Reliability engineering

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Single point of contention)
Jump to: navigation, search

Reliability engineering is an engineering field that deals with the study, evaluation, and life-cycle management of reliability: the ability of a system or component to perform its required functions under stated conditions for a specified period of time.[1] Reliability engineering is a sub-discipline within systems engineering. Reliability is often measured as probability of failure, frequency of failures, or in terms of availability, a probability derived from reliability and maintainability. Maintainability and maintenance are often important parts of reliability engineering.

Reliability engineering is closely related to safety engineering, in that they use common methods for their analysis and may require input from each other. Reliability engineering focuses on costs of failure caused by system downtime, cost of spares, repair equipment, personnel and cost of warranty claims. The focus of safety engineering is normally not on cost, but on preserving life and nature, and therefore deals only with particular dangerous system failure modes.

Reliability engineering for complex systems requires a different, more elaborate systems approach than reliability for non-complex systems. Reliability analysis has important links with function analysis, requirements specification, systems design, hardware design, software design, manufacturing, testing, maintenance, transport, storage, spare parts, operations research, human factors, technical documentation, training and more. Effective reliability engineering requires experience, broad engineering skills and knowledge from many different fields of engineering.

Overview[edit]

A reliability block diagram showing a 1oo3 (1 out of 3)redundant designed subsystem

Reliability may be defined in several ways.

  • The idea that something is fit for a purpose with respect to time.
  • The capacity of a device or system to perform as designed.
  • The resistance to failure of a device or system.
  • The ability of a device or system to perform a required function under stated conditions for a specified period of time.
  • The probability that a functional unit will perform its required function for a specified interval under stated conditions.
  • The ability of something to fail well.

Reliability engineering is a special discipline within Systems engineering. Reliability engineers rely heavily on statistics, probability theory, and reliability theory to set requirements, measure or predict reliability and give advice on improvements for reliability performance. Many engineering techniques are used in reliability engineering, such as Reliability Hazard analysis, Failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA), Fault tree analysis, Reliability Prediction, Weibull distribution analysis, thermal management, reliability testing and accelerated life testing. Because of the large number of reliability techniques, their expense, and the varying degrees of reliability required for different situations, most projects develop a reliability program plan to specify the reliability tasks that will be performed for that specific system.

The function of reliability engineering is to:

  • develop the reliability requirements for the product
  • establish an adequate life-cycle reliability program
  • show that corrective measures (reliability risk mitigation) produce reliability improvements
  • perform appropriate analyses and tasks to ensure that
    • the product will meet its requirements
    • the unreliability risk is controlled and brought to an acceptable level.

In line with the creation of safety cases for safety, it needs to provide a robust set of (statistical) evidence and justification material to verify if the top reliability or availability requirements can or have been met. The goal is to first identify the reliability hazards, assess the risk associated with them and to control the risk to an acceptable level. What is acceptable is determined by the managing authority or customers. These tasks are normally managed by a reliability engineer or manager, who may hold an accredited engineering degree and has additional reliability-specific education and training.

Reliability engineering is closely associated with maintainability engineering and logistics engineering, e.g. Integrated Logistics Support (ILS). Many problems from other fields, such as security engineering and safety engineering, can also be approached using common reliability engineering techniques.

Many types of engineering employ reliability engineers and use the tools and methodology of reliability engineering. Reliability engineering is performed throughout the entire life cycle of a system, including development, test, production and operation.

Reliability theory[edit]

Main articles: Reliability theory and Failure rate

Reliability theory is the foundation of reliability engineering. For engineering purposes, reliability is defined as the probability that a device will perform its intended function during a specified period of time under stated conditions. Mathematically, this may be expressed as,

R(t)=Pr\{T>t\}=\int_{t}^{\infty} f(x)\, dx \ \!,
where f(x) \! is the failure probability density function and t is the length of the period of time (which is assumed to start from time zero).

Reliability engineering is concerned with four key elements of this definition:

  1. Reliability is a probability. This means that failure is regarded as a random phenomenon: it is a recurring event, and we do not express any information on individual failures, the causes of failures, or relationships between failures, except that the likelihood for failures to occur varies over time according to the given probability function. Reliability engineering is concerned with meeting the specified probability of success, at a specified statistical confidence level.
  2. Reliability is predicated on "intended function:" Generally, this is taken to mean operation without failure. However, even if no individual part of the system fails, but the system as a whole does not do what was intended, then it is still charged against the system reliability. The system requirements specification is the criterion against which reliability is measured.
  3. Reliability applies to a specified period of time. In practical terms, this means that a system has a specified chance that it will operate without failure before time t \!. Reliability engineering ensures that components and materials will meet the requirements during the specified time. Units other than time may sometimes be used. The automotive industry might specify reliability in terms of miles, the military might specify reliability of a gun for a certain number of rounds fired. A piece of mechanical equipment may have a reliability rating value in terms of cycles of use.
  4. Reliability is restricted to operation under stated (or explicitly defined) conditions. This constraint is necessary because it is impossible to design a system for unlimited conditions. A Mars Rover will have different specified conditions than a family car. The operating environment must be addressed during design and testing. Also, that same rover may be required to operate in varying conditions requiring additional scrutiny.

