Advertisement

IFM target 2.0: an innovative method to define reliability target for prototype systems

  • G. Di Bona
  • D. Falcone
  • A. Silvestri
  • A. Forcina
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • 49 Downloads

Abstract

The success of a mission, in general terms of functionality of a complex system, is based on the probability that failure events do not happen during the mission. Therefore, a preliminary reliability analysis and consequently the definition of the reliability target are required. The reliability target of the whole system can be an input or output data of the reliability study; consequently, the reliability values of components are respectively output or input data. If we start from the definition of the target of the system (input data), considering similar ones (if available, especially for innovative ones!), we can allocate the reliability of each component (output data). The choice of the most suitable allocation technique is not a simple task, advantages and disadvantages are discussed in literature. Instead, if we start from the characteristics of the units available (input data), studying the structure (links in series and parallel), it is possible to calculate the reliability target of the whole system. However, these values could be not completely available (innovative systems) or refer to units with not comparable levels in terms of technology, complexity, safety and so on. In the manuscript, a new method is proposed to define the reliability target: Integrated Factors Method 2.0 (IFM 2.0). The purpose will be to combine the advantages of both above approaches. IFM 2.0 is an upgrade of IFM that was developed in 2002 by Falcone et al. The new methodology combines the old IFM method with new maintenance factors. Thanks to IFM 2.0, it is possible to estimate the reliability target of a system in a more confident way: “IFM Target 2.0.” The proposed method has been validated and applied to two complex systems. The obtained results show the effectiveness of the new method and its capability to overcome the problems of other previous methods.

