Block
Block
Parameter
Failure
a
Distribution
Repair
a
Distribution
Probability
Distribution
Weibull
Lognormal
Parameter 1 Parameter 2
Shape 1.5
Scale 1000
Mu 5
Sigma 0.5
Simple Model
Block
Name
S tart
E nd
1::1
m
Failur e: W eibull
Char . Lif e: 1000
Shape Fact . : 2
t 0: 0
Q t y: 1
R: 0. 99005
b
Failur e: Nor m al
M ean: 250
St dDev: 50
Q t y: 1
R: 0. 99865
e
Failur e: W eibull
Char . Lif e: 2300
Shape Fact . : 1. 5
t 0: 0
Q t y: 1
R: 0. 990975
d
Failur e: Log Nor m al
M u: 6
Sigm a: 2
Q t y: 1
R: 0. 757228
c
M TBF: 10000
Q t y: 1
R: 0. 99005
1::1
g
M TBF: 10000
Q t y: 1
R: 0. 99005
1::1
h
Failur e: Log Nor m al
M u: 8
Sigm a: 1
Q t y: 1
R: 0. 999657
1::2
n
Failur e: W eibull
Char . Lif e: 1000
Shape Fact . : 3
t 0: 0
Q t y: 1
R: 0. 999
1::1
Parameter
1
Parameter
2
Weibull
Shape 1.5
Scale 1000
Normal
Mean 250
Std Dev 50
Exponential
10000
Lognormal
Mu 6
Sigma 2
Weibull
Shape 1.5
Scale 2300
Normal
Mean 250
Std Dev 50
Exponential
10000
Lognormal
Mu 8
Sigma 1
Weibull
Shape 1.5
Scale 1000
Normal
Mean 250
Std Dev 50
Exponential
10000
Lognormal
Mu 8
Sigma 3
Weibull
Shape 2.0
Scale 1000
Weibull
Shape 3.0
Scale 1000
Weibull
Shape 4.0
Scale 1000
Weibull
Shape 0.5
Scale 1000
Weibull
Shape 0.4
Scale 1000
3::6
f
Failur e: Nor m al
M ean: 250
St dDev: 50
Q t y: 1
R: 0. 99865
l
Failur e: Log Nor m al
M u: 8
Sigm a: 3
Q t y: 1
R: 0. 871101
i
Failur e: W eibull
Char . Lif e: 1000
Shape Fact . : 1. 5
t 0: 0
Q t y: 1
R: 0. 968872
Failure
Distribution
o
Failur e: W eibull
Char . Lif e: 1000
Shape Fact . : 4
t 0: 0
Q t y: 1
R: 0. 9999
1::2
Failur e: Nor m al
M ean: 250
St dDev: 50
Q t y: 1
R: 0. 99865
1::1
a
Failur e: W eibull
Char . Lif e: 1000
Shape Fact . : 1. 5
t 0: 0
Q t y: 1
R: 0. 968872
q
Failur e: W eibull
Char . Lif e: 1000
Shape Fact . : 0. 4
t 0: 0
Q t y: 1
R: 0. 67159
p
Failur e: W eibull
Char . Lif e: 1000
Shape Fact . : 0. 5
t 0: 0
Q t y: 1
R: 0. 728893
k
M TBF: 10000
Q t y: 1
R: 0. 99005
Large Model
Complex Model
Results of Simulations
Model
One Block
One Block
Simple
Simple
Simple
Large
Large
Large
Large
Large
Complex
Complex
Complex
Complex
Model Data
Parameter
Reliability
Availability
Reliability
Availability
System Failures
Reliability
Reliability
Availability
Availability
MTTFF: (Hours)
Reliability
Availability
MTBF (MTBDE)(Hrs)
MTTR (MDT)(Hrs.)
Trials or
Runs
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
10,000
1,000
1,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
Time
(hours)
1,000
1,000
100
100
100
61,362
61,362
61,362
61,362
61,362
100
100
100
100
Software Package
Raptor BlockSim
Relex
0.3797
0.8927
0.983
0.9955
0.017
0.7024
0.718
0.858
0.847
0.3663
0.8894
0.977
0.9892
0.023
0.737
0.729
0.861
0.865
0.365
0.843
0.978
0.978
Not Reported
0.6914
0.707
0.691
0.6866
144,775.99 201,679.13
146,321.53
0.1313
0.1315
0.0988
0.3877
0.3741
0.3333
36.2732
68.3853
39.3565
62.7677
33.92
74.51
10
11
Cautions - 1
12
Cautions - 2
13
Cautions - 3
Modeling special cases can be difficult because of the way the
programs handle standby (which was in our models) and
phasing (which was not in our models).
Output parameters were not consistently labeled. The user
should understand the difference between MTTF, MTTFF,
MTBDE, and MTBF for reliability and MDT and MTTR for
maintainability.
14
Cautions - 4
15
Cautions - 5
Flexibility
Each package has tabs, checkboxes, preferences, defaults, multiple
random number streams, selectable seeds for random numbers, etc to
facilitate the modeling, analysis, and simulation process.
Flexibility can provide huge pitfalls to the analyst.
Care in modeling, and use of support services provided by the
software supplier is a good practice.
Numerous runs and reruns may be necessary due to idiosyncrasies of
the software,
Beware of errors in modeling, confusion of parameter definition, etc.
Problems compound as a variety of failure distributions are
intermixed with a similar grouping of repair distributions.
As a model becomes more complex, simulation becomes mandatory
2007 RAMS Brall, Hagen, Tran
16
Observations - 1
The models can run quickly even on old Pentium II PCs, or they can
take hours to run.
Length of simulation time, number of runs, and failure rate of the
system can all contribute to lengthening of simulation time.
One of the models took in excess of 1 hour on a 3 GHz Pentium
IV.
Convergence of the results is heavily dependent on how consistent
the block failure rates are.
For example, one block with an MTBF of 1000 hours, can double
or triple simulation time.
The display during simulation on some of the packages shows the
general trend, but there can be a lot of outliers.
One model failed to converge on one of the packages again this
may have been due to a subtle preference selection (or nonselection).
17
Observations - 2
18
Recommendations
19