Confidence Intervals on the Reliability of Repairable Systems

Lany H. Crow AT&T Bell Laboratories Whippany

Key W o k Repairable Systems, ConfidenceIntervals,Power Law NHPP Model, Crow (AMSAA) Model

SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS Complex systems, such as communication systems, aircraft,

automobiles, military tanks, are generally repaired when they fail, not replaced. The most popular model for repairable system analysis is the power law nonhomogeneous Poisson process. When failure data are generated by multiple systems, statistical procedures have been developed for estimating the power law model parameters, failure intensity and reliability functions. This paper discusses confidence intervals procedures on the failure intensity and reliability function appropriate when failure data are generated by multiple systems. The special case considered in this paper assumes that we are interested in placing confidence intervals on the failure intensity function at a time T and we have k systems which have operated fiom time 0 to at least time T. The failure data for each system over (0,T) will be used to calculate the confidence intervals utilizing the techniques presented in this paper. The actual operating times for these systems may however be greater than T. These confidence interval procedures utilize the methods developed for the Crow ( A M S A A ) reliability growth model. Examples illustrating the application of these methods to burn-in, useful life and wearout are discussed. 1. INTRODUCTION Many systems can be categorized into two basic types; one-time or nonrepairable systems, and reusable or repairable systems. The term "system" is used in a broad sense and may simply mean a component. If continuous operation of the system is desired, then in the former case, the system would be replaced by a new system upon failure. An example would be the replacement of a failed light bulb by a new bulb. The component or system may, of course, be part of a larger system. For example, the water pump of a vehicle may be considered a one-time or nonrepairable system. If failure data are available for a nonrepairable system, then, since the failure times are s-independent and identically distributed, the analyses may involve the estimation of the corresponding life distribution. In the latter case, under continuous operation, the system is repaired, but not replaced, after each failure. For example, if the system is a vehicle and the water pump fails, then the water pump is replaced and, hence, the vehicle is repaired.

For a repairable system, one is rarely interested primarily in time to fust failure. Rather, interest generally centers around the probability of system failure as a function of system age. Exact reliability analyses for complex, repairable systems are often difficult because of the complicated failure process that may result from the replacement or repair policy. A common procedure in practice is to approximate the complicated failure process by a simpler failure process, which although not exact, still yields useful practical results. One such approach assumes that the failure times of the complex repairable system follow a nonhomogeneous Poisson process. Crow[2] developed the power law nonhomogeneous Poisson process as a model for the reliability of a complex, repairable system when data are generated from multiple systems. A special case of this model is the basis of a widely used reliability growth model. In this paper, the power law nonhomogeneous Poisson process model is used to develop practical and statistically sound s-confidenceinterval procedures for the intensity and reliability functions of a complex repairable system. It is assumed that the repairable system is under a customer use environment and failure data are generated by multiple copies of the system operated for the same period of time, starting at time 0. For repairable systems, it is generally of particular interest to address reliability characteristics associated with infant mortality, useful life and wearout. The s-confidence interval procedures developed in this paper relate in particular to practical issues concerning these typical reliabilityphases of a complex repairable system. 2. THEMODEL The power law nonhomogeneous Poisson process model considered in this paper for repairable system was investigated by Crow [2] for the case where data are generated by multiple systems. Estimation procedures for this model with multiple systems data are given in Crow [21,[3]. See also Ascher and Feingold [l] for additional background. Suppose a system is put into operation at age 0 and operated for a period of time T. "Time" may be operating time for some systems or, in the case of vehicles, may be odometer mileage. The number of failures N O , experienced by the system is random and the successive times of occurrence of

0149-144)(/93/$3.00 1993 IEEE 0

126

1993 PROCEEDINGS Annual RELIABILITY AND MAINTAINABILITY Symposium

these failures O < X 1 < X2 < -.. <XN(=) are also random. If during the operation of the system the times between successive failures Xi - Xi-l ,(i= 1,2, ..., Xo = 0) are s-independent, identically distributed exponential random variables with failure rate h, then N(t), t > O is a homogeneous Poisson process with intensity h.