Reliability program plan[edit]

Many tasks, methods and tools can be used to achieve reliability. Every system requires a different level of reliability. A commercial airliner must operate under a wide range of conditions. The consequences of failure are grave, but there is a correspondingly higher budget. A pencil sharpener may be more reliable than an airliner, but has a much different set of operational conditions, insignificant consequences of failure and a much lower budget.

A reliability program plan (RPP) is used to document exactly what "best practices" (tasks, methods, tools, analyses and tests) are required for a particular (sub)system, as well as clarify customer requirements for reliability assessment. For large scale, complex systems, the Reliability Program Plan is a distinctive document.

For simple systems, it may be combined with the systems engineering management plan or an integrated logistics support management plan. A reliability program plan is essential for a successful reliability, availability and maintainability (RAM) program and is developed early during system development and refined over the systems life-cycle. It specifies not only what the reliability engineer does, but also the tasks performed by other stakeholders. A reliability program plan is approved by top program management, which is responsible for identifying resources for its implementation.

Technically, often, the main objective of a Reliability Program Plan is to evaluate and improve availability of a system and not reliability. Reliability needs to be evaluated and improved related to both availability and the cost of ownership (due to cost of spar parts, maintenance man-hours, transport costs etc.). Often a trade-off is needed between the two. There might be a maximum ratio between availability and cost of ownership.

Whether availability or Cost of Ownership is more important depends on the use of the system. For example, a system that is a critical link in a production system – for example a big oil platform – is normally allowed to have a very high cost of ownership if this translates to even a minor increase in availability, as the unavailability of the platform directly results in a massive loss of revenue which can easily exceed the basic cost of ownership.

Testability of a system should also be addressed in the plan as this is the link between reliability and maintainability. The maintenance (the maintenance concept / strategy) can influence the reliability of a system (e.g. by preventive maintenance), although it can never bring it above the inherent reliability. Maintainability influences the availability of a system – in theory this can be almost unlimited if one would be able to repair a fault in a very short time.

A proper reliability plan should normally always address RAMT analysis in its total context. RAMT stands in this case for Reliability, Availability, Maintainability/Maintenance and Testability in context to users needs with regard to the technical requirements (as translated from the needs).

Reliability requirements[edit]

For any system, one of the first tasks of reliability engineering is to adequately specify the reliability and maintainability requirements as defined by the stakeholders in terms of their overall availability needs. Reliability requirements address the system itself, including test and assessment requirements, and associated tasks and documentation. Reliability requirements are included in the appropriate system/subsystem requirements specifications, test plans and contract statements. Maintainability requirements address system issue of costs as well as repair time. Evaluation of the effectiveness of corrective measures is part of a FRACAS process that is usually part of a good RPP.

Reliability prediction and improvement[edit]

Reliability prediction is the combination of the creation of a proper reliability model together with estimating (and justifying) the input parameters for this model (like failure rates for a particular failure mode or event and the mean time to repair the system for a particular failure) and finally to provide a system (or part) level estimate for the output reliability parameters (system availability or a particular functional failure frequency).

Some recognized authors on reliability – e.g. Patrick O'Conner, R. Barnard and others – have argued that too much emphasis is often given to the prediction of reliability parameters and more effort should be devoted to prevention of failure (reliability improvement). The reason for this is that prediction of reliability based on historic data can be very misleading, as a comparison is only valid for exactly the same designs, products under exactly the same loads / context. Even a minor change in detail in any of these could have major effects on reliability. Furthermore, normally the most unreliable and important items (most interesting candidates for a reliability investigation) are most often subjected to many modifications and changes. Also, to perform a proper quantitative reliability prediction for systems is extremely difficult and expensive if done by testing. On part level, results can be obtained often with higher confidence as many samples might be used for the available testing financial budget, however unfortunately these tests might lack validity on system level due to the assumptions that had to be made for part level testing.

Testing for reliability should be done to create failures, learn from them and to improve the system / part. The general conclusion is drawn that an accurate and an absolute prediction – by field data comparison or testing – of reliability is in most cases not possible. A exception might be failures due to wear-out problems like fatigue failures. In the introduction of Mil. Std. 785 it is written that reliability prediction should be used with great caution if not only used for comparison in trade-off studies.

Furthermore, based on the latest insights in Reliability centered maintenance (RCM), most (complex) system failures do no occur due to wear-out issues (e.g. a number of 4% has been provided, refer to RCM page). The failures are often a result of combinations of more and multi-type events or failures. The results of these studies have shown that the majority of failures follow a constant failure rate model, for which prediction of the value of the parameters is often problematic and very time consuming (for a high level reliability – part level). Testing these constant failure rates at system level, by for example mil. handbook 781 type of testing[clarification needed], is not practical and can be extremely misleading.

Despite all the concerns, there will always be a need for the prediction of reliability.[according to whom?] These numbers can be used as a Key performance indicator (KPI) or to estimate the need for spares, man-power, availability of systems etc.

