Navships 0900-002-3000 1964

Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.
com
NAVSHIPS 0900-002-3000
,I OF
RELIABILITY AND MAINTAINABILITY

TRAINING HANDBOOK
DWIMBUTION OF THIS DOCUMETS UN*LIW o D C
Best Available Copy DEC 2 1967
GIUIIIIID
GRENERAL DYNAIMIC I AU OCNALfl *,
Ruproducod b/ the
CLEARINGHOUSE
for Fo-dural S•;icntific & Tochnicol
Information Springfield Va. 22151
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
RELIABILITY & MAINTAINABILV*-Y

TRAINING HANDBOOK
Prm-i17L tr Co~urse Nvlana4ger
Sa n Dw),o C'ailiorm .
.'th dlu mv- lu ij , ' ind contr button of
T.%V '~ O~ I
(A triv Boat J. S~acks, fuShips
T W. D)unn, ii); F a'ct c ltiw Cdr,. K. N. Sargcnt, USN
Sý .B .Lnslcy, 61V7 KIectr~ic fiwJ Offic~e uf Naval Material
R,~ex
(;o JI),fD ketrAC ic IPo;,, Dr. N. Ii Simp8on,
P. 1. KIuin(i)',~ ' GU~~
D/Fort Worth
GD/F14d,' 0Ieýrw Bo-at K. Sinclair, GD/Electronicat
C C hc,18k- r.( 1-/ui~
. Stiehi,
K laugford, lB Ships
C GDi/Ast ronautitc6
.1 ~. br G L'opiio fl J. Stuart, G[)/Pornona
Nis" B, S, Orlcb a s u~h hps It P. Sturtevant,
I'.! i i (i ) i, *uý;toiautios 60/;
i Astroriautics
41,R 11"in ting Jurn. 1960,
I 1 ,
1, M0",1,1 f P .0 . lm 1Výl wltId t~ rOf -.
Thio text, and the Bureau of Ships courses thý-,t > rt'-~
presents a subs tantial dieparture from the cm Dp F-,i-
bi litv, Maintainabil ity, arid Syztem Ef f-ct-ik tetiC> ,
courses currentINYx a%,i~ilable. The departure is ~ i '~OL
specific BuShips management and technical. needs, by~a~ icn

omissions in previously available material, adby 4,he r
dynamic growvth of the tec'irogy HIeaeth r~~
cons iderat ions:
I. The point of view and language .S, folr -t!hose wbc% "c-iý w~tt
cortract-Ors, as well as thlose in TBhSfhips womust 'il
for the required reliability and mIair. o ~in abiitv
2. The text fully recognizes the, current lb-ý, -tat ionIs or the
"MTBF' approach, particularly for structuiral com,,ponents,
but also for' many mechanical and olornccomz o7ents.
Howver, it presents the o ther apprccesailhefr
quanti tative treatment.
3. Quite a few techniques that do n,-ot appear in gover-nment

specifications, but which ind-ustry has "found effectiv'el, are
pr es en. ed
4. Onmiasis is placed on (a) contract 7manaq_-.Ier~ct: iný.i()

methods tdein e for required reliability, -atherth.
jast predict, "control." and measure it, as is c imon in
,ther courses.
5. Reliability and maintainabil~ity are treated to.ooethier whJer-

ever they are ]oyi~ally managed, designed, or analyzed
together.
6. While the text content. includes more "system effect iveness"

c.han some courses by that name, it concentrates on just thc'ý
reliability and maintainabi lity contributions to systelr
effectiveness, to a,oid dilution.
7. to determ! nle o"CO11

Cost., effectiveness analys is approaches,
omically-achievable reliability and maintatna:.bility, are,
presented in some detail.
8. Shipbuilding and ships GFE and CEE examples :,re used whe~reve'r
Lhe information was obtainable, 'and shiplbuildidnq cr,.tI(..pe
obtained on all tevt.
C)-3
Although the great majority of the techniques presented are well-

established and proven, some are still controversial, and somc
ý<!r -imply recc-miiended on the basis of industry experience. This
to be txpectLd of any fast-developing technology. In each
case the text words will usually indicate such status.
Ecr BuShips top management courses, Chapters 1, 2, 24, 25, and

2i aie used, with a short condensation of Chapters 3 through 23.
-or middle managemenL the condensation is much deeper. For the
Technical Codes nearly all chapters are used in 4=tail.
In order to achieve the above objectives several approaches have
been used. Some excellent contributions have been used directly
with liti•e or no modification. Much material of significant
con.ertt has been rewritten in more communicative lanquage: About
a third or more of the material is original witn the authors.
BuShip," code 609.2 and the author would indeed appreciate re-
ceiving any reccramendations for improvement, corrections, or
criticisms of the text. It will have to be updated as the
technology moves ahead.
II
0-4
0ONITFNTrrS
1INTRODUCTION - the proble-7, de finit-io-ns, course coverage,

