Handbook of Reliability, Availability, Maintainability and Safety in Engineering Design - Part 7 docx

Chapter 3
Reliability and Performance
in Engineering Design
Abstract This chapter considers in detail the concepts of reliability and performance
in engineering design, as well as the various criteria essential to designing for re-
liability. Reliability in engineering design may be considered fro m the points of
view of whethe r a design has inherently obtained certain attr ibutes of functionality,
brought about by the properties of the components of the design, or whether the
design has been configured at systems level to meet certain operational constraints
based on specific design criteria. Designing for reliability includes all aspects of the
ability of a system to perfor m. Designing for reliability becomes essential to ensure
that engineering systems are capable of functioning at the required and specified lev-
els of performance, and to ensure that less costs are expended to achieve these levels
of performance. Several techniques for determining reliability are categorised under
three distinct definitions, namely reliability prediction, reliability assessment and
reliability evaluation, according to their applicability in determining the integrity of
engineering design at the conceptual, preliminary or schematic, and detail design
stages respectfully. Techniques for reliability prediction are more ap propriate dur-
ing conceptual design, techniques for reliability assessment are more appropriate
during preliminary or schematic design, and techniques for reliability evaluation are
more appropriate during detail design. This chapter considers various techniques in
determining reliability in engineering design at the various design stages, through
the formulation of conceptual and math e matical models of engineering design in-
tegrity in designing for reliability, and the development of computer methodology
whereby the models can be used for engineering design review procedures.
3.1 Introduction
From an understanding of the concept of integrity in engineering design—particu-
larly of industrial systems and p rocesses—which includes the criteria of reliability,
availability, maintainability and safety of the inherent systems and processes and
their related equipment, the need arises to ex amine in detail what each of these
R.F. Stapelberg, Handbook of Reliability, Availability, 43

Maintainability and Safety in Engineering Design,
c
 Springer 2009
44 3 Reliability and Performance in Engineering Design
criteria implies from a theoretical perspective, and how they can be practically and
successfully applied. This includes the formulation of conceptual and mathematical
models of engineering design integrity in design synthesis, particularly designing
for reliability, availability, maintainability and safety, as well as the development
of intelligent computer automated methodology whereby the conceptual and math-
ematical models can be practically used for engineering design review procedures.
The criterion of reliability in engineering design may be considered from two
points of view: first, whether a particular design has inherently obtained certain
attributes of reliability, brought about by the properties of the components of the
design or, second, whether the design has been configured at systems level to meet
certain reliability constraints based on specific design cr iteria. The former poin t o f
view may be considered as a ‘bottom-up’ assessment in which reliability in engi-
neering design is approached from the design’s lowest level (i.e. component level)
up the systems hierarchy to the design’s higher levels (i.e. assembly, system and
process levels), whereby the collective effect of all the components’ reliabilities on
their assemblies and systems in the hierarchy is determined.
Clearly, this approach is feasible only once all the design’s components have
been identified, which is well into the detail design stage. The latter v iewpoint may
be considered as a ‘top-down’ development in which designing for reliability is
considered from the design’s highest level (i.e. process level) down the systems
hierarchy to the design’s lowest level (i.e. component level), whereby reliability
constraints placed upon systems performance are determined, which will eventually
effect the system’s assemblies and components in the hierarchy.
This approach does not depend on having to initially identify all the design’s
components, which is particular to the conceptual and preliminary design phases
of the engineering design process. Thus, in order to develop the most applicable