Reliability predictions:

  • help assess the effect of product reliability on maintenance activity and the quantity of spare units required for acceptable field performance of any particular system. For example, predictions of the frequency of unit level maintenance actions can be obtained. Reliability prediction can be used to size spare populations.
  • provide necessary input to system-level reliability models. System-level reliability models can subsequently be used to predict, for example, frequency of system outages in steady-state, frequency of system outages during early life, expected downtime per year, and system availability.
  • provide necessary input to unit and system-level Life Cycle Cost Analyses. Life cycle cost studies determine the cost of a product over its entire life. Therefore, how often a unit will have to be replaced needs to be known. Inputs to this process include unit and system failure rates. This includes how often units and systems fail during the first year of operation as well as in later years.
  • assist in deciding which product to purchase from a list of competing products. As a result, it is essential that reliability predictions be based upon a common procedure.
  • can be used to set factory test standards for products requiring a reliability test. Reliability predictions help determine how often the system should fail.
  • are needed as input to the analysis of complex systems such as switching systems and digital cross-connect systems. It is necessary to know how often different parts of the system are going to fail even for redundant components.
  • can be used in design trade-off studies. For example, a supplier could look at a design with many simple devices and compare it to a design with fewer devices that are newer but more complex. The unit with fewer devices is usually more reliable.
  • can be used to set achievable in-service performance standards against which to judge actual performance and stimulate action.

The telecommunications industry has devoted much time over the years to concentrate on developing reliability models for electronic equipment. One such tool is the Automated Reliability Prediction Procedure (ARPP), which is an Excel-spreadsheet software tool that automates the reliability prediction procedures in "SR-332, Reliability Prediction Procedure for Electronic Equipment"[2] provides suppliers and manufacturers with a tool for making Reliability Prediction Procedure (RPP) calculations. It also provides a means for understanding RPP calculations through the capability of interactive examples provided by the user.

The RPP views electronic systems as hierarchical assemblies. Systems are constructed from units that, in turn, are constructed from devices. The methods presented predict reliability at these three hierarchical levels:

  1. Device: A basic component (or part)
  2. Unit: Any assembly of devices. This may include, but is not limited to, circuit packs, modules, plug-in units, racks, power supplies and ancillary equipment. Unless otherwise dictated by maintenance considerations, a unit will usually be the lowest level of replaceable assemblies/devices. The RPP is aimed primarily at reliability prediction of units.
  3. Serial System: Any assembly of units for which the failure of any single unit will cause a failure of the system or overall mission.

System reliability parameters[edit]

Requirements are specified using reliability parameters. The most common reliability parameter is the mean time to failure (MTTF), which can also be specified as the failure rate (this is expressed as a frequency or Conditional Probability Density Function (PDF)) or the number of failures during a given period. These parameters are very useful for systems that are operated frequently, such as most vehicles, machinery, and electronic equipment. Reliability increases as the MTTF increases. The MTTF is usually specified in hours, but can also be used with other units of measurement, such as miles or cycles.

In other cases, reliability is specified as the probability of mission success. For example, reliability of a scheduled aircraft flight can be specified as a dimensionless probability or a percentage, as in system safety engineering.

A special case of mission success is the single-shot device or system. These are devices or systems that remain relatively dormant and only operate once. Examples include automobile airbags, thermal batteries and missiles. Single-shot reliability is specified as a probability of one-time success, or is subsumed into a related parameter. Single-shot missile reliability may be specified as a requirement for the probability of a hit. For such systems, the probability of failure on demand (PFD) is the reliability measure – which actually is a unavailability number. This PFD is derived from failure rate (a frequency of occurrence) and mission time for non-repairable systems.

For repairable systems, it is obtained from failure rate and mean-time-to-repair (MTTR) and test interval. This measure may not be unique for a given system as this measure depends on the kind of demand. In addition to system level requirements, reliability requirements may be specified for critical subsystems. In most cases, reliability parameters are specified with appropriate statistical confidence intervals.

Reliability modelling[edit]

Reliability modelling is the process of predicting or understanding the reliability of a component or system prior to its implementation. Two types of analysis that are often used to model a system reliability behavior are Fault Tree Analysis and Reliability Block diagrams. On component level the same analysis can be used together with others. The input for the models can come from many sources: Testing, Earlier operational experience field data or Data Handbooks from the same or mixed industries can be used. In all cases, the data must be used with great caution as predictions are only valid in case the same product in the same context is used. Often predictions are only made to compare alternatives.

For part level predictions, two separate fields of investigation are common:

  • The physics of failure approach uses an understanding of physical failure mechanisms involved, such as mechanical crack propagation or chemical corrosion degradation or failure;
  • The parts stress modelling approach is an empirical method for prediction based on counting the number and type of components of the system, and the stress they undergo during operation.

Software reliability is a more challenging area that must be considered when it is a considerable component to system functionality.

For systems with a clearly defined failure time (which is sometimes not given for systems with a drifting parameter), the empirical distribution function of these failure times can be determined. This is done in general in an experiment with increased (or accelerated) stress. These experiments can be divided into two main categories:

  • Early failure rate studies determine the distribution with a decreasing failure rate over the first part of the bathtub curve. (The bathtub curve only holds for hardware failures, not software.) Here in general only moderate stress is necessary. The stress is applied for a limited period of time in what is called a censored test. Therefore, only the part of the distribution with early failures can be determined.
  • In so-called zero defect experiments, only limited information about the failure distribution is acquired. Here the stress, stress time or the sample size is so low that not a single failure occurs. Due to the insufficient sample size, only an upper limit of the early failure rate can be determined. At any rate, it looks good for the customer if there are no failures.