In the homogeneous Poisson process case of no change in intensity of system failure as a function of system age, we have p(t) = h, t > 0. In this paper, we assume that the failures for each system under study are occurring according to the power law nonhomogeneous Poisson process with failure intensity function p(t) = xptp-1, t > 0 where h, p > 0 and t is the age of the system. This particular mathematical form for the intensity p(t) is the same mathematical form as the failure rate for a Weibull distribution. However, as noted above, the concept of a failure rate and a corresponding distribution applies only to the time to a single failure. A distribution, unlike the nonhomogeneous Poisson process does not apply to the sequence of failure as a function of system age. Therefore, it is very important to keep in mind that we are not dealing with the Weibull distribution and, consequently, the Weibull distribution terminology, estimation and other statisticalprocedures do not apply.

Now, the time between the (i-1)th and i-th failure Y i = Xi-l - Xi follows the exponential distribution with failure rate h in the homogeneous Poisson process case. That is, if Ay is infinitesimally small, then hAy is approximately the probability that the time Y i from the (i- 1)th failure to the i-th failure will occur between y and y + Ay, given it has not occurred by time y. The time scale for y relates to a single operating period between failure, which always restarts to 0 after a failure.

3. BACKGROUND AND NOTATION

It is important to note that the failure rate for a distribution, such as the exponential deals only with the successive times between failures, for example, the time to the first failure X1, or the time from the Xi-lth failure to the Xith failure time. The homogeneous Poisson process on the other hand, addresses the sequence of successive failure times 0 < X 1 < X2, Xi-l < Xi. In the exponential situation with failure rate h, the intensity of the corresponding homogeneous Poisson process is also h. If At is infinitesimally small, then for a homogeneous Poisson process, hat is approximately the probability that a system failure will occur during the period (t, t + At) where t is the age or operating time of the system. This probability is s-independent of how many failures have occurred up to time t. In terms of a repairable system, the constant intensity hAt implies that the system is not improving nor wearing out with age, but is maintaining a constant intensity of failure. A generalization of the homogeneous Poisson process which allows for a change or trend in the intensity of system failure as a function of system age t, is the nonhomogeneous Poisson process with intensity function p(t). Analogous to h a t in the homogeneous Poisson process case, p(t) A t is approximately the probability that a failure will occur between system age t and system age t + At. In the general case of a nonhomogeneous Poisson process, the intensity function p(t) may depend on the age t of the system. During infant mortality p(t) would be decreasing, it would be constant over the system useful life, and would be increasing during the wearout phase of the system. We are concerned with analyzing the reliability of a complex system based on failure data from several copies of this system under the same customer use environmental conditions. It is assumed that the failures for each of these systems occur in accordance with the power law nonhomogeneous Poisson process with intensity function p(t) = 1ptp-1. The intensity function for the power law model is monotone. That is, it is either decreasing, p < 1, increasing, p > 1, or constant, p = 1. Figure 1 illustrates this case for p < 1.

p(t) = hptD-1,

p<1

System Age t

Figure 1. Example of Decreasing Failure Intensity

1993 PROCEEDINGS Annual RELIABILITY AND MAINTAINABILITY Symposium

127

Of particular interest, is the concept of "mission reliability" for complex repairable system. This is the probability R(t) that a system of age t will successfully complete a mission of fixed duration s > 0. If the system is repairable and mission affecting failures follow a power law nonhomogeneous Poisson process, then R(t) = Prob[system of age t will not fail in (t, t

It may also be of interest to assess if the failure intensity is constant or place confidence intervals on its value at some system age regardless of whether or not it is constant, decreasing or increasing. Some systems may not exhibit bum-in or infant mortality if sufficient quality processes are in place during manufacturing. However, in service they may exhibit wearout characteristics, that is the intervals between successive failures are tending to get closer and closer together with system age.
0

+ s)]

,-[Ut

+ s y - XtP]

Note that if j3 > 1, then R(t) is decreasing with age. If j < 1, then R(t) is increasing with age. When j3 = 1 3 (constant intensity of failures), then R(t) = e-XS, constant. a For p < 1, the intensity function is decreasing and the intervals between successive system failures are getting further and further apart on average.

