SRC Forum - Message Replies


Forum: Reliability & Maintainability Questions and Answers

Topic: Reliability & Maintainability Questions and Answers

Topic Posted by: Reliability & Maintainability Forum (src_forum@alionscience.com )
Organization: System Reliability Center
Date Posted: Mon Aug 31 12:47:36 US/Eastern 1998

Back to message list Topics List About this forum
Original Message:

Posted by: hansen (olivier.hansen@d2m-ing.com )
Organization:D2M
Date posted: Thu Jan 16 2:44:19 US/Eastern 2003
Subject: maintainability
Message:
could somebody explain me why when I put preventive maintenance on components, the subsytem (where the components are) doesn't show me expected NOF thanks for your help


Reply:

Subject: Failure Reduction
Reply Posted by: J. L. Romeu (jromeu@alionscience.com )
Organization: RAC
Date Posted: Tue Jan 28 13:54:39 US/Eastern 2003
Message:
We have received an inquiry regarding "why, when a customer puts up a preventive maintenance (PM) schedule on components, the subsystem (where the components are) doesn't show Expected NOF (number of Failures) reduction". Per the problem statement, we infer that the PM program has not succeeded in reducing the previous number of failures in the system. One reason for this to occur is as follows: Assume the system has a complex failure mechanism, composed of "n" superimposed and independent failure modes (e.g. random problems, wear-out, etc.). Assume, for simplicity, that these n competing risks are all distributed Exponentially with rate . Then, assume that the PM scheme has been placed considering only k< n of these failure modes -or that it has been placed based on other, non-stochastic, considerations. In such a case, the real failure rate of the system is n > k which is the erroneous failure rate upon which the MP is based. If this is the case, then the probability of observing a failure before the time for a scheduled maintenance occurs is very high. Therefore, the number of failures occurring after the MP is in place is still high, leading to thinking that the MP "doesn't show the (reduction) in NOF", as would be expected.


Back to message list Topics List About this forum
Reply to this message