In a study of the intrinsic failure distribution, which is often a material property, higher (material) stresses are necessary to get failure in a reasonable period of time. Several degrees of stress have to be applied to determine an acceleration model. The empirical failure distribution is often parametrized with a Weibull or a log-normal model.

It is a general praxis to model the early (hardware) failure rate with an exponential distribution. This less complex model for the failure distribution has only one parameter: the constant failure rate. In such cases, the Chi-squared distribution can be used to find the goodness of fit for the estimated failure rate. Compared to a model with a decreasing failure rate, this is quite pessimistic (important remark: this is not the case if less hours / load cycles are tested than service life in a wear-out type of test, in this case the opposite is true and assuming a more constant failure rate than there is in reality can be dangerous). Sensitivity analysis should be conducted in this case.

Reliability test requirements[edit]

Reliability test requirements can follow from any analysis for which the first estimate of failure probability, failure mode or effect needs to be justified. Evidence can be generated with some level of confidence by testing. With software-based systems, the probability is a mix of software and hardware-based failures. Testing reliability requirements is problematic for several reasons. A single test is in most cases insufficient to generate enough statistical data. Multiple tests or long-duration tests are usually very expensive. Some tests are simply impractical, and environmental conditions can be hard to predict over a systems life-cycle.

Reliability engineering is used to design a realistic and affordable test program that provides empirical evidence that the system meets its reliability requirements. Statistical confidence levels are used to address some of these concerns. A certain parameter is expressed along with a corresponding confidence level: for example, an MTBF of 1000 hours at 90% confidence level. From this specification, the reliability engineer can, for example, design a test with explicit criteria for the number of hours and number of failures until the requirement is met or failed. Other type tests are also possible, including at 95% and 99%.

The combination of reliability parameter value and confidence level greatly affects the development cost and the risk to both the customer and producer. Care is needed to select the best combination of requirements – e.g. cost-effectiveness. Reliability testing may be performed at various levels, such as component, subsystem and system. Also, many factors must be addressed during testing and operation, such as extreme temperature and humidity, shock, vibration, or other environmental factors (like loss of signal, cooling or power; or other catastrophes such as fire, floods, excessive heat, physical or security violations or other myriad forms of damage or degradation).

Reliability engineering must assess the root cause of failures and devise corrective actions. Reliability engineering determines an effective test strategy so that all parts are exercised in relevant environments in order to assure the best possible reliability under understood conditions. For systems that must last many years, reliability engineering may be used to design accelerated life tests.

Requirements for reliability tasks[edit]

Reliability engineering must also address requirements for various reliability tasks and documentation during system development, test, production, and operation. These requirements are generally specified in the contract statement of work and depend on how much leeway the customer wishes to provide to the contractor. Reliability tasks include various analyses, planning, and failure reporting. Task selection depends on the criticality of the system as well as cost. A critical system may require a formal failure reporting and review process throughout development, whereas a non-critical system may rely on final test reports. The most common reliability program tasks are documented in reliability program standards, such as MIL-STD-785 and IEEE 1332. Failure reporting analysis and corrective action systems are a common approach for product/process reliability monitoring.

Design for reliability[edit]

Design For Reliability (DFR), is an emerging discipline that refers to the process of designing reliability into designs. This process encompasses several tools and practices and describes the order of their deployment that an organization needs to have in place to drive reliability and improve maintainability in products, towards a objective of improved availability, lower sustainment costs, and maximum product utilization or lifetime. Typically, the first step in the DFR process is to establish the system’s availability requirements. Reliability must be "designed in" to the system. During system design, the top-level reliability requirements are then allocated to subsystems by design engineers, maintainers, and reliability engineers working together.

Reliability design begins with the development of a (system) model. Reliability models use block diagrams and fault trees to provide a graphical means of evaluating the relationships between different parts of the system. These models may incorporate predictions based on failure rates taken from historical data. While the (input data) predictions are often not accurate in an absolute sense, they are valuable to assess relative differences in design alternatives.

A Fault Tree Diagram

One of the most important design techniques is redundancy. This means that if one part of the system fails, there is an alternate success path, such as a backup system. The reason why this is the ultimate design choice is related to the fact that to provide absolute high confidence reliability evidence for new parts / items is often not possible or extremely expensive. By creating redundancy, together with a high level of failure monitoring and the avoidance of common cause failures, even a system with relative bad single channel (part) reliability, can be made highly reliable (mission reliability) on system level. No testing of reliability has to be required for this. Furthermore, by using redundancy and the use of dissimilar design and manufacturing processes (different suppliers) for the single independent channels, less sensitivity for quality issues (early childhood failures) is created and very high levels of reliability can be achieved at all moments of the development cycles (early life times and long term).

An automobile brake light might use two light bulbs. If one bulb fails, the brake light still operates using the other bulb. Redundancy significantly increases system reliability, and is often the only viable means of doing so. However, building redundancy on higher (complex) system level may be very difficult and expensive, and is therefore limited to critical parts of the system (e.g. multi engine aircraft). On lower levels, redundancy is often rather simple and straight forward (e.g. use of redundant bolt connections).