V A

V A

V A

V A

I 0

)c

This improvement in system reliability in a customer use environment is generally associated with infant mortality or burn-in caused by finding and correcting manufacturingand workmanship problems. These corrective actions are rework to the system and not permanent changes to the underlying processes affecting future copies of this system. In practice, it may be of interest to ascertain whether or not the intensity function has decreased below a target threshold level by some system age T. This interest may be associated with warranties, how long to test a system before release to a customer, or perhaps maintaining an acceptable mission reliability after some age of the system. It is desirable in this case for the failure intensity to decrease below this threshold value. (See Figure 2.)

For systems that are wearing out, the mission reliability is decreasing and it may be desirable to ascertain that this reliability is greater than some minimum threshold over the system age (0,T) where T may be a replacement o r overhaul time for the system. We will show that this threshold on reliability can equate into a corresponding threshold on the system's failure intensity. It is desirable that the failure intensity be below this threshold over (0, T). (See Figure 3, an example with 1 < j3 < 2.)

F a i 1
U

Threshold _____________________-____--__---__--_

e
I n t e n
S

i t Y

System Age t

r e I n t e n

Figure 3. Failure Intensity and Threshold Value

The situations described above can be addressed by placing sconfidence intervals on the failure intensity function at some system age T. In this paper, we consider the general situation of placing s-confidence intervals on the intensity function p(t) = hp tB-', which would include the case of p=1. That is the homogeneous Poisson process case. We assume that there are one or more copies of the system with known failure data over the period (0, T). Particular attention should be paid to determining whether or not the systems are representative of the same population in order for the failure data to be combined.

s
t

0 System Age t Figure 2, Failure Intensity and Thrmhold Value

128

1993 PROCEEDINGS Annual RELIABILITY AND MAINTAINABILITY Symposium

Note that in practice, for example operational testing of a new system design, the m system prototypes tested would generally not operate for the same period of time. Assume that we index the systems according to operating times Ti, 2, T. withT1 2 T 2 2

We will also generally be interested in estimating the failure intensity at T in addition to the corresponding mission reliability function. The failure data described above is used to calculate the maximum likelihood estimates given by Crow [2],[3] for data from multiple systems. The s-confidence interval procedures are based on sconfidence intervals for reliability growth developed by Crow [4] in 1977. (See also Crow [5].) These procedures were developed for a single system with failures following the power law nonhomogeneous Poisson process. However, in this paper, these procedures are adapted for multiple systems by superpositioning of the failure times for the k copies onto a single time line.

0
0

T1 T2 T3

T m

If we want to place confidence intervals at T,, then all data over (0, T,) for all m systems may be used. In general, if we want to place confidence intervals at a predetennined time T I T l , then we may use the techniques described in this paper applied to the data of the k l m systems with Ti2T. For these systems, the data over (0, T) would be used to calculate the confidence intervals on the failure intensity at time T. For example, the test times for each system during Operational testing would often be greater than the warranty period, say T. In this case,the data for all m systems over the period (0, T) could be used to calculate the confidence intervals at this warranty time. For the time T of interest, we let k denote the number of systems with operating times at least T. The time when each of the k systems is 6rst operated or put into service is age or time 0. We wish to place a confidence interval on the system's failure intensity at a specified time T and each of the k systems has operated over (0, T). During the period (0, T), let N, be the number of failures experienced by the q-th system, and let XS be the age of this system at the i-th occurrence of failure ) (i= 1, ...,N,, q= 1 , ...,k.

For the superposition system, there is a "failure" each time any one of the k systems fails. Consequently, the intensity of failure for the superposition system is k times the intensity for each ,of the systems. That is, the superposition failure intensity p (t) is

p*(t) = kp(t) = khptp-l, 0 < t c T.