CN0-Cz*¶ :1i~aloguo, Bu~hips implerm-entation
2 REAUIREMEENT'S DtzeINFTION -R&M, planned use, PfrD plan, PTA,* TEOp
3 YSTEM. DEFINITION - approa_-h, modcls, logic, applicat-ion
4 PROBABILITY - simple & compound events, binomial, empirical,
fa ilure density, application to R, samrp'le computations
5 RELIABILITY PRED'rCTIONI - stagces of design, approach, c-omrpon-
en-,examrrple, _.liability growth, purpos~s of prediction
6 APPORTI0OT4F',T - theory & criteria, technipues, voting, uscs
7 STRESS-STRENGTH ANALYSIS - marqins, distributions, uses
8 MAINTAINABILITY - availability, requirements, quantification,
maintenance analysis, demonstration, applications
9 DATfA ACQUIS1T ION - populatio:n, problems, estimat-in-,
10 STATEISTICAL TECHNIQUES - 9equential analysis, testing, Monte
Carlo, design of experimentsF, analys is vexrlance, Boolean
11 VERIFICATION -assurance, ori~ ftý-'orv' R estimat:Ck
demonstration testingq, sequential. sampling
V12 FATLURr; Muw-tS & hFFECTS ANAL-atz- jdJ,.n a crit.1ca.
item,ýs, reducinc¶ effects of failure
1.3 DESIGN FOR R&M - basic reliable design, ieliability improv,ýe-
ment ~pproaches, maintainability design
14 HUMAN FACTORS - n~an as an element, man-machine interface,
cývaiuation of Tyan in a system
15 DESIGN REVIEW - phases, checKlists, coverage, effectiveness
16 FAILURE DIAGNOSIS - causes, identification, co)rrectiive action
17 SPECIFICATIONS - R&M consid rations, spec. list, abstracts
13 PARTS ENGINEERING - standar s, preferred parts, application,
data, specs, stockroom, I ;ndling, tracoability, te~stling3
19 SUPPLIER RELATIONSHIPS -qualificat-ion, criteria, specs,
proposals, surveys, contract negotiation, evaluation, cs.,ntrol
20 MANUFACTURE & OPERATION - suppliecs, manufacturing_, test,
delivery, installation, operation, m,-intenanco
21 CCN'TRACTOR ORGANIZATION --work flow, structure, policy &
procedure, responsibility assignment, education & manuals,
technology developmnent, chang4e control, co: rective ac-t jn
22 TA!-K DELINEATION - education, design t-- R&M, apportionment,
predict-ion, cost-effectivetiess, failure mor' is, stress.
stenth hma fct dtsign review, arts control,
d,
reports, corrective action; change, supplier, & ma-_nofactur-
ing Control; failure diagno is, data, verification
23 CONTRACT PLAILJING - requirements, progaram plans, proposal
management -4evaluation cost-~eftectiveness p- isions
24 PROGRAM CONTDL - R&D, sh,-ipbuilding, responsibility, co)ntract
negotiation, contractor ev'aluation & control, surveillance
25 "SYSTEM EFFECTIVENESS -application, criteria, factors,
reliability, reliability & maintainalbility, models
26 COST-EFFECTIVENESS operational Cxpcrience2, co~stl-eff~ective-
ness balance, tradeoff analysis, examlles, acq~uisition I
cost, ownership cost, opportunities for improvement
27 DEFINITIONS - reliability, maintainability, availabili~ty,
effectiveness, cost, general
TOP MANA(; iKM FIN7r IN1-I JMi13ýlf)\,'I'E CODItAI'. TE~c A-1C

Cliaps I inti. duCt ion r
I nt r'rt ion Ilir
Def jn LIt i(n 2hr
t/T 1JN f ii_

±TATv
1 >LC.t Ir obLoo~ T1,ILTS'
I e fniti o r 2hr
P : TNITI I-N 2 O~l --- 3 System Definit ion

/4 Probabi lit,
Coo-S 3 5 P red0i c-t ionn
c11Dum Qjn t .itI ive 6 App(,r t unronet
Te c hnviqu es' 2hr S/Stren~-+-
8 Maintainability
'PI~TLO~ Chaps ____9 Data Acquisition
4-16 1 Verificatici,
--Techni .)ues' 2hr

Ca
1,iS 17-22
r 0 ec
Cha 10ntroL
Co\ Ihr "QUALITATIVE
\i ANAC EM ENT TECHN D.UES' 7hr
C! 24 12 Failure Modes E
Oni 13 Des~ign for R&M
___________ Conrol14 Deuman Factorew
C~ ran
tHumIar 5Deln Factors
16 Failure Diaqnosis
'P)ROJ. CONTROL" 5hr

