Constant Failure Rate Model

If the failure distribution of a component i.s exponential, the conditional probability of observing exactly M failures in test time t given a true (but unknown) failure rate A and a Poisson distribution, is equation 2.6-9. The continuous form of Bayes s equation is equation 

The Bayes conjugate is the gamma prior distribution (equation 2.6-11). When equations 2.6-9 and 

6- 11 iue substituted into equation 2.6-10 and the integration is performed, the posterior is given by equation 

1 Confidence Estimation for the Constant Failure Rate Model 

To obtain the confidence bounds, the posterior distribution (equation 2.6-12) is integrated from zero to A, , where A is the upper 

---

The device is not wearing out. The most prosaic example is the engineer s coffee mug. It fails by catastrophe (if we drop it), otherwise it is immortal. A constant failure rate model is often used for mathematical convenience when the wear out rate is small. This appears to be accurate for high-quality solid-state electronic devices during most of their useful life. 

Weibull distribution This distribution has been useful in a variety of reliability applications. The Weibull distribution is described by three parameters, and it can assume many shapes depending upon the values of the parameters. It can be used to model decreasing, increasing, and constant failure rates. 

Figure 4-9 shows a plot of probability of failure in this situation. This can be compared with unavailability calculated with the constant restore rate model as a function of operating time. With the constant restore model, the unavailability reaches a steady state value. This value is clearly different from the result that would be obtained by averaging the unavailability calculated using a periodic restore period. 

Since state 0 is the success state, reliability is equal to So(t) and is given by Equation D-11. Unreliability is equal to Sj(t) and is given by Equation D-12. This result is identical to the result obtained when a component has an exponential probability of failure. Thus, the Markov model solution verifies the clear relationship between the constant failure rate and the exponential probability of failure over an interval of time. 

It must be emphasized that a component whose lifetime is exponentially distributed cannot be improved by maintenance. For an improvement would imply a reduction of its failure rate. In the present model it is ensured that the unavailability is equal to zero after every functional test. This is achieved by determining in the first place whether it is still capable of functioning or has failed. In the latter case the component is either repaired or replaced. If it is still capable of functioning it is as good as new because components with a constant failure rate do not age by definition. If it has to be repaired, as good as new is a hypothesis usually corroborated in plants with a good safety culture. 

In this article, the basic concepts of E-L-M model are formulated mainly for on demand working systems. That does not mean that continually operated systems should be put out of the analysis. Diversity application in the design of continually operated systems appears to be additional, often evenmoie complex topic, going beyond the scope of this paper. It can be discussed, for example, that the traditional assinnp-tions of constant failure rate Poisson model may not be fulfilled within the context of these diversity effects... 

The /3-factor model is the most commonly used CCF model today and it was originally proposed by Fleming (1974). This model assumes that a certain percentage of all failures are CCFs. In order to describe the /3-factor model, consider a system of N identical components with constant failure rate with respect to dangerous undetected (DU) failures, denotedXflj/. DU failures are failures which potentially could lead to a dangerous situation and are imdetected. Using the definition proposed by Rausand Hoyland (2004), each component may fad either due to... 

Markov and semi-Markov models are convenient tools for dynamic (reconfigurable) systems because the states in the model correspond to system states and the transition between states in the model correspond to physical processes (fault occurrence or system recovery). Because of this correspondence, they have become very popular, especially for electronic systems where the devices can be assumed to have a constant failure rate. Their disadvantages stem from their successes. Because of their convenience, they are apphed to large and complex systems, and the models have become hard to generate and compute because of their size (state-space explosion). Markov models assume that transitions between states do not depend on the time spent in the state. (The transitions are memoryless.) Semi-Markov models are more general and let the transition distributions depend on the time spent in the state. This survey dedicates a special section to Markov models. 

In reliability theory the most common probability distributions for the modelling time to failure (Lewis, 1994, Zio, 2007) exponential Exp(X) (in case of constant failure rate) Weibull W k, p) lognormal Log-N i, o ) gamma F(a, P), etc. 

The second PoF-based failure behavior modeling method is the Failure-Rate-oriented (FR-oriented) method. The method uses failure rates as a measure of system failure behaviors. A typical example of the method is the RAMP method developed by IBM cooperation (Srinivasan et al. 2003). Under the assumptions of constant failure rate and failure competition, the method firstly calculates the Mean Time To Failure (MTTF) of each component from corresponding PoF models. Then, failure rates of the system are established by summing up all components failure rates. 

