Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention

, Volume 16, Issue 6, pp 1092–1100 | Cite as

Failure Prevention Through Performance Evaluation of Reliability Components in Working Condition

  • Vincenzo Duraccio
  • Lucio Compagno
  • Natalia Trapani
  • Antonio Forcina
Technical Article---Peer-Reviewed


The reliability of a system during operation can be expressed quantitatively through different time functions. Mathematical procedures and statistical laws allow to assess the precise analytical relations between these functions. Referring to a generic system or component is a common experience that its duration in-service is not predictable in a deterministic way. This consideration identifies the lifetime (or time to failure) of the component as a continuous random variable, susceptible to a statistical description, whose estimate is crucial in the design phase, or in any case before the commissioning of equipment. In a second stage, the actual values of reliability must be compared with the forecast values arising from the theoretical statistical model used. This comparison allows assessment of the goodness-of-fit level and the confidence level of the prediction model, in order to validate it for any future equipment redesigns or for similar equipment. In this context, the present work is aimed at identifying the most appropriate statistical tools for the comparison above, and then to assess the reliability of the forecast data, compared to the real performance of a reliability system. For this purpose, a literature analysis was conducted, with a dual purpose: The identification of statistical models most commonly used to describe the reliability function of a system; to provide a choice of appropriate indicators and effective tests for assessing the confidence of the statistical models for reliability scopes. The models identified were then applied, as an example, to the real case of a catalytic cracking catalyst with the fluidized bed of a petrochemical plant. The results obtained from the case study, discussed in the final section of the work, offer many points of comparison between the various statistical models as well as a first overview of their reliability.


Reliability Weibull Statistical model Fluid catalytic cracking Failure 


  1. 1.
    G. Di Bona, V. Duraccio, A. Silvestri, A. Forcina, Productive line reengineering through simulation. Proceedings of the IASTED International Conference on Modelling, Identification and Control, pp. 291–296 (2014)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    V. Duraccio, D. Falcone, F. De Felice, G.P. Di Bona, A. Forcina, A. Silvestri, 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 (2014), pp. 75–79. doi: 10.2316/P.2014.809-038
  3. 3.
    L. Barberá, A. Crespo, P. Viveros, R. Stegmaier, in A case study of GAMM (Graphical Analysis for Maintenance Management) applied to water pumps in a sewage treatment plant, Chile. 2nd IFAC Workshop on Advanced Maintenance Engineering, Services and Technology, A-MEST 2012, November 22–23, Sevilla, Spain, pp. 157–162 (2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    J.Z. Sikorska, M. Hodkiewicz, L. Ma, Prognostic modelling options for remaining useful life estimation by industry. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 25, 1803–1836 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Compagno, L., Trapani, N., Reliability Driven Standardization of Mechanical Seals for Petrochemical Applications (2014) IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, 440 (PART 3), pp. 455–462.
  6. 6.
    X.S. Si, W. Wang, C.H. Hu, D.H. Zhou, Remaining useful life estimation—a review on the statistical data driven approaches”. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 213, 1–14 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    D. Kececioglu, Reliability & Life Testing Handbook, vol. 1, 2. (Prentice Hall Inc, Englewood, Cliffs, 1993, 1994)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    J.F. Lawless, Statistical Models and Methods for Lifetime Data, 2nd edn (Wiley, 2002)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    S. Everitt, D.J. Hand, Finite Mixture Distribution (Chapman & Hall, London, 1981)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    R.B. Abernethy, The New Weibull Handbook: Reliability & Statistical Analysis for Predicting Life, Safety, Survivability, Risk, Cost, and Warranty Claims, 5th edn., Florida (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    D.N. Prabhakar Murthy, M. Xie, R. Jiang, Weibull Models (Wiley, Hoboken, 2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    A. Gelman, J.B. Carlin, D.B. Stern, Rubin Bayesian Data Analysis, 2nd edn. (Chapman & Hall, CRC, 2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    P.M. Lee, Bayesian Statistics: An Introduction, 3rd edn. (Oxford University Press Inc., New York, 2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    K.B.S. Everitt, D.J. Hand, Finite Mixture Distribution (Chapman & Hall, London, 1981)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    R. Jiang, D.N.P. Murthy, Modeling failure-data by mixture of 2 Weibull distribution: a graphical approach. IEEE Trans. Reliab. 44(3), 477–488 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    A.P. Dempster, N.M. Laird, D.B. Rubin, Maximum likelihood estimation from incomplete data via the EM algorithm. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B 39, 1–38 (1977)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    E.E. Elmahdy, A.W. Aboutahoun, A new approach for parameter estimation of finite Weibull mixture distributions for reliability modeling. Appl. Math. Model. 37(4), 1800–1810 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    M. Perc, Self-organization of progress across the century of physics. Sci. Rep. 3, 1720 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    A.M. Petersen et al., Languages cool as they expand: allometric scaling and the decreasing need for new words. Sci. Rep. 2, 943 (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© ASM International 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vincenzo Duraccio
    • 1
  • Lucio Compagno
    • 2
  • Natalia Trapani
    • 2
  • Antonio Forcina
    • 3
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Ingegneria dell’Innovazione, Ringgold Standard InstitutionUniversita del SalentoLecceItaly
  2. 2.Ringgold Standard InstitutionUniversita degli Studi di CataniaCataniaItaly
  3. 3.University of Naples “Parthenope”NaplesItaly

Personalised recommendations