Keywords

Reliability allocation FMECA FTA Complex system Design phase 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Aggarwal KK (1993) Reliability engineering. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-1928-3 CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dai SH, Wang MO (1992) Reliability analysis in engineering applications. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Advisory Group of Reliability of Electronic Equipment (AGREE) (1957) Reliability of military electronic equipment. Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense Research and Engineering, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alven WH (1964) Reliability engineering: prepared by ARINC research corporation. Prentice Hal, Inc., Englewood CliffGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bracha VJ (1964) The methods of reliability engineering. Mach Des 70–76Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Karmiol ED (1965) Reliability apportionment. Preliminary report EIAM-5, task II. General Electric, Schenectady, pp 10–22Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Anderson RT (1976) Reliability design handbook. ITT Research Institute, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Silvestri A, Forcina A, Di Bona G, Petrillo A, De Felice F (1988) A-IFM reliability allocation model based on multicriteria approach. Int J Qual Reliab Manag 33(5):676–698Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Smedley K (1992) Reliability analysis for LEB ring magnet power system in SSC. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 39(4):1170–1174.  https://doi.org/10.1109/23.159778 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kuo HE (1999) Reliability assurance: application for engineering and management, 2nd ed. Chinese Society for Quality, pp 3/16–3/23Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Forcina A, Silvestri A, Di Bona G (2016) Critical flow method: a new reliability allocation approach for a thermonuclear system. Qual Reliab Eng Int 32(5):1677–1691Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    De Felice F, Falcone D, Silvestri A, Di Bona G (2010) Proposal of a new reliability allocation methodology: the integrated factors method. Int J Oper Quant Manag 16(1):67–85Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Di Bona G, Duraccio V, Silvestri A, Forcina A, Falcone D, De Felice F (2014) Validation and application of a reliability allocation technique (advanced integrated factors method) to an industrial system. Proceedings of the IASTED International Conference on Modelling, Identification, and Control, MIC pp 75–79Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cheng CH, Chang JR (2006) MCDM aggregation model using situational ME-OWA and ME-OWGA operators. Fuzziness Knowl Based Syst 14(4):421–443.  https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218488506004102 MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chang KH, Cheng CH, Chang YC (2008) Reliability assessment of an aircraft propulsion system using IFS and OWA tree. Eng Optim 40(10):907–921.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03052150802132914 MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chang YC, Chang KH, Liaw CS (2009) Innovative reliability allocation using the maximal entropy ordered weighted averaging method. Comput Ind Eng 57(4):1274–1281.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2009.06.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Liaw CS, Chang YC, Chang KH, Chang TY (2011) ME-OWA based DEMATEL reliability apportionment method. Expert Syst Appl 38(8):9713–9723.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.02.029 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yager RR (1988) On ordered weighted averaging aggregation operators in multicriteria decision making. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 18(1):183–190.  https://doi.org/10.1109/21.87068 CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kim O, Yang Y, Zuo MJ (2013) A new reliability allocation weight for reducing the occurrence of severe failure effects. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 117:81–88.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2013.04.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yadav OP, Singh N, LPS G (2006) Reliability demonstration test planning: a three dimensional consideration. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 91(8):882–893.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2005.09.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yadav OP (2007) System reliability allocation methodology based on three-dimensional analyses. Int J Reliab Saf 1:360–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yadav OP, Zhuang XA (2014) Practical reliability allocation method considering modified criticaly factors. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 129:57–65.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2014.04.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Di Bona G, Silvestri A, Forcina A, Petrillo A (2016) Reliability Target Assessment Based on Integrated Factors Method (IFM): A Real Case Study of a Sintering Plant. J Fail Anal Prev 16(6):1038-1051  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11668-016-0182-2
  24. 24.
    Itabashi-Campbell RR, Yadav OP (2009) System reliability allocation based on FMEA criticality. SAE Technical Paper, 2009–01-0202Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Department of the Army (2006) TM 5–689-4. Failure modes, effects and criticality analysis (FMECA) for command, control, communications, computer, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (C4ISR) facilitiesGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Boyd JA (1992) Allocation of reliability requirements: a new approach. In: Proceedings of reliability and maintainability symposium, January 21–23, 1992, Las Vegas, NE, p 5–6Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Fuller R, Majlender P (2001) An analytic approach for obtaining maximal entropy OWA operator weights. Fuzzy Sets Syst 124(1):53–57.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-0114(01)00007-0 MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    O’Hagan M (1988) Aggregating template or rule antecedents in real-time expert systems with fuzzy set logic. In Proceedings of 22nd annual IEEE Asilomar conference on signals, systems, computers, Pacific grove, CA, Piscataway (pp. 681–689). NJ: IEEEGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    NASA Report. ‘Designing for Dormant Reliability’, Johnson Space Center (JSC) Guideline No. GD-ED-2207Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    NASA Report. ‘Improving reliability and writing specifications’, Lewis Research Center (LRC)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    ATK Thiokol (Report: Solid Rocket Motor Briefing, Solid Propulsion Industry Action Group (S.P.I.A.G.)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Tucci M, De Carlo F, Borgia O, Fanciullacci N (2014) Accelerated life tests as an integrated methodology for product design, qualification and production control: a case study in the household appliance. Prod Manuf Res 2:112–127 ISSN:2169–3277Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    De Carlo F, Arleo MA (2013) Maintenance cost optimization in condition based maintenance: a case study for critical facilities. Int J Eng Technol 5:4296–4302 ISSN:1793–8244Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Di Bona G, Forcina A, Silvestri A, Petrillo A A-IFM reliability allocation model based on multicriteria approach. Int J Qual Reliab Manag 33(5):676–698Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    “Fuel Cells - Basics”. U.S. Department of Energy. Web. 2014 http://energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/fuel-cells-basics
  36. 36.
    “Household Energy Use In California”. U.S. Energy Information Administration. Web. 2014. http://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/reports/2009/state_briefs/pdf
  37. 37.
    “Net Metering”. Department of Energy. Green Power Markets. Web. 2014. http://apps3.eere.energy.gov/greenpower/markets/netmetering.shtml
  38. 38.
    “Current Financial Opportunities”. Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy. Web. 2010. http://energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/current-financial-opportunities

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil and Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of Cassino and Southern LazioCassinoItaly
  2. 2.Department of EngineeringUniversity of Naples “Parthenope”NaplesItaly

Personalised recommendations