The intensity p*(t) is also the intensity of a power law n2nhomogeneous Poisson process with scale parameter h = kh and the same shape parameter p. Therefore, we can use the procedures of Refs. 4 and 5 for a single system b y applied to the superposition system failure intensity p (t). By dividing by k, we have appropriate s-confidence intervals on the intensity p t) at t = T. (
4. MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATES

The

superposition

system

has

failure

intensity

*
b
0
I I

x1 1
I

x1 2
I -

xN,
I

T
1

System 1 System 2

x2 1
I

x22

XN*2

T T
I System k

xlk

X2k

- Xd,k
I

p*(t) = khpt0-l and each of the k system has failure intensity p(t) = hpp-'. We let h* = kh. Suppose for the moment we have failure data on only one system, that is, k = 1. In this case, there are N 1 failures during (0, T) at system ages 0 < X11 c Xz1 c * c XN,1. From equations (8) and (9) of Crow [3], (see also Crow [2]), the maximum likelihood estimates of h and p are

In practice, we will not know the parameters h and p and will want to estimate these values together with the failure intensity p(t) = Apta-l.

1993 PROCEEDINGS Annual RELIABILITY AND MAINTAINABILITY Symposium

129

(2)

Any extrapolation outside the range of the data should be viewed with the usual caution. At T = 2000, the estimated failure intensity for the superposition system is

For the superposition system, the number of failures for k systems is N = N1 + N2 + .. + Nk, and the failure times correspond to each failure of the k systems are
x 1 x1 1 , 2

P* (2000)
System 1
Xi1

= .007695

* * . , X N , l . X 1 2 ,x22, ---sXN,2* . . , X l k , . X2k9 ..., X N & . Consequently, using all the combined data and treating the superposition system as a single system, we have from equations (1) and (2) that A* N =(3) TB

System 2

System 3

xu
1.4 35.0 46.8 65.9 181.1 712.6 1005.7 1029.9 1675.7 1787.5 1867.0

x13
0.3 32.6 33.4 241.7 3%.2
464.4

fj=
q= li= 1

(4)

Since h* = Kh, it follows that

1.2 55.6 72.7 111.9 121.9 303.6 326.9 1568.4 1913.5

h=-. kTp

(5)

The ML estimate of the intensity function for the superposition system is

n * r

pl(t) = h fltp-1

NI = 9

N2 = 11

480.8 588.9 1043.9 1136.1 1288.1 1408.1 1439.4 1604.8 N3 = 14

(6) Table 1. Simulated data for k=3 systems operated for Time T = 2000 when h = 0.25 and p = 0.5.
For a single system, we use equations (5) and (7), where k=3. Thesegive

and the ML estimate of the intensity function for an individual system is

P(t) = ifjta-1 ,
or

(7)

2 = .362, fj = .453
Example 1
This example is discussed also in Crow [3]. For the data in Table 1, the starting times for each system is 0 and the ending time for each system is 2000. T = 2000
d l j l

(1 1)

and the estimated failure intensity function for a single system is

ji(t) = ifjte-1, 0 < t I2000.

At T=2000, the failure intensity for a single system (equation 8) is

fi(2000) = .002565

(12)

T = 2000 T = 2000

5. S-CONFIDENCEINTERVAL PROCEDURES

We wish to estimate the system failure intensity function utilizing the data from all three systems in Table 1. From equations 3 and 4, we have for the superposition system

As noted earlier, these s-confidence interval procedures were developed for application to a single system when failures occur in accordance with the power law nonhomogeneous Poisson process. For the situation of
multiple systems operated over the same time span beginning at zero, these procedures can be easily adapted. For the superposition system, suppose we have estimated h*,p, and E* (t) utilizing the procedures in equations (3), (4) and (6) discussed above. The test data are over the T) and the intensity function for the period (0,

h* = 1.086,

= .453.

(9)

The superposition failure intensity function is estimated by (equation 6)

p*(t) = h ptp-1, 0 < t 5 2000.

r * r

130

1993 PROCEEDINGS Annual RELIABILITY AND MAINTAINABILITY Symposium

superposition system at time T is

p.*(T) = XpTP-l.

(13)

where

The estimate of the intensity function for the superposition system at time T is

12

fi*(T) =

X* DTi-'.

