was given the "Distinguished Probabilistic Methods Educator

Award" of the Society of Automotive Engineers International in
1997.
19. He was elected to the presigious Fellow Member grade of the
American Society for Quality in 1999 "for having pioneered The
University of Arizona's ten-course Reliability Engineering Cur
riculum and Master's Degree Program in Reliability and Qual
ity Engineering; exposed Reliability to over 12,000 participants
through two NSF Institutes, 39 Reliability Engineering and Man
agement Institutes, 29 Reliability Testing Institutes, and 400
seminars for industry and government; published 152 papers and
35 research reports, published 14 books and contributed to 6
more books."
Dimitri Kececioglu
VOLUME
Maintainability, Availability, &
Operational Readiness Engineering Handbook
Once equipment has been purchased, anywhere from four to forty times
its purchase price may be spent on maintenance and repairs. The ability
to monitor, quantify, and predict maintenance needs ensures the highest
equipment availability at the lowest cost.
The two handbooks in the Maintainability, Availability, and Operational

Readiness Engineering Handbook series provide a full spectrum of
preventive maintenance strategies, along with the analytical tools for
choosing the most appropriate ones. The author integrates concepts of
operational readiness, mission reliability, and design adequacy to achieve
total system effectiveness.
Aimed at professional engineers and managers as well as students, the

Maintainability, Availability, and Operational Readiness Engineering
Handbook, Volume 1 includes problems, learning suggestions, and
complete references. Practical examples, computer programs, and case
studies provide a thorough treatment.
Volume 1 of the series includes:

• Measures of system effectiveness
•The 3 types of maintenance
•15 maintainability design criteria
•Downtime distributions
• Maintainability times-to-restore
•MIL-STD470and471
• 16 preventive and corrective maintenance policies
•Replacement, repair, and reliability strategies
Dr. Dimitri Kececioglu initiated the Reliability Engineering Program at

The University of Arizona, Tucson, in 1963. Since then, he has consulted
internationally with more than 90 businesses and government agencies, and
published 14 books and more than 130 articles. He has trained over 10,000
people in the techniques of reliability, maintainability, and quality engineering.
DESTECH PUBLICATIONS, INC.

Lancaster, PA 1 7601

Unknown

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Unknown

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Dimitci

1. Reliability Engineering Handbook, Volume 1.

Dimitri B. Kececioglu, Ph.D., RE.

Copyright © 2003 by Dimitri B. Kececioglu

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

Printed in the United States of America

Main entry under title:

A DEStech Publications book

1.3- BENEFITS DERIVED FROM THE

SOLUTIONS TO EXAMPLE 2-1 29

2.6- WHY RELIABILITY ENGINEERING? 31

2.7- WHAT ARE THE PRACTICAL

3.2- PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE 37

3.4.1- WAITING TIME 41

3.4.2- ACTIVE MAINTENANCE TIME 42

CHAPTER 5- DOWNTIME DISTRIBUTIONS

5.1- DOWNTIME DISTRIBUTIONS 67

SOLUTIONS TO EXAMPLE 6-4 108

6.13- TIME TO RESTORE FOR GIVEN

EXAMPLE 6-5 113

6.14- A PRIORI VERSUS A POSTERIORI

EXAMPLE 6-6 115

7.1- MEAN TIME TO ACTIVELY RESTORE AN EQUIPMENT. . . . 123

EXAMPLE 7-1 127

7.4- MEAN MAINTENANCE MAN-HOURS TO

SOLUTIONS TO EXAMPLE 7-2 133

EXAMPLE 7-3 138

8.1- GOVERNMENT MAINTAINABILITY SPECIFICATIONS 147

8.2- MIL - STD - 470 148

8.3- MIL - STD - 471 148

8.3.1- REQUIREMENTS 149

8.4- TEST METHOD 1 - TEST OF THE MEAN 150

EXAMPLE 8-1 154

8.4.1- HOW TO DETERMINE d FROM a2, 157

8.5.1- SAMPLE SIZE DETERMINATION 158

8.5.2- DECISION PROCEDURE 160

EXAMPLE 8-3 161

SOLUTION TO EXAMPLE 8-3 161

SOLUTION TO EXAMPLE 8-4 162

EXAMPLE 8-5 162

8.6- TEST METHOD 3 - TEST ON CRITICAL

8.6.1- TEST PLAN 163

8.6.2- SAMPLE SIZE, n; AND ACCEPTANCE NUMBER, c .... 163

EXAMPLE 8-6 166

SOLUTIONS TO EXAMPLE 8-6 168

8.7- TEST METHOD 4 - TEST ON MEDIAN, EFT 169

8.7.1- SAMPLE SIZE 169

8.7.2- TASK SELECTION AND PERFORMANCE 169

8.7.3- DECISION PROCEDURE 170

8.7.4- DISCUSSION 170

EXAMPLE 8-7 170

SOLUTION TO EXAMPLE 8-7 171

8.8- TEST METHOD 5 - TEST ON CHARGEABLE

8.8.1- CMDT PER FLIGHT 171

EXAMPLE 8-8 173

8.8.2- SAMPLE SIZE 174

EXAMPLE 8-9 175

SOLUTION TO EXAMPLE 8-9 175

8.8.3- DECISION PROCEDURE 175

EXAMPLE 8-10 176

SOLUTION TO EXAMPLE 8-10 177

8.9- TEST METHOD 6 - TEST ON MAN-HOUR RATE 178

EXAMPLE 8-11 178

SOLUTION TO EXAMPLE 8-11 179