Modern chips are composed of tens or hundreds of millions and even billions of transistors. Hence, chip level reliability prediction methods are mostly statistical allowing a constant-rate assumption to be applied. Chip level reliability prediction tools, today, model the failure probability of the chips at the end of life, when the known wear-out mechanisms are expected to dominate. However, modern reliability tools do not predict the random, post burn-in, constant failure rate that would be seen in the field. All the current physics of failure solutions try to determine an average effect that can be represented by a single relation that gives an average value for the Mean Time Between Failures (MTBF), however this single relation can never reflect the true physics of multiple mechanisms. 

ECN O M Calculator, NOWIcob, 02M developed by GarradHassan (Phillips et ah), MWCOST developed by BMT (Stratford) and CONTOFAX developed by Delft University of Technology (Van Bussel and Bierbooms, 2003) are similar in failure modeling and different in weather modeling. In all models failures can be simulated from a Poisson process with constant failure rate, which corresponds to random failures. In MWCOST it s also possible to define time dependent failure rates. 

This demonstrates that the assumption of a constant failure rate is not permissible in general. The modelling of the failure behaviour by an exponential distribution is obviously not correct for components with increasing failure rate. The use of a time-dependent failure rate in the model, applying the Weibull distribution, has wide-ranging consequences for reliability and safety analysis of these components and their specification. 

This demonstrates that the assumption of an exponential failure behaviour is permissible only for a small section of the component life which is characterized by a constant failure rate, the so-called useful life (Denson 2006). In no way can the general assumption be made that the failure behaviour of electronic components can principally be modelled by a constant failure rate. 

Concerning the evaluation of systems periodically maintained there are only a few papers. Chen (1997) built the evaluation model for both availability and MTBCF of systems under periodic maintenance. Zhao et al. (2004) studied the approximation algorithm for MTBCF, based on the assumption that reliability function of systems periodically maintained could be regarded as exponential distribution with constant failure rate and reasonable error. Nicholls (2005) deduced the accurate algorithm for MTBCF of systems periodically maintained. However, these studies are all based on the assumption that all faults could be repaired successfully within a period of time. The fact is that any fault in complex systems needs to be detected, isolated, and then fixed. Each of the three steps is with a probability of success rather than inevitable event. The probabilities, namely FDR (Fault Detection Rate), FIR (fault isolation rate) and RR (repair rate), are all between 0 and 1 in engineering practice. In this case the above research findings will be not applicable any more. 

Insertion of component failure rates Failure rates X are stored in each component model that is enhanced with failures. Constant failure rates (exponentially distributed lifetimes) are assumed per default. Since the stress level of a component is known in the simulation, its failure rate can be adapted accordingly. Failure rates are used to compute probability of system operation Rsyff) or failure from the detected minimal path sets. 

Note that, software failures are treated as by lEC 61508 it is assumed that the necessary measures in software engineering have been taken, so that software failures can be neglected, compared with random hardware failures. Moreover, we only use constant failure rates of hardware, in order not to complicate the model. 

The handbook includes a series of empirical failure rate models developed using historical piece part failure data for a wide array of component types. There are models for virtually all electrical/ electronic parts and a number of electromechanical parts as well. All models predict reliability in terms of failures per million operating hours and assume an exponential distribution (constant failure rate), which allows the addition of failure rates to determine higher assembly reliability. The handbook contains two prediction approaches, the parts stress technique and the parts count technique, and covers 14 separate operational environments, such as ground fixed, airborne inhabited, etc. 

The ha2ard function is a constant which means that this model would be appHcable during the midlife of the product when the failure rate is relatively stable. It would not be appHcable during the wearout phase or during the infant mortaHty (early failure) period. 

Exponential Sometimes referred to as tlie negative exponential distribution. The distribution is characterized by a single parameter, X, the failure rate assumed constant over time Usually applied to data in tlie absence of other information tlius tlie most widely used in reliability work. Not appropriate for modeling bum-in or wearout failure rates... 

For mechanical equipments subject to aging, this intrinsic failure rate is usually assumed to present a bath-tub evolution in time, in accordance with (Clavareau Labeau, 2008), we choose to model the second (constant rate for random failures) and third (increasing rate modeling aging) parts of this bath-tub curve by the following bi-WeibuU curve ... 

To take into account the evolution of the living conditions, the generic failure rate A,j that represents the probability density that the component fails to mode k in the interval t,t + dt knowing that it has survived with no failures up to the time t, should be continuously updated to account for its dependence from the evolving IPs. In the proposed modeling approach, Xj is updated at time steps of length at most Dt and then remains constant within the time step. In practice, the duration of the time step must be chosen so as to satisfy the hypothesis. 

---