Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention

, Volume 17, Issue 6, pp 1149–1163 | Cite as

Analytic Critical Flow Method (ACFM): A Reliability Allocation Method Based on Analytic Hierarchy Process

  • Gianpaolo Di Bona
  • Antonio Forcina
Technical Article---Peer-Reviewed


RAMS is an acronym for reliability, availability, maintainability and safety. These four properties concern the application of important methodologies to design and manage complex systems. In the present research, starting from the analysis of several literature reliability allocation techniques, a reliability allocation method has been implemented called analytic critical flow method (ACFM). Critical flow method is a reliability allocation method for series-parallel configurations, based on failure analysis of each unit of the system. The new approach is based on critical flow method, whose results are matched with the analytic hierarchy process multicriteria method. The result is a dynamic model that combines the advantages of the allocation method and the multicriteria approach. The need to develop the ACFM is the outcome of a careful analysis of the current military and commercial approaches. In particular, no literature method takes into account to assign a different level of significance (weight) to the different units of the system, simultaneously to the considered factors. The proposed approach has been applied and compared with other traditional methods on an aerospace prototype (series-parallel configuration), where the reliability allocation process is rigorous. The results demonstrate the effectiveness of the new approach and its ability to overcome the criticalities highlighted in literature.


Failure rate Failure analysis Series-parallel configurations Analytic hierarchy process Decision making Aerospace accidents Prediction analysis 


  1. 1.
    K.K. Aggarwal, Reliability Engineering (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    S.H. Dai, M.O. Wang, Reliability Analysis in Engineering Applications (Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1992)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    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
  4. 4.
    W.H. Alven, Reliability Engineering: Prepared by ARINC Research Corporation (Prentice Hall Inc, Englewood Cliff, NJ, 1964)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    V.J. Bracha, The methods of reliability engineering. Mach. Des. 7, 70–76 (1964)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    E.D. Karmiol, Reliability apportionment. Preliminary Report EIAM-5, Task II (General Electric, Schenectady, 1965), pp. 10–22Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    R.T. Anderson, Reliability Design Handbook (ITT Research Institute, Chicago, 1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Department of Defense of USA, MIL-HDBK-338B, Electronic design reliability handbook (1988), pp. 6/13–6/16Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    H.E. Kuo, Reliability Assurance: Application for Engineering and Management, 2nd edn. (Chinese Society for Quality, Taipei City, 1999), pp. 3/16–3/23Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    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. Modell. Simul. 1, 383–388 (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    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
  12. 12.
    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), pp. 75–79Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    C.H. Cheng, J.R. Chang, MCDM aggregation model using situational ME-OWA and ME-OWGA operators. Fuzziness Knowl. Based Syst. 14(4), 421–443 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    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
  15. 15.
    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
  16. 16.
    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
  17. 17.
    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
  18. 18.
    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
  19. 19.
    O.P. Yadav, N. Singh, P.S. Geol, Reliability demonstration test planning: a three dimensional consideration. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 91, 882–893 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    O.P. Yadav, System reliability allocation methodology based on three-dimensional analyses. Int. J. Reliab. Saf. 1, 360–375 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    O.P. Yadav, X. Zhuang, A practical reliability allocation method considering modified critically factors. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 129, 57–65 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    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
  23. 23.
    R.R. Itabashi-Campbell, O.P. Yadav, System reliability allocation based on FMEA criticality, SAE Technical Paper, 2009-01-0202 (2009)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    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 (2006)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    G. Di Bona, A. Silvestri, A. Forcina, Critical flow method: a new reliability allocation approach for a thermonuclear system. Qual. Reliab. Eng. Int. 32(5), 1677–1691 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    T.L. Saaty, The Analytic Hierarchy Process, 3rd edn. (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1980)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    J.A. Boyd, Allocation of reliability requirements: a new approach, in Proceedings of Reliability and Maintainability Symposium, January 21–23, 1992, Las Vegas, NE (1992), pp. 5–6Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    NASA Report, Designing for dormant reliability, Johnson Space Center (JSC) Guideline No. GD-ED-2207, Washington, DC (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© ASM International 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil and Mechanical EngineeringUniversita degli Studi di Cassino e del Lazio MeridionaleCassinoItaly
  2. 2.University of Naples “Parthenope”NaplesItaly

Personalised recommendations