Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention

, Volume 16, Issue 6, pp 1038–1051 | Cite as

Reliability Target Assessment Based on Integrated Factors Method (IFM): A Real Case Study of a Sintering Plant

  • Gianpaolo Di Bona
  • Alessandro Silvestri
  • Antonio Forcina
  • Antonella Petrillo
Technical Article---Peer-Reviewed


The success of a company depends on customer’s satisfaction: quality, price, and service. These three goals depend in particular on R.A.M.S. characteristics: reliability, availability, maintainability, and safety. In the last few years, in order to guarantee high standards of reliability and maintainability, new methodologies and techniques have been developed to estimate the R.A.M.S. targets. In particular, the reliability target represents both the starting and the ending point of R.A.M.S. analysis. The design of the reliability target of a system is a crucial aspect of reliability analysis, as it affects the performance of the system and components. This paper aims to develop a new approach called “IFM Target,” to define the reliability target for complex systems through the integrated factors method, to combine the advantages of usually used approaches, and to overcome some criticalities highlighted in a careful literature analysis. The proposed method has been applied on a sintering system. The results show the effectiveness of the proposed approach.


Reliability allocation FMECA FTA Complex system Design phase 


  1. 1.
    S.M. Roman, A.E. Simon, D. Dumitrascu, B. Lepadatescu, System reliability assessment—Fault tree analysis (FTA), in Annals of DAAAM and Proceedings of the International DAAAM Symposium, 2006Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    D.M. Shalev, J. Tiran, Condition-based fault tree analysis (CBFTA): A new method for improved fault tree analysis (FTA), reliability and safety calculations. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 92(9), 1231–1241 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    K.K. Aggarwal, Reliability Engineering (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    S.H. Dai, M.O. Wang, Reliability analysis in engineering applications (Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1992)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Advisory Group of Reliability of Electronic Equipment (AGREE), Reliability of Military Electronic Equipment (Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense Research and Engineering, Washington, DC, 1957)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    W.H. Alven, Reliability engineering: Prepared by ARINC research corporation (Prentice Hall Inc, Englewood Cliff, NJ, 1964)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    V.J. Bracha, The methods of reliability engineering. Mach. Des., 70–76 (1964)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    E.D. Karmiol, Reliability apportionment. Preliminary Report EIAM-5, Task II, General Electric, Schenectady, NY, 1965, pp. 10–22Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    R.T. Anderson, Reliability design handbook (ITT Research Institute, Chicago, 1976)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Department of Defense of USA. MIL-HDBK-338B, Electronic Design Reliability Handbook, 1988, pp. 6/13–6/16Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    K. Smedley, Reliability analysis for LEB ring magnet power system in SSC. IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 39(4), 1170–1174 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    H.E. Kuo, Reliability Assurance: Application for Engineering and Management, 2nd edn. (Chinese Society for Quality, 1999) pp. 3/16–3/23Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    D. Falcone, F. De Felice, G. Di Bona, A. Silvestri R.A.M.S. Analysis in a sintering plant by the employment of a new Reliability Allocation Method Modelling and Simulation 2004 Marina del Rey, CA, USA 1-3 marzo 2004.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    F. De Felice, D. Falcone, A. Silvestri, G. Di Bona, Proposal of a new reliability allocation methodology: the Integrated Factors Method. Int. J. Oper. Quant. Manag. 16(1), 67–85 (2010)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    G. Di Bona, V. Duraccio, A. Silvestri, A. Forcina, D.Falcone. F. De Felice, Validation and application of a reliability allocation technique (advanced integrated factors method) to an industrial system, in Proceedings of the IASTED International Conference on Modelling, Identification, and Control, MIC 2014 Innsbruck, Austria, 17 February 2014 through 19 February 2014, pp. 75–79Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    C.H. Cheng, J.R. Chang, MCDM aggregation model using situational ME-OWA and ME-OWGA operators. Fuzziness Knowl. Syst. 14(4), 421–443 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    K.H. Chang, C.H. Cheng, Y.C. Chang, Reliability assessment of an aircraft propulsion system using IFS and OWA tree. Eng. Optim. 40(10), 907–921 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Y.C. Chang, K.H. Chang, C.S. Liaw, Innovative reliability allocation using the maximal entropy ordered weighted averaging method. Comput. Ind. Eng. 57, 1274–1281 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    C.S. Liaw, Y.C. Chang, K.H. Chang, T.Y. Chang, ME-OWA based DEMATEL reliability apportionment method. Expert Syst. Appl. 38, 9713–9723 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    R.R. Yager, On ordered weighted averaging aggregation operators in multicriteria decision making. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. 18(1), 183–190 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    O. Kim, Y. Yang, M.J. Zuo, A new reliability allocation weight for reducing the occurrence of severe failure effects. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 117, 81–88 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    O.P. Yadav, N. Singh, P.S. Goe, Reliability demonstration test planning: a three dimensional consideration. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 91, 882–893 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    O.P. Yadav, System reliability allocation methodology based on three-dimensional analyses. Int. J. Reliab. Saf. 1, 360–375 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    O.P. Yadav, X. Zhuang, A pratical reliability allocation method considering modified critically factors. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 129, 57–65 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    J.B. Bowles, An assessment of RPN prioritization in a failure modes effects and criticality analysis, in Processing Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium, 2003, pp. 380–386Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    R.R. Itabashi-Campbell, O.P. Yadav. System reliability allocation based on FMEA criticality, SAE Technical Paper, 2009-01-0202; 2009Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Department of the Army. TM 5-689-4. Failure modes, effects and criticality analysis (FMECA) for command, control, communications, computer, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (C4ISR) facilities; 2006Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    G. Di Bona, V. Duraccio, A. Forcina, A. Silvestri, D. Falcone, C. Cerbaso, A new method for reliability allocation: critical flow method. in 9th WCEAM Research Papers Part of the Series Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering, pp. 249–261Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    G. Di Bona, A. Forcina, A. Silvestri, Critical flow method: a new reliability allocation approach for a thermonuclear system. Quality and Reliability Engineering International 32(5), 1677–1691 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    J.A. Boyd, Allocation of reliability requirements: a new approach, in Proceedings of Reliability and Maintainability Symposium, January 21–23 (Las Vegas, NE, 1992) pp. 5–6Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    R. Fuller, P. Majlender, An analytic approach for obtaining maximal entropy OWA operator weights. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 124(1), 53–57 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    M. O’Hagan, 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 (IEEE, NJ, 1988), pp. 681–689Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    M. Tucci, F. De Carlo, O. Borgia, N. Fanciullacci, Accelerated degradation tests for reliability estimation of a new product: a case study for washing machines. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part O 228(2), 127–138 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    F. De Carlo, O. Borgia, M. Tucci, Risk-based inspections enhanced with Bayesian networks. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part O 225(3), 375–386 (2011)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    G. Di Bona, A. Forcina, A. Silvestri, A. Petrillo, A-IFM reliability allocation model based on multicriteria approach. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 33(5), 676–698 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© ASM International 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universita degli Studi di Cassino e del Lazio Meridionale Ringgold standard institution - Department of Civil and Mechanical EngineeringCassinoItaly
  2. 2.University of Naples “Parthenope”NaplesItaly

Personalised recommendations