SYTM17 Speciticati-ons
LI'V~iVLNEs:18 Part-; Eflqinee~ inq
19 Supplier Relations
Stem 2h,- 20 Manufacture & op.
fet(- i ven e; 21 ýOrgja n izat i on1
PROC. CONTROL 3hr
22 Task Delineation
23 Contract Plannir.9
COST- 4 5m. 24_Proyr~am Mgnt.
E F'j:
5'\' IVN ESS
Cos- hr 25 System
Cost 2hrEffectiveness 2hr
Effectiveness
26 Cost-
_____ _____________Effh.ctiveness 2h~r
Review and Review and
SMMARY imExamination Ilir Examination
1-1r 5(hn 16 hours 40 hours

I-
z
CL LU
~C14
-J LU L
L n < 1
niz
0~ E
:D(
Li LLUL
C, 4,lz
M. I o0 iof al - -
4, C0
y o0 , 0J'
, ) en4
2 ,I--
*
-r Vi , 4,C~ . C -o0
j x - An
I LC, 4,J -o o i I.
,;~
4
C - u 3t _j --
4 > >
. 0i 0 >
0 V
ILl yI Uaor
UU )lý 4,Oc wiV
a.
0 ;4
4,
0~~
-0 S C C
LL
0 D
4P
'
0 C, 0
4 , 4, 4,>C "
z, C C 4
co >, c~ ;'
4D c'~
0
--C ' p- V
Ef
~ 00 *
0L
'n Vi_
~ ~ ~~w
.
uj
00 . - a ~' v,. C=:- - 0 -,
AZ 4, "0 3
-
wo C: 0
r-4,-
M 1
0 E 0' >~-
U 0*r
-Z t, .C C 0' 4, 0 Efi
E '00~ 0- 0 4, J 0Cl O
E~ 0 Ul c
.- D0-
c Lý 0
0) 0 ,
O~C -k, 0~ I~_-
*0. T L C2
m
e 0
>-
0 0 .. o
c
~ -
t
00 C)
LL.0t 0 V) 0)
- 0 v~Ji'i ri
t
-"5
-c 4ý4
1t 3; 3
>
0
0C
Z-- >-
~~10 0
0
>)?>
012 ?~ x .'00 0 t, 1
14~ 0. V.)
C) -. 1
I,' ~ C ~ (~ C QD-
C) .CO > u c > >

In) 40
11 1 ~ C -1- V'- V2, z, -.
CO~~~V CO C 0.. C
V, "I
O 1Cý C) L.
z
att
.2 -Z
->-. 4, Zo zL
Dt 0-;
uj . 0 S2 20 Z. m
0- COJCID al > -2
Or 01
C- --Z - --
0 ~-A
)-M -jz~
0 z -<- Lý C,~fl
V-) 03 'n 'Z ~

C)- VI ) In > Lai
C) -D -D 73 7 ) -. C
1-1
Chapter 1
XNTRODUCTION
1. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM 1- 2

1.1 Reliability of Equipment 1- 2
1.2 Reliability vs. Complexity 1- 3
1.3 Reliability as a Management Problem 1- 3
2. DEFINITIONS 1...
-7
2.1 Reliability and Maintainability i-• 7
2.2 Design Basis of Reliability 1- 8
2.3 Design Basis of Maintainability 1-11
2.4 Degradation of Reliability and Maintainability
in Production and Use 12
3. COVERAGE OF RELIABILITY TRAINIG COURSE 1-12

3.1 Research and Development Brograms 1-14
3.2 Shipbuilding Programs 1-15
3.3 Fleet Improvement Programs 1-15
4. THE CNO-CNM DIALOGUE 1-15
5. BUREAU OF SHIPS IMPLEMENTATION 1-16

5.1 How Reliability is Achieved 1-16
5.2 Management's Task 1-17
5.3 Summary 1-19
6. REFERENCES 1-20
1-2
Ciiapter 1.
IN TR 01UICT 10N
~otalk Re'iabilitv t,) the Bvreau o-)f Ships m~ight appear to. Le a
little like "bingin~g coals to New Castle'. ',he endurance of
the ships you have designed and were respons 'ibl~e for buildling is
traditionalShp arF. reliable, they r-espond to the demand wNhen
req~uired - get .indo-rwav, rcedad comiplete an assi ;-i~ment and
return. Thre count-ry g .es you cr,,d It. Innovi,-ons in :3h ipbui idirv
y'ou haveý taken 1-stid the Naut i --
1us the GereWashington,
the Eeroise. These urcats are testimon- al to your competency
in staying abreast of the new technolgi-ais-
I., STATEM1ENT OF T&E- PROBLEM
LIR-TLDr311A~TY OFEQUIPMENT
Then Mhy talk reli,-ibility? The rlaitywe. will be talking