and practical methodology for determining the integrity of engineering design at
different stages of the design process, particularly relating to the assessment of re-
liability in engineering design,ortothedevelopment of designing for reliability
(i.e. ‘bottom-up’ or ‘top-down’ approaches in the systems hierarchy), some of the
basic techniques applicable to either of these approaches need to be identified and
categorised by definition, and considered for suitability in achieving the goal of re-
liability in engineering design.
Several techniques for determining reliability are categorised under three dis-
tinct definitions, namely reliability prediction, reliability assessment and reliability
evaluation, according to their applicability in determining the integrity of engineer-
ing design at the conceptual, preliminary/schematic or detail design stages. It must
be noted, however, that these techniques do not represent the total spectrum of re-
liability analysis, and their use in determining the integrity of eng ineering design
is considered from the point of view of their practical application, as determin ed in
the theoretical overview.The definitions are fundamentallyqualitative in distinction,
and indicate significant differences in the approaches to determining the reliability
of systems, compared to that of assemblies or of components. They start from a pre-
diction of reliability of systems based o n a prognosis of systems performance under
conditions subject to various failure modes (reliability prediction), then progress to
3.2 Theoretical Overview of Reliability and Performance in Engineering Design 45
an estimation of reliability based o n inferences of failure of equipment according
to their statistical failure distributions (reliability assessment) and, finally, to a de-
termination of reliability based on known values of failure rates for components
(reliability evaluation).
Reliability prediction in this context can be defined in its simplest form as “estimation of
the probability of successful system perf ormance or operation”.
Reliability assessment can be defined as “estimation of the probability that an item of equip-
ment will perform its intended function for a specified interval under stated conditions”.
Reliability evaluation can be defined as “determination of the frequency with which com-
ponent failures occur over a specified period of time”.

By grouping selected reliability techniques into these three different qualitative def-
initions, it can be readily discerned which specific techniques, relating to each of
the three terms, can practically and logically be applied to the different phases of
engineering d esign, such as conceptual design, preliminary or schematic design,
and detail design. The techniques for reliability prediction would be more appro-
priate during conceptual design, when alternative systems in their general context
are being identified in prelimin ary block diagrams, such as first-run process flow
diagrams (PFDs), and estimates of the probability of successful performance or op-
eration of alternative designs are necessary. Techniques for reliability assessment
would be more appropriate during preliminary or schematic design, when the PFDs
are frozen, process functions defined with relevant specifications r elating to specific
process design criteria, and process reliability and criticality are assessed according
to estimations of probability that items of equipment will perform their intended
function for specified intervals under stated conditions. Techniques for reliability
evaluation are more appropriate during detail design, when components of equip-
ment are d etailed, such as in pipe and instrument drawings (P&IDs), and are speci-
fied according to equipment design criteria. Equipment reliability and criticality are
evaluated from a determination of the frequencies with which failures occur over
a specified period of time, based on known component failure rates. It is important
to note that the distinction of these three terms are not absolutely clear-cut, espe-
cially reliability assessment and reliability evaluation, and that overlap of similar
concepts and techniques will occur o n the boundaries between these. In general,
specific reliability techniques can be logically grouped under each definition and
tested for contribution to each phase of the design p rocess.
3.2 Theoretical Overview of Reliability and Performance
in Engineering Design
In g eneral, the measure of an item’s reliability is defined as “the frequency with
which failures occur over a specified period of time”. In the past several years, the
concept o f reliability has become increasingly important, and a primary concern
with engineered installations of technically sophisticated equipment. Systems reli-

46 3 Reliability and Performance in Engineering Design
ability and the study of reliability engineering particularly advanced in the m ilitary
and space exploration arenas in the past two decades, especially in the develop-
ment of large complex systems. Reliability engineering, as it is being applied in
systems and process engineering industries, originated from a military application.
Increased emphasis is being placed on the reliability of systems in the current tech-
nological revolution. This revolution has been accelerated by the threat of armed
conflict as well as the stress on military preparedness, and an ever-increasing de-
velopment in computerisation, micro-computerisation and its application in space
programs, all of which have had a major impact on the need to include reliability in
the engineering design process. This accelerated technological developmentdramat-
ically emphasised the consequences of unreliability of systems. The consequences
of systems unreliability ranged from operator safety to economic consequences of
systems failure and, on a broader scale, to consequences that could affect national
security and human lives.A somewhat disturbingfact is that the p roblem of avoiding
these consequences becomes more severe as equipment and systems become more
technologicallyadvanced. Reduced operating budgets, especially during global eco-
nomic cut-backs, further compound the problem of systems failure by limiting the
use of back-up systems and and units that could take over when needed, requiring
primary units to function with minimum possible occurrence of failure. The prob-
lem of r eliability thus becomes twofold—first, the use of increasingly sophisticated
equipment in complex integrated systems and second, a limit on funding for capital
investments and operating and maintenance budgets, reducing the convenience of
reliance on back-up or redundant equipment. As a result, the development of sound
design for reliability practices become essential, to ensure that engineering systems
are capable of functioning at the required and specified levels of performance, and
to ensure that less costs are expended to achieve the required and specified levels of
performance. A significant development in the application of the concept of relia-
bility, not only in the context of existing systems and equipment but specifically in
engineering design, is reliability analysis.