Another design technique, physics of failure, relies on understanding the physical processes of stress, strength and failure at a very detailed level. Then the material or component can be re-designed to reduce the probability of failure. Another common design technique is component derating: Selecting components whose tolerance significantly exceeds the expected stress, as using a heavier gauge wire that exceeds the normal specification for the expected electrical current. Another effective way to deal with unreliability issues is to perform analysis to be able to predict degradation and being able to prevent unscheduled down events / failures from occurring. RCM (Reliability Centered Maintenance) programs can be used for this.

Many tasks, techniques and analyses are specific to particular industries and applications. Commonly these include:

Results are presented during the system design reviews and logistics reviews. Reliability is just one requirement among many system requirements. Engineering trade studies are used to determine the optimum balance between reliability and other requirements and constraints.

Reliability testing[edit]

A Reliability Sequential Test Plan

The purpose of reliability testing is to discover potential problems with the design as early as possible and, ultimately, provide confidence that the system meets its reliability requirements.

Reliability testing may be performed at several levels. Complex systems may be tested at component, circuit board, unit, assembly, subsystem and system levels. (The test level nomenclature varies among applications.) For example, performing environmental stress screening tests at lower levels, such as piece parts or small assemblies, catches problems before they cause failures at higher levels. Testing proceeds during each level of integration through full-up system testing, developmental testing, and operational testing, thereby reducing program risk. System reliability is calculated at each test level. Reliability growth techniques and failure reporting, analysis and corrective active systems (FRACAS) are often employed to improve reliability as testing progresses. The drawbacks to such extensive testing are time and expense. Customers may choose to accept more risk by eliminating some or all lower levels of testing.

Another type of tests are called Sequential Probability Ratio type of tests. These tests use both a statistical type 1 and type 2 error, combined with a discrimination ratio as main input (together with the R requirement). This test (see for examples mil. std. 781) sets – independently – before the start of the test both the risk of incorrectly accepting a bad design (type 2 error) and the risk of incorrectly rejecting a good design (type 1 error) together with the discrimination ratio and the required minimum reliability parameter. The test is therefore more controllable and provides more information from a quality and business point of view. The number of test samples is not fixed, but it is said[citation needed] that this test is in general more efficient (requires less samples) and provides more information than for example zero failure testing.

It is not always feasible to test all system requirements. Some systems are prohibitively expensive to test; some failure modes may take years to observe; some complex interactions result in a huge number of possible test cases; and some tests require the use of limited test ranges or other resources. In such cases, different approaches to testing can be used, such as accelerated life testing, design of experiments, and simulations.

The desired level of statistical confidence also plays an important role in reliability testing. Statistical confidence is increased by increasing either the test time or the number of items tested. Reliability test plans are designed to achieve the specified reliability at the specified confidence level with the minimum number of test units and test time. Different test plans result in different levels of risk to the producer and consumer. The desired reliability, statistical confidence, and risk levels for each side influence the ultimate test plan. Good test requirements ensure that the customer and developer agree in advance on how reliability requirements will be tested.

A key aspect of reliability testing is to define "failure". Although this may seem obvious, there are many situations where it is not clear whether a failure is really the fault of the system. Variations in test conditions, operator differences, weather and unexpected situations create differences between the customer and the system developer. One strategy to address this issue is to use a scoring conference process. A scoring conference includes representatives from the customer, the developer, the test organization, the reliability organization, and sometimes independent observers. The scoring conference process is defined in the statement of work. Each test case is considered by the group and "scored" as a success or failure. This scoring is the official result used by the reliability engineer.

As part of the requirements phase, the reliability engineer develops a test strategy with the customer. The test strategy makes trade-offs between the needs of the reliability organization, which wants as much data as possible, and constraints such as cost, schedule and available resources. Test plans and procedures are developed for each reliability test, and results are documented in official reports.

Accelerated testing[edit]

The purpose of accelerated life testing is to induce field failure in the laboratory at a much faster rate by providing a harsher, but nonetheless representative, environment. In such a test, the product is expected to fail in the lab just as it would have failed in the field—but in much less time. The main objective of an accelerated test is either of the following:

  • To discover failure modes
  • To predict the normal field life from the high stress lab life

An Accelerated testing program can be broken down into the following steps:

  • Define objective and scope of the test
  • Collect required information about the product
  • Identify the stress(es)
  • Determine level of stress(es)
  • Conduct the accelerated test and analyze the collected data.

Common way to determine a life stress relationship are

  • Arrhenius Model
  • Eyring Model
  • Inverse Power Law Model
  • Temperature-Humidity Model
  • Temperature Non-thermal Model

Software reliability[edit]

Software reliability is a special aspect of reliability engineering. System reliability, by definition, includes all parts of the system, including hardware, software, supporting infrastructure (including critical external interfaces), operators and procedures. Traditionally, reliability engineering focuses on critical hardware parts of the system. Since the widespread use of digital integrated circuit technology, software has become an increasingly critical part of most electronics and, hence, nearly all present day systems.

There are significant differences, however, in how software and hardware behave. Most hardware unreliability is the result of a component or material failure that results in the system not performing its intended function. Repairing or replacing the hardware component restores the system to its original operating state. However, software does not fail in the same sense that hardware fails. Instead, software unreliability is the result of unanticipated results of software operations. Even relatively small software programs can have astronomically large combinations of inputs and states that are infeasible to exhaustively test. Restoring software to its original state only works until the same combination of inputs and states results in the same unintended result. Software reliability engineering must take this into account.

