the availability. Various concepts of throughput analysis have been utilized in this chapter.
The book makes an honest attempt to provide a comprehensive coverage to various models and methodologies that can be used for modeling and analysis of repairable systems reliability analysis. However, there is always a scope for improvement and we are looking forward to receiving critical reviews and/or comments of the book from students, teachers, and practitioners. We hope that the readers will all gain as much knowledge, understanding, and pleasure from reading this book as we have from writing it.
Rajiv Nandan Rai Sanjay Kumar Chaturvedi Nomesh Bolia August 2020
List of Tables
| Table 2.1 | Rotating machine failure data of Example 2.2 |
| Table 2.2 | MCF and confidence calculations |
| Table 2.3 | Example 2.3—Burn-in period determination |
| Table 2.4 | Data for Example 2.4 |
| Table 2.5 | List of failure categories and counts for all 53 ROVs |
| Table 2.6 | Failure Counts in Months Corresponding their Failure Modes |
| Table 2.7 | MCF calculation by combining all failure modes |
| Table 2.8 | MCF calculation for individual category at 24 months |
| Table 2.9 | A sample of collected data |
| Table 2.10 | Exercise 1: Failure data of three systems |
| Table 3.1 | Time to failure data (hours) of aero engines of Example 3.2 |
| Table 3.2 | Virtual age–based reliability metrics |
| Table 3.3 | Time to failure data (hours) of Example 3.4 |
| Table 3.4 | Time to failure data (hours) of Example 3.5 |
| Table 3.5 | Time between failures for a compressor |
| Table 4.1 | Hypothesis tests |
| Table 5.1 | Maintenance modeling in repairable systems |
| Table 5.2 | Relative outcome of the two overhaul cycles |
| Table 5.3 | Relative outcome of the two overhaul cycles |
| Table 5.4 | Comparative results of both overhaul cycles (Variant 1) |
| Table 5.5 | Comparative results of both overhaul cycles (Variant 2) |
| Table 5.6 | Results-failure mode wise for first overhaul cycle |
| Table 5.7 | Results-failure mode wise for t2OH |
| Table 5.8 | Failure mode wise percent improvement |
| Table 5.9 | Comparative results of both overhaul cycles for the aero engine |
| Table 6.1 | Extensions to standard FMEA |
| Table 6.2 | Failure cause-mode effect relationship |
| Table 6.3 | Severity rating |
| Table 6.4 | Occurrence rating |
| Table 6.5 | Failure mode wise initial RPN |
| Table 6.6 | Failure mode wise values of final Q |
| Table 6.7 | Final RPNs |
| Table 6.8 | FM1 |
| Table 6.9 | FM2 |
| Table 6.10 | FM3 |
| Table 6.11 | Comparative results |
| Table 7.1 | Brief literature review on WSCE using MCDM |
| Table 7.2 | Weights for API |
| Table 7.3 | Actual and scaled API values of each weapon category |
| Table 7.4 | APV estimation of combat force “ALPHA” |
| Table 7.5 | APV enhancement |
| Table 7.6 | APIij values |
| Table 7.7 | Cij (million USD), ai, di, and mi |
| Table 7.8 | Aij values |
| Table 7.9 | Optimal xij values |
| Table 8.1 | Brief literature review on TH analysis |
| Table 8.2 | Required TH of the three components |
| Table 8.3 | Process requirements of LPCR blades repair |
| Table 8.4 | Process requirements of CCOC repair |
| Table 8.5 | Process requirements of LPTR blades repair |
| Table 8.6 | Component 1—LPCR blades |
| Table 8.7 | Component 2—CCOC |
| Table 8.8 | Component 3—LPTR blades |
List of Figures
|
Figure
|