ahout ',.s ta.o leliabi-~ ý-y o.f eqpui.~nent -installed in your ships.
You'lli recogrni -, 1t1,(-t sc.me of the equi~yment furnished by the
Bureau and zlsrrted i' these shie,-s noies caus-1 the operating forces
pr ob 1em s Breakde-wna o machinery have always occurred. I t was
not, in the old dAys, too frcquently11 to he acceptable. Today the
operatinj fcr(7es sciýv that -,hle difficulty cF na'intenance is no
The C miiar;d e.r Ina Ch ieoP a,-ic Ye t. reCc ntly said:
"The ev~er -in~creasi-I

me complexity -)f -;hi,-board eu~ipiPno-nt
continioos t,. addI to the already overextenided training
t equi rements Vhe acceptance of shipboard equipment
v.0iich exceeds the capabi'ities Na'---y personnel to
maiýAtain -,,n only res-clt in a loss of f leet reaidiness.
The 'Commiind er Tn Chief.-Atlantic Fl-eet seconded this-

"Our Fleet is t&uccmi- so saturated in complexity thatI
hal~e -. mortal fear we may b2 blindly sail ing on a collision
course with something dreadful--like not being able to take
the FloLeet to s-a and FfghtA§'
R. Adm. J. 0- Cobb, Abst.. Chief of Naval. Persunnel, (1) stated:
Aie baying of ctiiplex 6ysteris whichi qererate more and mo-:re

requi roments for ski lled rc-,ple we dco nct have, le(Ads to an
oOxI o;'us Conc lusion, d lot. oft hardware. goes begging for
t-
lx ts dlesicn uDctentia1. The
Navm ns r[- ~ >"ti n the fo-rmn of reduced
'l>'
:eai-u'iesn ztivifr tnre-nd
r-t co)nt inue-s, an r~naoilt
to carry our itS 7,ýIzsci:n-
1.2 P<ELTASFhI.IT YV. COMPLEý ýXITty
you' I11 recccxIn- irI - k' C, ,i out1,p

.11 T M talk. ing abou,,t Is largel
__,
(hunot v ,n electronIc-s. T he n ew t e chnroIog9i es are largely

mbd nes ib i"' elect ron'i cs Twentv year-sao the title RADAR
wasic
jas ' e ren.SECRF T'.ventv five years ago it wasn't
even Lees-t u'tevjhce 'Aboard shic. In the l-ast
twety
Li: urswehave s'e(n elect-ron-ics on boCard ship mush-
roo toma sm-,all shack -b h' nJ the pilot hour-se to spacesý filled
0
with conso~ltn,, a co)mprlex- a-r-Y f~tatens RAD-AR, SONARI, TACANT,

LOR;AN s-
$ f
trtl' Vnapo'~l
v. and ý.rfense have au,-vanced to higher
s aec, r eater- ptr-ec is 0 P. I-M'r'csei~y shortened reaction times.
9
The itrr,! d f t'-c. a i- tec-Innr 4y -Ls shown
in Figure 1-4. Of
carti..u]eL ±ntere,ý- .ts the '' --rease atinstalled electric
Li -t ~~ 'c-nstrendjs for the same
2<- - YuCan-' rh r- - n toward Ai ti-Aircratt
wý:kr1- I c, ifti'-' ,~
T": ''~'' -t Ant+~ and Anti-
Lrcraf*
r ar
n Ir -(: "D 'A tj £iqat'. `-O we
bt inhb np th r aut I-n,

-It týIclty fin maiteanc anq! reducing
tnt ifý- \Int- t t a.snt 70V a thi i hyAcnr ) St si

in-Non. r pbr -
pressures less___ _____________

1-4
- 0' C - - t
z l ýZ. cI
Cr C C.1 C cC
iH t- t.
O0 00 or
C-- I.'- L)
~~I2
4 C C) C
1-6
HO
I-
U-
_________________ I
z ___________
1
_____________-- K
Z
-I
2W -
(U) ______________ __
0
0
0
______________ _______________
1-7
fleets needs in specific performance.
in an attempt to reverse the trend towards higher costs and

reduced effeotiveness--to get action started toward a major
-- provement in reliability and maintainability of Weapons S•,stems
DOD Instructions 3200.6 and 3200.9 have been issued.
--- These and
a lot of other letters and memos have been written and speeches
made to -resent the new view and emphasize the n%:ed. The effort
has centered on impro-ving the management of development contracts.
Pressure has been applied and will be applied until the fleet
can live withi the equipment.
These new ground rules for R&D management have been compared by
Admiral Booth (4) to the negotiation of a contract between the
CNO and the Chief of Naval Material.
"The Chief of Naval Operations, as the customer, is demanding