(14)

r
L

12

In reliability growth terminology

M*(T) = I/J.I.*(T) (15) is referred to as the instantaneous mean time between failure (MTBF). The power law nonhomogeneous Poisson process was developed by Crow 11 as a stochastic model 2 for the Duane reliability growth postulate, Ref. [ ] This 6. 7, model, the Crow (AMSAA) model in Ref. [ ] is further described in Ref. 1 1 MIL-HDBK-189. 8,
For the Crow (AMSqP) reliability growth model confidence intervals on M (T) are given in Refs. [ ] [ ] 4, 5. In these papers, values I l l , and l l 2 are given such that

S-Confidence Coefficient .I ! M .80

are s-confidence intervals for M*(T). Consequently, it follows that

are s-confidence intervals for p.*(T).

In this paper, Table 2 lists values C 1 and C 2, where

C1 = l / n 2 and C2 = l / I l i .
The values C 1 and C2 are such that

are s-confidence intervals on p.*(T).

NOW

p . * ( ~is the intensity function for the superposition ) system at time T based on k separate systems. Therefore,
f *

are s-confidence intervals on p.(T), the intensity function

for a single system at time T. That is,

[Cl

fim

C2fi(T)]

(20)

are s-confidence intervals on J.I.(T), where fi(T) is given in

equation ( ) Table 2 gives the values C1 and C2 7. corresponding to two-sided 80 percent and two-sided 90 percent confidence intervals. These values are given for various sample size N over the range 3 to 100. For N > 100, the values C1 and C2 for approximate two-sided ( 1- a)lWpercent s-confidence intervals on p(T) can be determined from

382 .0 325 .0 2.840 257 .9 2.427 2.293 2.189 211 .0 2.033 192 .7 199 .1 186 .7 185 .3 179 .9 1.770 179 .3 175 .1 162 .9 160 .7 160 .5 161 .3 165 .1 1.600 155 .8 1.572 150 .6 158 .4 156 .3 148 .8 .660 1 4 9 .4 .677 1.418 .693 1 3 3 .9 .718 1 3 3 .5 .737 1.322 .753 1.300 .778 1 2 4 .6 * Table 2. Values C 1 and C2 such that C 1 fi (T), C 2 p*(T) are s-confidence intervals for p*(T).

N c 2 - c1 .0 3 .158 3 0 3 4 .236 2.600 .4 5 .259 2 3 7 .7 6 .343 2 1 9 .5 7 .382 2 0 3 .5 8 .415 1 9 7 9 . 4 183 4 4 .8 .2 10 .468 1 8 1 .7 11 .490 1 7 0 12 SO9 1 7 7 .2 13 .526 1.689 .5 1 4 .4 51 166 15 .555 1 6 9 .2 .0 1 6 .568 1 6 3 1 7 .580 1.580 .5 1 8 .591 1 5 8 .3 1 9 .601 1 5 8 .2 20 .610 1 5 2 .0 2 1 .597 1 5 6 .9 22 .627 1 4 3 .7 2 3 .635 1 4 9 24 .642 1 4 6 .6 .5 25 .649 1 4 6 26 .656 1.445 27 .662 1 4 5 .3 28 .668 1 4 4 .2 29 .673 1 4 6 .1 .0 30 .678 1 4 6 .7 35 . 0 71 132 .4 40 .719 1 3 2 .1 45 .735 1 3 9 .0 50 .748 1 3 0 .7 60 .769 1 2 1 .4 70 .786 1 2 8 .3 80 .799 1 2 0 100 - .820 1.203

c 1
.lo3 .168 .221 .266 .303 .335 .364 .388 .410 .430 .448 .464 .479 .493 SO6 .517 .528 .538 .548 .557 .565 .573 .581 .588 .595 .0 61 .607 .613 .639

c 2

1993 PROCEEDINGS Annual RELIABILITY AND MAINTAINABILITY Symposium

131

Example 2
Consider again the data from Table 1 used in the previous example. In this example, data are generated from three systems operated over the period (0,2000) and N=34. Suppose we want to place two-sided 80 percent confidence intervals on the intensity function for a single system at T=2000. From equation (12) and

L = .0057, S = .883
~(10,OOO)= .001707.