Despite this difference in the source of failure between software and hardware — software does not wear out — some in the software reliability engineering community believe statistical models used in hardware reliability are nevertheless useful as a measure of software reliability, describing what we experience with software: the longer software is run, the higher the probability that it will eventually be used in an untested manner and exhibit a latent defect that results in a failure (Shooman 1987), (Musa 2005), (Denney 2005). (Of course, that assumes software is a constant, which it seldom is.)

As with hardware, software reliability depends on good requirements, design and implementation. Software reliability engineering relies heavily on a disciplined software engineering process to anticipate and design against unintended consequences. There is more overlap between software quality engineering and software reliability engineering than between hardware quality and reliability. A good software development plan is a key aspect of the software reliability program. The software development plan describes the design and coding standards, peer reviews, unit tests, configuration management, software metrics and software models to be used during software development.

A common reliability metric is the number of software faults, usually expressed as faults per thousand lines of code. This metric, along with software execution time, is key to most software reliability models and estimates. The theory is that the software reliability increases as the number of faults (or fault density) goes down. Establishing a direct connection between fault density and mean-time-between-failure is difficult, however, because of the way software faults are distributed in the code, their severity, and the probability of the combination of inputs necessary to encounter the fault. Nevertheless, fault density serves as a useful indicator for the reliability engineer. Other software metrics, such as complexity, are also used. This metric remains controversial, since changes in software development and verification practices can have dramatic impact on overall defect rates.

Testing is even more important for software than hardware. Even the best software development process results in some software faults that are nearly undetectable until tested. As with hardware, software is tested at several levels, starting with individual units, through integration and full-up system testing. Unlike hardware, it is inadvisable to skip levels of software testing. During all phases of testing, software faults are discovered, corrected, and re-tested. Reliability estimates are updated based on the fault density and other metrics. At a system level, mean-time-between-failure data can be collected and used to estimate reliability. Unlike hardware, performing exactly the same test on exactly the same software configuration does not provide increased statistical confidence. Instead, software reliability uses different metrics, such as code coverage.

Eventually, the software is integrated with the hardware in the top-level system, and software reliability is subsumed by system reliability. The Software Engineering Institute's Capability Maturity Model is a common means of assessing the overall software development process for reliability and quality purposes.

Reliability engineering vs safety engineering[edit]

Reliability engineering differs from safety engineering with respect to the kind of hazards that are considered. Reliability engineering is in the end only concerned with cost. It relates to all Reliability hazards that could transform into incidents with a particular level of loss of revenue for the company or the customer. These can be cost due to loss of production due to system unavailability, unexpected high or low demands for spares, repair costs, man hours, (multiple) re-designs, interruptions on normal production (e.g. due to high repair times or due to unexpected demands for non-stocked spares) and many other indirect costs.

Safety engineering, on the other hand, is more specific and regulated. It relates to only very specific and system Safety Hazards that could potentially lead to severe accidents. The related functional reliability requirements are sometimes extremely high. It deals with unwanted dangerous events (for life and environment) in the same sense as reliability engineering, but does normally not directly look at cost and is not concerned with repair actions after failure / accidents (on system level). Another difference is the level of impact of failures on society and the control of governments. Safety engineering is often strictly controlled by governments (e.g. Nuclear, Aerospace, Defense, Rail and Oil industries).

Furthermore, safety engineering and reliability engineering may even have contradicting requirements. This relates to system level architecture choices[citation needed]. For example, in train signal control systems it is common practice to use a fail-safe system design concept. In this concept the so called "wrong side failures" need to be fully controlled to a extreme low failure rate. These failures are related to possible severe effects, like frontal collisions (2* GREEN lights). Systems are designed in a way that the far majority of failures will simply result in a temporary or total loss of signals or open contacts of relays and generate RED lights for all trains. This is the safe state. All trains are stopped immediately. This fail-safe logic might unfortunately lower the reliability of the system. The reason for this is the higher risk of false tripping as any full or temporary, intermittent failure is quickly latched in a shut-down (safe)state. Different solutions are available for this issue. See chapter Fault Tolerance below.

Fault Tolerance[edit]

Reliability can be increased here by using a 2oo2 (2 out of 2) redundancy on part or system level, but this does in turn lower the safety levels (more possibilities for Wrong Side and undetected dangerous Failures). Fault tolerant voting systems (e.g. 2oo3 voting logic) can increase both reliability and safety on a system level. In this case the so called "operational" or "mission" reliability as well as the safety of a system can be increased. This is also common practice in Aerospace systems that need continued availability and do not have a fail safe mode (e.g. flight computers and related electrical and / or mechanical and / or hydraulic steering functions need always to be working. There are no safe fixed positions for rudder or other steering parts when the aircraft is flying).

Basic Reliability and Mission (Operational) Reliability[edit]

The above example of a 2oo3 fault tolerant system increases both mission reliability as well as safety. However, the "basic" reliability of the system will in this case still be lower than a non redundant (1oo1) or 2oo2 system! Basic reliability refers to all failures, including those that might not result in system failure, but do result in maintenance repair actions, logistic cost, use of spares, etc. For example, the replacement or repair of 1 channel in a 2oo3 voting system that is still operating with one failed channel (which in this state actually has become a 1oo2 system) is contributing to basic unreliability but not mission unreliability. Also, for example, the failure of the taillight of a aircraft is not considered as a mission loss failure, but does contribute to the basic unreliability.