Reliability analysis in engineering design can be applied to determine whether it
would be more effective to rely on redundant systems, or to upgrade the reliability
of a primary unit in order to achieve the required level of opera tional capability.
Reliability analysis can also show which problem design areas are the ones in real
need of attention fr om an operational capability viewpoint, and wh ich ones are less
critical. Th e effect of applying adequate reliability an alysis in engineering design
would be to reduce the overall procurement and operational costs, and to increase
the operational availability and physical reliability of most engineering systems and
processes.
Reliability an alysis in engineering design incorporates va rious techniques that
are applied for different purposes. These techniques include the following:
• Failure definition and quantification (FDQ), which defines equipment condi-
tions, analyses existing failure data history of similar systems and equipment,
and d evelops failure frequency matrices, failure distributions, hazard rates, com-
ponent safe-life limits, and establishes component age-reliability characteristics.
3.2 Theoretical Overview of Reliability and Performance in Engineering Design 47
• Failure modes effects and criticality analysis (FMECA), which determ ines the re-
liability criticality of components through the identification of the component’s
functions, identification of different failure modes affecting each function, iden-
tification of the consequences and effects of each failure mode on the system’s
function, and possible causes for each of the failure modes.
• Fault-tree or root cause analysis (RCA), which determines the combinations of
events that will lead to the root causes of component failure. It indicates failure
modes (in branch-tree struc tures) and pr obabilities of failure occurrence.
• Risk analysis (RA), which combines root cause analysis with the effects of the
occurrence of catastrophic failures.
• Failure elimination analysis (FEA), which determines expected repetitive fail-
ures, analyses the primary causes of these failures, and d evelops improvements
to eliminate or to reduce the possible occurrence of these failures.
Relationship of components to systems The relationship of a component to an

overall sy stem is determined by a technique called systems breakdown structuring
in systems engineering analysis, which will be considered in greater detail in a later
chapter.
As an initial overview to the development of reliability in engineering design,
consideration o f only the definitions for a system and a component would suffice at
this stage.
A system is defined as “a complex whole of a set of connected parts or components w ith
functionally related properties that links them together in a systems process”.
A component is defined as “a constituent part or element contributing to the composition
of the whole”.
Reliability of a component Reliability can be defined in its simplest form as “the
probability of successful operation”. This probability, in its simplest form, is the
ratio of the number of components surviving a failure test to the number of compo-
nents present at the beginning of the test. A more complete definition of reliability
that is somewhat more complex is given in the USA Military Standard (M1L-STD-
721B). This definition states: “Reliability is the probability that an item will perform
its intended function for a specified interval under stated conditions”. The definition
indicates that reliability may not be quite as simple as pr eviously defined. For exam-
ple, the reliability of a mechanical component may b e subject to added stress from
vibrations. Testing for reliability would have to account for this condition as well,
otherwise the calculation has no real meaning.
Reliability of a system Further complications in the determination of reliability
are introduced when system reliability is being considered, rather than component
reliability. A system consists of several components of which one or more must be
working in order for the system to function. Components of a system may be con-
nected in series, as illustrated below in Fig. 3.1, which implies that if one component
fails, then the entire system fails.
In this case, reliability of the entire system is considered, and not necessarily
the reliability of an individual component. If, in the example of the control-panel
48 3 Reliability and Performance in Engineering Design