(25)

(26)

fi(2OOO) = .002565,
In Table 2, the corresponding values for N=34, confidence coefficient .80 are C2 = 1.379. (23) C1 = .696 Consequently, two-sided 80 percent confidence intervals on

For this problem, we are interested in an upper 90 percent confidence bound on the intensity function at T=lO,OOO. From Table 2, under two-sided 80 percent confidence coefficient, we have for N=58, c2=1.277. This gives an upper bound of (.OO1707)(1.277) = .00218, which is less than the threshold of .0025. (27)

Example 4 System 1
Xi1 970.7 2190.7 2755.8 2874.5 3252.3 3389.0 3875.0 4489.4 4633.0 4766.7 5047.3 5408.8 5540.3 5610.8 5917.7 5995.6 6502.9 6654.8 7418.6 8401.1 9893.3 N1 = 21

P(2000) are
(.001785, .003537). (24)

System 2
X i2 640.9 943.3 2127.4 2179.7 2284.7 2780.2 3032.6 5018.2 5221.8 5300.3 6269.3 6897.9 7293.2 7414.7 7422.8 7496.5 77 17.5 7874.7 8914.7 9129.0 9540.8 N2 = 21

System 3

x13
366.5 976.3 1014.1 1256.8 1423.4 1647.4 2828.6 4819.9 5471.3 8084.8 9295.9 9472.1

ExamDle 3 System 1
Xi1 320.3 485.6 1625.6 1706.1 1926.4 2818.1 2869.8 3126.3 3299.3 3664.4 4480.9 5604.2 5896.6 5960.6 6080.6 6412.7 6570.6 7195.0 9499.8 9546.4 9591.5 9605.5 9893.6 N1 = 2 3

System 2
Xi2 487.9 752.9 880.8 885.5 898.2 1730.2 1195.5 2233.6 3202.1 3838.2 4049.9 6461.7 8002.7 8806.0 8833.9 9064.1 9075.6 9540.5

System 3
Xi3 212.6 245.0 604.1 1693.2 2068.3 2293.0 2544.8 4228.6 4424.8 4685.0 5100.4 5734.8 5856.5 6593.2 6604.9 O 704 1. 9417.6

N3 = 12

Table 4. Simulated data for k=3 systems operated for Time T = 10,000 when h = .002, p = 1.0.
A special case of the power law nonhomogeneous Poisson process is the homogeneous Poisson process when p=1. This case corresponds to exponential times between failures. If it is known that the failure intensity is constant, then the usual method for placing Chi-squared confidence intervals on this intensity function can be employed. However, it may not be known that the failure intensity is constant. In this situation, the procedures discussed in this paper may be used and are valid when the failure intensity is constant, p=1, or when p assumes any other value. Consider the data in Table 4. In this case N=54,

N2 = 18

N3 = 17

Table 3. Simulated data for k=3 systems operated for Time T = 10,000 when h = .01 and p = .8.
Suppose the data in Table 3 represents a system which typically exhibits manufacturing and quality problems over its initial operation. Suppose it is desired to have an intensity of failure of no more than .0025 after 10,000 hours of system age. If the intensity function were constant, this would correspond to an exponential MlXF of at least 400 hours. From the data in Table 3, we have

2 = .0oO9, p =

1.075

(28)

132

1993 PROCEEDINGS Annual RELIABILITY AND MAINTAINABILITY Symposium

and (29) ~(l0,OOO)= .001933. For 90 percent two-sided s-confidence intervals, C1 = .703, C2 = 1.357. This gives s-confidence intervals (.001358, .002623) (30) on the intensity function at T = 10,OOO. In fact, the underlying intensity function is constant in this example (p = l)withavalueof.002.

For this problem, it will suffice to let t=9970 and place an upper 90 percent confidence bound on p( l0,OOO). This will give us a lower 90 percent confidence bound on R(9970). Now, for these data, N=50

= .OOO2,
and

= 1.474

(33) (34)

C(l0,OOO) = .002457.