a materiel program which wisely invests the resource made
avaiiable t• the Navy."
One major facet of the new rules is Lhe "economic sarntions"

applied. Sound planning for development contricts, including the
appropriate consideration of reliability and maintainability, is
a prerequisite for the authorization of funding. To meet the
new requircments will, for the Bureau, mean a new approach to
contracti-g. But first we'll discuss the old words in thei-
new meaning.
2. DEFINITIONS
2.1 RELIABILITY AND MAINTAINABILITY
The words Reliability and Maintainability will be used extensively,

so I would like to start with an intuitive definition. Relia-
bility is the performance characteristic of equipment that reflects
its ability to operate satisfactorily long enough to complete its
assigned mission. It is an index of the excellence of the design
and of the operational integrity of a product. Higher reliability
means fewer breakdowns - longer periods of trouble free operation.
Maintainability is the performance characteristic that reflects
rapidity, ease and economy of maintenance and repair. Higher
maintainability means reduced requirements for skilled personnel,
less down time for equipment.
The engineering approach to design concerns itself with specific

functional performance. Will the equipment do what we want?
Reliability Engineering asks "How lonq?" Design Engineering
1-8
starts with the assumption the equipment will work. ReliaDility

engineering starts with the assumption it will fail. Design for
performdnce is concerned with how "effective" the system is in
operation. Design for reliability is concerned with how long
the system can function without failure.
2.2 DESIGN BASIS OF RELIABILITY
How are systems or equipment.s designed? There are actually very

few new parts in any design. In developing a nw equipment the
designer selects parts (bearings, linkages, seals, power supplies,
servos) that have been previously used, adapting them to his
requirements. Each of these parts has some history of appli-
cations and sone history of failures. Where failures occurred
the design was changed until a satisfactory design was achieved.
As a result of experiment, testing and trying new combinations,
empirical rules for the use of the part have been developed. The
designer of a new system uses these previously developed rules
with established analytical techniques to produce a usually
acceptable design.
In a new design, the designer must make a certain number of trace-

offs or compromises. Usually several possible configurations are
studied, the advantages and disadvantages weighed and one finally
selected which, in the opinion of the designer, best meets his
objectives. Within the specific performance requirements, two
extremes of approach might be found. The conservative, or over-
design apprcach, emphasizes high reliability. Excess weiqht or
c st, even marginal performance, may be accepted to assure
reliable performance. (An example might be the reduction in
hydraulic working pressure on the periscope heisting cylinders to
prevent use of excess pressure on the seals). The op.timistic, or
performance oriented approachi, emphasizes levelopment of specifc
performance beyond the requirement, or low weight or cost (hopinq
the reliability will be adequate). Thir- approach repr,'sents a
6id for recognition, or the solution to a challenging pioblem.
Either approach can lead to seri -is modifications after tne equip-
ment is manufactured. The conseiv:ltive approach may incur changes
to "fix" overweight or poor performance problems. The optimistic
approach may require changes to "fix" reliability problems.
But Admiral Schoech said in November,

"We can no longer afford the 'build one and try it' approach
with a subsequent 'get well' effort to patch on reliabi iity,
maintainability, etc."
1--9
The intormediate approach, considering all the requirements for

reliability and performance in each decision is clearly better
than either extreme. This approach requires some criteria,
ground rules or method of analysis for making decisions. To
establish sucH criteria or meì<ccs wre look back to traditional
design methods.
Desiqne'rs design from experience. They use knowledge gained

from their own and other people's experience to put together
an equipment that will work. They are familiar with the relation-
ship of cause and effect. In their experimentation and observing
the results of other peoples efforts they have classified some
contigurations as "good" - they work, and others as "poor" - they
don't. They have learned that properly conducted experiments
are repeatable because of the cause-effect relationship.
The design for a specified reliability can take the same approach.
Failures are repeatable. There is no such thinca as a chance
failure. Every failure that occurs is caused by the implacable
~-ratjin of ohv.•ira
-ws. o--,res3 -A pr'3resz:'--
'.
deterioration are nhysical events caused by physical conditions.
A part used in a s, stem is subjected to the operation of these
laws in a rcasoi..bly consistent way. It may be expected t-
sur-.ive on the average a fairly predictable length of time.
As parts were or.iinally designed and developed, their reactions

to certain combi rat ions of pressures, dimensions, loadings,
lubricant1s were evaiuated. Certain combinations were found
usually success,,ful, other combinations were reiected. This was
the source of the analytical des ign rules or criteria previously
mert1 i,,'d. But -,each inalyt.ical t ech.ique uses a go-no oo, good-
hat: criteria. We can, and in a few instances have, deter'mined,
bo•y ood or how bad. The life expectancy for each part under a
par ' Lcular seýt of c:)nditions, and how such life expectancy varies
with chanqesi in the conditions, can be established.
A system cmNposed of these parts, each with its own characteristic

li f-', ,xhi.bits a characteristic "random" failure patterin. Random,
as u- ed h,,,re, describes a situation where nearly the same number
o ft fii lures occur in any t'c equal periods of time.
Fiqur' i-1-0 portrays a system of several parts, each failing