Component 1
Warning light
Reliability 0.90
Component 2
Warning light
Reliability 0.90
Fig. 3.1 Reliability block diagram of two components in series
warning lights, two warning lights were actually used in series for a to tal warning
system, where each warnin g light h a d a reliability of 0.90, then the reliability of the
warning system would be
R
System
= R
Component1
×R
Component2
R
System
= 0.90×0.90 = 0.81.
The system reliability in a series configuration is less than the reliabilities of each
component. This systems reliability makes use of a probability law called the law of
multiplication.
This law states:
“If two or more events are independent, the probability that all events will occur is given by
the product of their respective probabilities of individual occurre nces”.
Thus, series reliability can be expressed in the following relationship
R
Series
=
n

∏
i=1
R
Componenti
∀i = 1, ,n . (3.1)
A realistic example is now described.
A typical high- speed re ducer is illustrated below in Fig. 3.2, together with Ta-
ble 3.1 listing its critical components in sequence according to configuration, and
test values for the failure rates as well as the reliability values for each component.
What is the overall reliability of the system, considering each component to function
in a series configuration?
The consideration of a system’s components to function in a series configura-
tion, particularly with simple system configurations where inherent components are
usually not redundant or where systems are single, stand-alone units with a lim-
ited number of assemblies (usually one to a maximum of three assembly sets), is
preferred b ecause systems reliability closely resembles practical usage.
A different type of system arrangement utilising two components in parallel is
illustrated below in Fig. 3.3.
This system has two components that represent a parallel or redundant system
where one component can serve as a back-up unit for the other in case of one or
the other component failing. The system thus requires that only one component be
working in order for the system to be functional. To calculate the system reliabil-
ity, the individual reliabilities of each component are added together and then the
3.2 Theoretical Overview of Reliability and Performance in Engineering Design 49
Fig. 3.2 Reliability of a high-speed self-lubricated reducer
Table 3.1 Reliability of a high-speed self-lubricated reducer
Component Failure rate Reliability
Gear shaft 0.01 0.99
Helical gear 0.01 0.99
Pinion 0.02 0.98

Pinion shaft 0.01 0.99
Gear bearing 0.02 0.98
Pinion bearing 0.02 0.98
Oil pump 0.08 0.92
Oil filter 0.01 0.99
Oil cooler 0.02 0.98
Housing 0.01 0.99
System 0.21
a
0.79
b
a
System failure rate =
Σ
(component failure rates)
b
System reliability =
Π
(component reliabilities)
product of the reliabilities in the system are subtracted. Thus, for the two compo-
nents in Fig . 3.3, each with reliabilities of 0.90
R
System
=(0.90+0 .90) −(0.90×0.90)=0.99 .
The system reliability of a parallel configuration is greater than the reliabilities of
each individual component. This system’s reliability makes use of a probability law
50 3 Reliability and Performance in Engineering Design
Fig. 3.3 Reliability block
diagram of two components
in parallel

Component 1
Reliability 0.90
Component 2
Reliability 0.90
called the general law of addition. This law states:
“If two events can occur simultaneously (i.e. in parallel), the probability that either one or
both will occur is given by the sum of the individual probabilities of occurrence less the
product of the individual probabilities”.
Thus, p arallel reliability can be expressed in the following relationship
R
Parallel
=
n
∑
i=1
R
i
−
n
∏
i=1
R
i
∀i = 1, ,n . (3.2)
The event in this case is whether a single component is working. The system is
functional as long as either one or both components are working. An important
point illustra ted is the fact that system configuration can have a major impact on
overall systems reliability. Thus, in engineered installations with complex integra-
tions of system configurations, the overall impact on re liability is of critical concern
in engineering design.

Parallel (or redundant) system configurations are often used where high relia-
bility is required, as th e overall result of reliability is greater than each individual
component’s reliability.
One of the ba sic con cepts of reliability analysis is the fact that all systems,
no matter how complex, can be reduced to a simple series system. For example,
the two-component series configuration and two-component parallel configuration
can be integrated to yield a relatively more complex system as illustrated below in
Fig. 3.4.
Using the results of the previous calculations, and the probability laws of mul-
tiplication and addition, the combined system can now be reduced to a two-
component system configuration, shown in Fig. 3.5.
The reliability of the series portion of the combined system was previously cal-
culated to be 0.81. The reliability of the parallel portion of the combined system
was previously calculated to be 0.99. These reliabilities are now used to represent
an equivalent two-component configuration system, as illustrated in Fig. 3.5. The
3.2 Theoretical Overview of Reliability and Performance in Engineering Design 51
Component 1
Reliability = 0.90
Component 2
Reliability = 0.90
Component 4
Reliability = 0.90
Component 3
Reliability = 0.90
Fig. 3.4 Combination of series and parallel configuration
Components 1&2
in series
Reliability 0.81
Components 3&4
in parallel