From Table 2, for a 90 percent upper bound on p(lO,OOO), we have C2 = 1.300. This gives an upper bound of .003194. Hence, R(9970) 2 .909 (35) at the 90 percent confidence level. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author wishes to thank Amy Mardirossian for the computer programming which generated the data for the examples and analyses. I would also like to thank Paula Borden, Desktop Publishing Assistant, for the excellent text processing preparation of this document. REFERENCES Ascher, H., Feingold, H., Repairable Systems Reliability, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, NY, 1984. Crow, L. H., Reliability Analysis for Complex, Repairable Systems, in Reliability and Biometry, ed. by F. Proschan and R. J. Serfling, pp. 379410.1974, Philadelphia, SIAM. Crow, L. H., Evaluating the Reliability of Repairable Systems, 1990 Proceedings Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium, pp. 275-279, Los Angeles, CA.

Example 5
System 1
Xi1 1006.3 226 1.2 2367.0 2615.5 2848.1 4073.0 5708.1 6464.1 6519.7 6799.1 7342.9 7736.0 8246.1

System 2
Xi2 722.7 1950.9 3259.6 4733.9 5105.1 5624.1 5806.3 5855.6 6325.2 6999.4 7084.4 7105.9 7290.9 7614.2 8332.1 8368.5 8947.9 9012.3 9135.9 9147.5 9601.O N2 = 21

System 3
X i3 619.1 1519.1 2956.6 3 114.8 3.657.9 4268.9 6690.2 6803.1 7323.9 7501.4 764 1.2 7851.6 8147.6 8221.9 9560.5 9575.4

N1 = 13

N3 = 16

Table 5. Simulated data for k=3 systems operated for Time T = 10,000 when h = ,0002, p = 1.5.
Suppose the data in Table 5 represents a system, such as a military tank, that begins its wearout phase at time or mileage 0. Suppose each system has an overhaul scheduled at 10,OOO miles and a mission of 30 miles. It is required that this mission probability be a least 90 percent between t overhaul times. That is, -ITp(t)dt R(t) = e If p t) is increasing, then (

Crow, L. H.,Confidence Interval Procedures for Reliability Growth Analysis, US Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity Technical Report 197, AD-AO44788, 1977, Defense Technical Information Center, Alexandria, VA. Crow, L. H., Confidence Interval Procedures for the Weibull Process with Applications to Reliability Growth, Technometrics, Vol. 24, No. 1, 1982, pp. 67-72. Duane, J. T., Learning Curve Approach to Reliability Monitoring, IEEE Transactions on Aerospace, Vol. 2, No. 2, 1964.

2 .go.

(3 1)

IES, Glossary of Reliability Growth Terms, 1989, available from the Institute of Environmental Sciences, Mount Prospect, IL.
U.S. MIL-HDBK-189, Reliability Growth Management, 1981, available from the National Technical Information Service, Springfield,VA.

1993 PROCEEDINGS Annual RELIABILITY A N D MAINTAINABILITY Symposium

-

133

~~

BIOGRAPHY
Dr. Larry H. Crow ATLT Bell Laboratories Whippany Road Whippany, NJ 07981 USA

Larry H. Crow is Supervisor of the Quality Implementation and Reliability Methods Group a ATLT Bell Laboratories, t Whippany, New Jersey. He is also Technical Manager for Reliability Growth in ATLT Federal Systems Advanced Technologies. Before joining Bell Laboratories in 1985, Dr. Crow was chief of the Reliability Methodology Office at the US Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity ( A M S A A ) . He developed the Crow ( A M S A A ) reliability growth model which has been incorporated into DoD military handbooks and national and internationalstandards and service regulations on reliability. He chaired the TriService Committee to develop Mil-Hdbk-189, Reliability Growth Management and is the principal author of that document. He is the recipient of the 1976 Army Materiel Development and Readiness Command Systems Analysis r Award for Individual Achievement. From 1979-1985, D . Crow chaired the US., UK, Canadian and Australian reliability group of The Technical Cooperation Program (lTCF') and is currently a U.S.delegate on reliability and maintainability to the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). Dr. Crow is the principal author of the recently approved IEC Intemational Standard "Reliability Growth Models and Estimation Methods." Dr. Crow is an elected Fellow of the American Statistical Association.

134

1993 PROCEEDINGS Annual RELIABILITY AND MAINTAINABILITY Symposium