(denoted by F) at its characteristic frequency. The system failure
fre,.ue-ncy is shown for two discrete e.iual peri.'ds of time.
Wt- can thus establish a figure of merit, charact 'r istic of the
syste.m, to e-valuate reliability. Omsuch fiqur.o' or merit, we call
1-10
-I X,
"44
aL
the7, Mean Ti mýBoitePa~v~mFiiluores (MTfB!F) , computed. by d ivid ing the

total I ira , t i me( Lv tfie nemrber of fa I
This t i ;ire mr it van be ourci to evaluate the design. It. can

be predicted in tdsnstagie, beforF- production of eguýipent
iitarts . Fror',) tLm irif rmllt~ion obt.-iined on prior test programs we
can determ ne -,` ýthr th-at system l.i fe %,Ill be sat is factory, as
well as informat-ion ýn 'row to) imý_-rcve it L,, stelecti.rn of working
stres lvel toU rnces or other factors havingll an effect on
the life of tne part ,.T is -: --i unificant refinemont to thet:
"tradlit ional" arproac-ch to, des ion in that eci;rt- 14 fe at the design
con pedit
jtios ~ ci nd:oe~.r~da cu stpre2- ass ined require-
ments, so-. that desion nt Ions may be mod fIied, toz im pr o ve th e
li:
f.ai lure characteris tics !the,( i me be f,-re the tegaýpMenTII is
builIt.
2 3 EIý', BASIS OV MAIN A IN ýP4TTI
~ehave ta likd ab )lit fai lur~es as i f --hi s were the end,_ of the 'line.
Itv" SO. aior have, toh eard hey :ray be repai red
1
eit t ~tinue
-- the oplera-tio~n. or 4he :nay be rpie
.a iMt.mrlt and ;r:ersoanel i re av a i la bi e
0d~ The fften er th e
eq u ijme n L or Ca-v S n~' t " o t k ter I t Is~ b -,,,I eI . II an
eCýIuloment I MT Fi> h11iýrs enir ar-e rt,,U rt'd about every
foras.?l1i' amb.. f 0 nnt or jnensLr ita
lane nu-ber _)f ,'t- n.A
rts
(Sn-usialiy <orto, parts) ian
ira The e r
cplr r'k it -An o'r ~;r rpair
Tfhe 'ej
C~t "'ntcai t1 I.r%n r a
5\-'Stte' canI 10 es, ev 17 . nt fMB
tve oe to. lito St 0 01-e'ett

i'7 ti
1 Ir tA a S'1 In-' an
"I -A I Au '' en ca _)c tstim.ated_.
Fromthe
.~t' r .. t pi i~ ra a" tntr est nloat'f
tin 3 ~t*'. T 7-c, s nlt :tmst

Te'~
T"' aAMa i. t< rt be<-''t vts aMP'i
na
aY it +" ~ n ~oeotmrt 'c~b > ta
Me~in
IMC rC;ne.
e itlh i"n. ' .. -~ m a . S.r.
the task can be expedited by changes -in design. Typical examples

are improved access (particullarly emphasizing short. life items),
modular design or planned replacement at higher levels ot assembly
to reduce detail asse-mbly and adjustment times.
As we have indicated, the reliability and maintainability achievablce

in a design are within the control of the desiqner. Hie can deter-
nine how much he needs. Fe can select alternate approaches, eac-h
o)f which meets hi-; pt.ime requirement. He can select the cne which
best meets his secondary objectives (low first cost, low maintenancke
cost, short down time). Having sel. rted the approach, he can,
design the equip.nent so that the pre-dicted failure rat+Žs of the
parts will not cause the equipment to fail more frequently than
permissible, or so that the estimated repair time remains within
the permissible down time.
2.4 DEGRADATION OF RELIABILITY AND MArNIAINABILITY IN PRODUCTION