Reliability 0.99
Fig. 3.5 Reduction of combination system configuration
combined systems reliability can be calculated a s
R
Combined
= 0.81 ×0.99 = 0.80 .
This combined systems configuration (consisting of a two-component series con-
figuration system plus a two-component parallel configuration system), where each
component has an individual reliability of 0.90, has an overall reliability that is
less than each individual component, as well as less than each of its inherent two-
component configuration systems. It is evident that as systems become more com-
plex in configuration of individual components, so the reliability of the system de-
creases.
Furthermore, the more complex an engineered installation becomes with respect
to complex integration of systems, the greater the probability of unreliability.There-
fore, a greater emphasis must be placed upon the consequences of the unreliability
of systems, especially complex systems, in designing for reliability. An even greater
compounding effect on the essential need for a comprehensive approach to design-
ing for reliability is the fact that these consequences become more severe as equip-
ment and systems become more technologically advanced, in addition to a funding
constraint placed on the number of back-up systems and units that could take over
when needed.
Difference between single component and sy stem reliabilities The reliability of
the total system is of prime importance in reliability analysis for engineering design.
52 3 Reliability and Performance in Engineering Design
A system usually consists of many different components. As previously observed,
these components can be structured in one of two ways, either in series or in parallel.
If components are in series, then all of the components must operate successfully
for the system to function. On the other hand, if components are in parallel, only
one of the components must operate for the system to be able to function either

fully or partially. This is referred to as the system’s level of redundancy.Bothof
these configurations need to be considered in determining how each configuration’s
component reliabilities will affect system reliability. System reliabilities are calcu-
lated by means of the laws of probability. To apply these laws to systems, some
knowledge of the reliabilities of the inherent components is necessary, since they
affect the reliability of the system. Component reliabilities are derived from tests
or from actual failure history of similar components, which yield information about
component failure rates. When a new component is designed, no quantitative mea-
sures of electrical, mechanical, chemical or stru ctural prop e rties reveal the reliability
of the component. Reliability can be measured only through testing the component
in a realistic simulated environment, or from actual failure history of the component
while it is in use. Thus, without a quantitative probability distribution of failure data
to statistically determine the measure of uncertainty (or certainty) of a component’s
reliability, the component’s reliability remains undeterminable. This has been the
opinion amongst engineers and researchers until relatively recently (Dubois et al.
1990; Bement et al. 2000b; Booker et al. 2000). With the modern application of
a concept that has been postulated since the second half of the twentieth century
(Zadeh 1965, 1978), the feasibility of modelling uncertainty with insufficient data,
and even without any data, became a reality. This concept expounded upon mod-
elling uncertain and vague knowledge using fuzzy sets as a basis for the theory of
possibility. This q ualitative concept is considered later, in detail.
The first system configuration to consider in quantitatively determining sy stem
reliability, then, is a series configuration of its components. The problem that is
of interest in this case is the manner in which system reliability decreases as the
number of its components configured in series increases.
Thus, the reliabilities of the components grouped together in a series configura-
tion must first be calculated. Quantitative reliability calculations for such a grou p of
components are based on two important considerations:
• Measurement o f the reliability of the components must be as precise as possible.
• The way in which the reliability of the series system is calculated.

The probability law that is used for a gr oup of series components is the product of
the reliabilities of the individual components.
As an example, consider the power train system o f a haul truck, illustrated in
Figs. 3.6 and 3.7. The front propeller shaft is one of the components of the output
shaft assembly. The output shaft assembly is adjacent to the torque converter and
transmission assemblies, and these are all assemblies of the power train system.
The power train system is only one of the many systems that make up the total
haul truck configuration. For illustrative purposes, and simplicity of calculation, all