Detectability and Common Cause Failures[edit]

When using fault tolerant (redundant architectures) systems or systems that are equipped with protection functions, detectability of failures and avoidance of common cause failures become paramount for safe functioning and/or mission reliability.

Reliability operational assessment[edit]

After a system is produced, reliability engineering monitors, assesses and corrects deficiencies. Monitoring includes electronic and visual surveillance of critical parameters identified during the fault tree analysis design stage. The data are constantly analyzed using statistical techniques, such as Weibull analysis and linear regression, to ensure the system reliability meets requirements. Reliability data and estimates are also key inputs for system logistics. Data collection is highly dependent on the nature of the system. Most large organizations have quality control groups that collect failure data on vehicles, equipment and machinery. Consumer product failures are often tracked by the number of returns. For systems in dormant storage or on standby, it is necessary to establish a formal surveillance program to inspect and test random samples. Any changes to the system, such as field upgrades or recall repairs, require additional reliability testing to ensure the reliability of the modification. Since it is not possible to anticipate all the failure modes of a given system, especially ones with a human element, failures will occur. The reliability program also includes a systematic root cause analysis that identifies the causal relationships involved in the failure such that effective corrective actions may be implemented. When possible, system failures and corrective actions are reported to the reliability engineering organization.

One of the most common methods to apply to a reliability operational assessment are Failure Reporting, Analysis and Corrective Action Systems (FRACAS). This systematic approach develops a reliability, safety and logistics assessment based on Failure / Incident reporting, management, analysis and corrective/preventive actions. Organizations today are adopting this method and utilize commercial systems such as a Web based FRACAS application enabling an organization to create a failure/incident data repository from which statistics can be derived to view accurate and genuine reliability, safety and quality performances.

It is extremely important to have one common source FRACAS system for all end items. Also, test results should be able to be captured here in a practical way. Failure to adopt one easy to handle (easy data entry for field engineers and repair shop engineers)and maintain integrated system is likely to result in a FRACAS program failure.

Some of the common outputs from a FRACAS system includes: Field MTBF, MTTR, Spares Consumption, Reliability Growth, Failure/Incidents distribution by type, location, part no., serial no, symptom etc.

The use of past data to predict the reliability of new comparable systems/items can be misleading as reliability is a function of the context of use and can be affected by small changes in the designs/manufacturing.

Reliability organizations[edit]

Systems of any significant complexity are developed by organizations of people, such as a commercial company or a government agency. The reliability engineering organization must be consistent with the company's organizational structure. For small, non-critical systems, reliability engineering may be informal. As complexity grows, the need arises for a formal reliability function. Because reliability is important to the customer, the customer may even specify certain aspects of the reliability organization.

There are several common types of reliability organizations. The project manager or chief engineer may employ one or more reliability engineers directly. In larger organizations, there is usually a product assurance or specialty engineering organization, which may include reliability, maintainability, quality, safety, human factors, logistics, etc. In such case, the reliability engineer reports to the product assurance manager or specialty engineering manager.

In some cases, a company may wish to establish an independent reliability organization. This is desirable to ensure that the system reliability, which is often expensive and time consuming, is not unduly slighted due to budget and schedule pressures. In such cases, the reliability engineer works for the project day-to-day, but is actually employed and paid by a separate organization within the company.

Because reliability engineering is critical to early system design, it has become common for reliability engineers, however the organization is structured, to work as part of an integrated product team.

Certification[edit]

The American Society for Quality has a program to become a Certified Reliability Engineer, CRE. Certification is based on education, experience, and a certification test: periodic re-certification is required. The body of knowledge for the test includes: reliability management, design evaluation, product safety, statistical tools, design and development, modeling, reliability testing, collecting and using data, etc.

Another highly respected certification program is the CRP (Certified Reliability Professional). To achieve certification, candidates must complete a series of courses focused on important Reliability Engineering topics, successfully apply the learned body of knowledge in the workplace and publicly present this expertise in an industry conference or journal.

Reliability engineering education[edit]

Some universities offer graduate degrees in reliability engineering. Other reliability engineers typically have an engineering degree, which can be in any field of engineering, from an accredited university or college program. Many engineering programs offer reliability courses, and some universities have entire reliability engineering programs. A reliability engineer may be registered as a Professional Engineer by the state, but this is not required by most employers. There are many professional conferences and industry training programs available for reliability engineers. Several professional organizations exist for reliability engineers, including the IEEE Reliability Society, the American Society for Quality (ASQ), and the Society of Reliability Engineers (SRE).

