Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Example 1
2 out of 3
LSU
Example 1
Solution:
= 5000
LSU
=
0
We know that =
, thus:
= (
) = = 0 +
0
0
0
Since 0 = 1 & = 0
0 = 0 1 + 0 = 0, thus we have:
=
0
LSU
= = exp( ) .
0
1
=1
=1
1
1 + 2 + +
LSU
= =
0
LSU
+
+
+
1 2
1 + 2 1 + 3
+
1
1
1
+
+
+ +
+ .
1 + 2 + 3 1 + 2 + 4
+ +
10
LSU
Standby systems
This type of system may also be particularly advantageous when the redundant
standby component(s) has a lower failure rate in the standby or idle mode than it
has in the operating mode.
These elements are additional items not required in parallel redundant systems and
therefore can and do affect the overall reliability of the system.
Hence it is not possible to generalize whether standby systems are more reliable or
less reliable than parallel redundant systems; each must be analyzed separately and
the relative merits compared.
11
LSU
2 identical component:
a single main component
one standby component
Assume a constant hazard rate, i.e., the failures are described by exponential
distributions
This arrangement can be regarded as an equivalent single unit which is allowed to fail
once.
After the first failure of the equivalent unit (failure of A), the standby component (B)
takes over for the remainder of the mission and therefore the system does not fail.
If there is a second failure of the equivalent unit (failure of B), the system also fails.
The logic of this system operation implies that the Poisson distribution can be used to
evaluate the probability of system failure since this distribution gives the probability of
any number of component failures provided the components are operating in their useful
life period.
12
LSU
In this case it is necessary to find the probability of not more than one failure.
Poisson distribution:
=
!
: the probability that components fail in time
P[no components fail]= 0 = t
P[exactly one component fails]= 1 = t
13
LSU
Classroom activity 1
2 standby components (i.e., 1 main and 2 standby)
Now consider one main component and two standby components, and
assume that the switching is perfect
The number of failures that can be tolerated in the equivalent unit is two before
the system fails
14
LSU
Classroom activity 1
2 standby components (i.e., 1 main and 2 standby)
Now consider one main component and two standby components, and
assume that the switching is perfect
The number of failures that can be tolerated in the equivalent unit is two before
the system fails
= 0 + 1 + 2 () = t (1 + +
)
2!
15
LSU
Classroom activity 2
n standby components (i.e., 1 main and n standby)
Consider a system with n standby components, and assume that the
switching is perfect
The number of failures that can be tolerated in the equivalent unit is n before
the system fails
16
LSU
Classroom activity 2
n standby components (i.e., 1 main and n standby)
Consider a system with n standby components, and assume that the
switching is perfect
The number of failures that can be tolerated in the equivalent unit is n before
the system fails
17
LSU
=
0
=
and for n standby components
=
This result is intuitively obvious as the system becomes serial. As one component fails, a
second identical component comes into operation.
Therefore, the system MTTF is the sum of the individual component MTTF values.
18
LSU
Example 2
Consider the two following power systems. System (a) is parallel redundant and
system (b) is standby redundant. The consumers, which consume 6MW, are
supported by the power distribution networks. Transformers T1 and T2 each having
a failure rate of 0.02 f/hr.
a) Compare the reliability of the two systems after a time of 10 hr if power distribution
network, load and sensing and changeover devices are all 100% reliable.
b) Also, compare the MTTFs of the two systems.
B1
T1
B1
Power distribution
network
B1
Electric power
consumer
T1
B1
Switch
Power distribution
network
6 MW
6 MW
T2
(a)
Electric power
consumer
T2
(b)
19
LSU
Example 2
Parallel system (a)
= 1 + 2 (12)
1
1
1
2
1
1 +2
2
= =
20
LSU
Example 2
It can be seen from this example that the reliability of the standby system is
greater than that of the parallel redundant system.
It should be noted however that this is a general conclusion only when the
sensing and changeover device is 100% reliable.
This comparison is also reflected in the values of MTTF where the standby
system MTTF is significantly longer than that of the parallel redundant
system.
It should be remembered that the MTTF is only meaningful if the
components do not enter the wear-out region before the scheduled end of
the mission.
21