AND USE
The designer establishes the maximom achievable reliaIbility by his

design. Poor manufactur ing prrocLsses, p(--)r inspect~ion, inadequate
maintenance or improper operatz~on can reduce the observed relia-
bility below that %,hich is inlherrent in --he desii;n. T he dove I pnen,!!t~
orlab ili ty i n -A d esigcn ca n 'bc cornpa r C to a tr e e. The character-
istics of the tree are established! by the seed, bu t hiarsh en'ivir ' n-
merit can dis figqure ý,r dwarf it . Vi~ es is thei ''soed i-f tht,
V- u ipnentr TheI equ~ip-ent car never be bet~ter than th esi-n F."1 'd
errors on the pr oduct.,ion Iino r ca.re I ssnt~ss inr ~'ma.t e-.ane ,.-cin
prevent the inheent reliavi 1 ity frx~i he ng- aich, I~re~ I
Ih appro-ach to hio'h reliab Iiit y an ood oýinnli_

enyuineerinq. Thne technIqie- aInJ pr )tct o will er'-.It 'e 'e n
t-his course are th(.st te (hnl _ue anc ori-e~e c
shouldA oeIn eiesioninr' '1he va ic os proc-)r,-am as,,ect s, ie ½
practices and pr ocuret-tnt jFiockdures t~haT 'kb th-e a~e
ment of reliab~ility ir. tn-Ji~ts, ret,.,nt~o ani iur urae
use must. be initiated, ccntrolled!, and~ u-iI- 'ý tht' C-171oin1,1
respon'; ible frthe" prjcuJre!Tent
3. COVY'RA6E.O RELIABILITY ý.. MATI'rAINAPILlTY' T1hA"TNINk. C:vpý-(;ý
I 2. a nr l ht 'L J.I
,1 e xPp"s' k t h
h is c ,s e ' tv
1 j
0
-4
z
qJ /
rr. I
//
I
o
H I
U 2
I -
Z4
N N
/
-nt r i rIct I t -,-,c snaru n.-v
c~~~~; a1 Ir'c (s)i
-,ON1 LtOVI M
1 ~T1P RtFO l~l t >''Pl V- t
t~~urhni ~ iN t l i ~' t I~ a o-
c-~ e1VV
If4. Sif
r civcý tc
'I'l
,r), c0 t 'i r i i Iat s i y ,r h epni~lte
ý biI-ty>; Vim t,i a no unv b t Ot3 ant mr tu ianq byt
0 ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~U ~
.Izn. ~ ,-ýaeu caniO bef~h;sal,
con--
t c am
1 ir 1 v s) i( . n d erfrselectedtlo planstrt.~ n
ii VAntn
1) i I JI I-],
dj -ii b thre1tv us bev designetd
iI W k, Ii:t P)0LIS.t~l
t~l )lýt ClestA1 riS 320inon ands 32(10.
e i,
I I. t)-c ' o siJe atio 1 o he

as S It t` I PtaI t - to
S11 I BU nt!-.'
Drc n
(in C'I r- d r. t . S'~ p 1.- nr-]

eacrýi
Procure'ment a Cýý'"'ý nt. o ')i a ý'c~f s !ie _pport-nit'v to-
re-eva iratale tne r-e1 I<0 'T2Iti j'
n1- ljb 1-tt and imnprov),,e tre
Tuf~t rI ej:If *des ljýtm ta fatIurtere

oul1d bes
c- I rocd
r~c~ 6ant
_
____ M TE1' _____NT ;U R 'Y
But theo problem1 ~' e r~e hia>-;1 cost rfa intenance, th,(
d~iss-itis facti~on at the ofres-c:cr'-e' rn
already de ~neandi buil.ý- s,..stems in Fe
F!h t t da-3 I n t h:
equi p-ment , improve-ment i S c Tlio -hrr
r improvement
this equimfl "' ''s tlhat _r(-:;uirea nr - de-ve
merit
Improved reli1'ab I t t an"~'-

Jc -. atinta inab-ility can o.nly be
achieved bv imp-rov'' ri tht- es e.
\CUr t7 rit s De estabi
must -
-man tile s YSteLm r er'C (1 ý< 1fTll _-s necetssary to meetth

re-uirement~s !AC Tsa tC 1 1-s that a larrie part of th r
reliabl; ity will be fndto be doe to a smallI number of: comp&-_
An organized search for the bad Fctors with improvement in mail-
tenance of operating records anua r-ep(rtinq:_ of failures and a
systematic analys is of the totall system each time a part of itý
se&lcted for chanye, wonuld result -in ain orderly, economical imWI-T
mýen t
4. THE CNO--CNTMDIALOGUE
Mr. Roach's first point in DOD policy on Reliabili'ty and Maint,
ability was t~hat *ioals, stated in quantitative, :'tission-responLs
terms must be establi-ahled. In a s peech (1) , R.- Adm. C. T. Boo'r
stated,
'1.hen we state an oper at tonal requi remernt, we 3re qe~neratin(
a d ialogI Oý,LCctv'een the CN'O and the Chiefs of: Bureaus which I,
the basis of oar mutual. understanding of the product we expecý
and the cost and time schedule on which we expect it. it is
the course of this diialocjue that learn to inject 'h.must
quantitativeý reliabi lity criteria.'