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (1990) IEEE Standard Computer Dictionary: A Compilation of IEEE Standard Computer Glossaries. New York, NY ISBN 1-55937-079-3
  2. ^ SR-332, Reliability Prediction Procedure for Electronic Equipment., FD-ARPP-01 telecom-info.telcordia.com

Further reading[edit]

  • Blanchard, Benjamin S. (1992), Logistics Engineering and Management (Fourth Ed.), Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
  • Breitler, Alan L. and Sloan, C. (2005), Proceedings of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) Air Force T&E Days Conference, Nashville, TN, December, 2005: System Reliability Prediction: towards a General Approach Using a Neural Network.
  • Ebeling, Charles E., (1997), An Introduction to Reliability and Maintainability Engineering, McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., Boston.
  • Denney, Richard (2005) Succeeding with Use Cases: Working Smart to Deliver Quality. Addison-Wesley Professional Publishing. ISBN . Discusses the use of software reliability engineering in use case driven software development.
  • Gano, Dean L. (2007), "Apollo Root Cause Analysis" (Third Edition), Apollonian Publications, LLC., Richland, Washington
  • Holmes, Oliver Wendell, Sr. The Deacon's Masterpiece
  • Kapur, K.C., and Lamberson, L.R., (1977), Reliability in Engineering Design, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
  • Kececioglu, Dimitri, (1991) "Reliability Engineering Handbook", Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey
  • Trevor Kletz (1998) Process Plants: A Handbook for Inherently Safer Design CRC ISBN 1-56032-619-0
  • Leemis, Lawrence, (1995) Reliability: Probabilistic Models and Statistical Methods, 1995, Prentice-Hall. ISBN 0-13-720517-1
  • Frank Lees (2005). Loss Prevention in the Process Industries (3rdEdition ed.). Elsevier. ISBN 978-0-7506-7555-0. 
  • MacDiarmid, Preston; Morris, Seymour; et al., (1995), Reliability Toolkit: Commercial Practices Edition, Reliability Analysis Center and Rome Laboratory, Rome, New York.
  • Modarres, Mohammad; Kaminskiy, Mark; Krivtsov, Vasiliy (1999), Reliability Engineering and Risk Analysis: A Practical Guide, CRC Press, ISBN 0-8247-2000-8.
  • Musa, John (2005) Software Reliability Engineering: More Reliable Software Faster and Cheaper, 2nd. Edition, AuthorHouse. ISBN
  • Neubeck, Ken (2004) "Practical Reliability Analysis", Prentice Hall, New Jersey
  • Neufelder, Ann Marie, (1993), Ensuring Software Reliability, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York.
  • O'Connor, Patrick D. T. (2002), Practical Reliability Engineering (Fourth Ed.), John Wiley & Sons, New York.
  • Shooman, Martin, (1987), Software Engineering: Design, Reliability, and Management, McGraw-Hill, New York.
  • Tobias, Trindade, (1995), Applied Reliability, Chapman & Hall/CRC, ISBN 0-442-00469-9
  • Springer Series in Reliability Engineering
  • Nelson, Wayne B., (2004), Accelerated Testing – Statistical Models, Test Plans, and Data Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, New York, ISBN 0-471-69736-2
  • Bagdonavicius, V., Nikulin, M., (2002), "Accelerated Life Models. Modeling and Statistical analysis", CHAPMAN&HALL/CRC, Boca Raton, ISBN 1-58488-186-0

US standards, specifications, and handbooks[edit]

UK standards[edit]

In the UK, there are more up to date standards maintained under the sponsorship of UK MOD as Defence Standards. The relevant Standards include:

DEF STAN 00-40 Reliability and Maintainability (R&M)

  • PART 1: Issue 5: Management Responsibilities and Requirements for Programmes and Plans
  • PART 4: (ARMP-4)Issue 2: Guidance for Writing NATO R&M Requirements Documents
  • PART 6: Issue 1: IN-SERVICE R & M
  • PART 7 (ARMP-7) Issue 1: NATO R&M Terminology Applicable to ARMP’s

DEF STAN 00-42 RELIABILITY AND MAINTAINABILITY ASSURANCE GUIDES

  • PART 1: Issue 1: ONE-SHOT DEVICES/SYSTEMS
  • PART 2: Issue 1: SOFTWARE
  • PART 3: Issue 2: R&M CASE
  • PART 4: Issue 1: Testability
  • PART 5: Issue 1: IN-SERVICE RELIABILITY DEMONSTRATIONS

DEF STAN 00-43 RELIABILITY AND MAINTAINABILITY ASSURANCE ACTIVITY

  • PART 2: Issue 1: IN-SERVICE MAINTAINABILITY DEMONSTRATIONS

DEF STAN 00-44 RELIABILITY AND MAINTAINABILITY DATA COLLECTION AND CLASSIFICATION

  • PART 1: Issue 2: MAINTENANCE DATA & DEFECT REPORTING IN THE ROYAL NAVY, THE ARMY AND THE ROYAL AIR FORCE
  • PART 2: Issue 1: DATA CLASSIFICATION AND INCIDENT SENTENCING – GENERAL
  • PART 3: Issue 1: INCIDENT SENTENCING – SEA
  • PART 4: Issue 1: INCIDENT SENTENCING – LAND

DEF STAN 00-45 Issue 1: RELIABILITY CENTERED MAINTENANCE

DEF STAN 00-49 Issue 1: RELIABILITY AND MAINTAINABILITY MOD GUIDE TO TERMINOLOGY DEFINITIONS

These can be obtained from DSTAN. There are also many commercial standards, produced by many organisations including the SAE, MSG, ARP, and IEE.

French standards[edit]

  • FIDES [1]. The FIDES methodology (UTE-C 80-811) is based on the physics of failures and supported by the analysis of test data, field returns and existing modelling.
  • UTE-C 80–810 or RDF2000 [2]. The RDF2000 methodology is based on the French telecom experience.

International standards[edit]

External links[edit]