. i s in this dia-l" ,ii_,,'

thai to, Bureau must wvork with the operating
:crces to define rib ..l it: "-reuire-ents, tempering the definition
withi the rea] is (-[ •ch,,'va,,]e limits as well as cost and schedule.
The d-finition should inciode:
(a) The level of essentiality (or importance ) of the system.
(b) How the operating forces expect to use the system.
(c) How freqjuentlv and how long it could be down wnthout

materially affecting the mission or operation.
(d) What the relation of this system is to other installed

systems.
(e) What kind of ski]ls and what number of personnel with

these skills could be made available to maintain and operate
the e uipment. What else the personnel are required to main-
tain or operate.
(f) When the euuipment is needed in the Fleet. What event,

situation, or other capability defines this time.
(g) What level of funding is planned or permissible to

acquire and support the system.
It is imnortant to note that the CNO cannot set realistic require-

m-nts bv himself. High reliability is not necessarily the goal;
but rather, the prime objective is to obtain systems that will
operate satisfactorily and mept the mission needs at a reasonable
cost and with r easonable time schedules. The dialogue is necessary
to establish what these mission needs are and what can be provided
within nudget and time constraints,.
BUREAU OF SHIPS IMPLEMENTATION
5.1 HOW RELIABILITY IS ACHIEVED
Having established the requirements, the next stage, implementa-

tion, is the Bureaus. Definition of requirements and their speci-
fication in numerical terms is not enough. As Mr. Roach pointed
o)ut, reliability must be designed into the system. It must be
kep- in through manufacturing, use, and maintenance. If it's not
th re in the basic design, it can't be put there except by fixing
the design. And changing t design, and retrofitting the equipment,
if far more expensive than doing the design right the first time
before the equipment is produced.
1-17
The practical approach to achieving the recuired reli;abilit is

controlling the designer, rtiquiring him to give adeuua'te consider-
ý.tion to reliability andcI,,tainubility in the design. This is
done by teaching the designk.r, arid requiring him to use and docu-
ment sound engineering disciý lines, practices and analyses. Con-
trol of his activities is accomplished by formal docuwented audit
of his considerations and decisions by wc1l-clualified designers
in his field -- usually senior designers in his own unit.
Quantitative requirements are necessary to describe the degree

of reliability and maintainability desired. Demonstration is
necessary to confirm that the requirements are met, but the veri-
fication must he supported by a good, solid assurance that the
designer himself is conidering reliability and maintainability
in his design in an organized, understanding, and effective way.
Later sessions will explain how this is done -- suffice it for
the present to say thi.s can be done, is being done in industry
today.
5.2 MANAGEMENT'S TASK
As the top management of the Bureau of Ships, you can make it

possible or impossible for your engineers to work tow&,ard improved
reliability and maintainability. We won't eliminate your problems.
Management's task is solving problems. In the solution to the
problems discussed today we believe that the approach taken by
management must include:
1. Understanding the relationship of sound engineering to true

reliability and maintainability.
2. Un,'erstanding the relation-hip of reliability and maintain-

ability to cost of acquisition and ownership.
3. Applying this understanding to the management of the Bureau's

business in design, development, and procurement.
Paraphrasing a statement of Dr. Harold Brown (6), We have re-

cently surveyed the reliaLility status of a number of system
development programs in all three services. our intention was
to estimate how much management attention is being given to
substantive reliability activities. One specific action that I
feel needs to be taken without delay is to assure that those with
line responsibility for development management at all levels have
sufficient knowledge of reliabil'" . iques and methodology
to perform their management respons. 'ties in this area.
1-18
Le t me elaborate a minuteý on the. aj'proac.ýi t• developing manage-

ment capability in imlprn-ving Relibil izy and Maintainability.
First an understanding of the concepts taugit. We expect to con-

vince you that by the rigorous coýntrol of thc contractors' relia-
bility programs, rcliability can be improved in the design and
manufacture, that this new concept is not only practical and
economical in the new dev(_elpmernt pro--rams, bait will also provide
you with increased economy and loss time and effort lost in the
ainn part of your business.. We expect to convince you that the
:,]-roaches we teach are goo-' engjin•,ering, with better definition
f method of achieving that excellence of design we are looking
.or. We will demonstrate that the concepts are sound and the
co- t reasuo.-able.
scýLnd, the application of this understanding to the Bureaus

ous iness:
The concept of design for a specified reliability is not univer-

sally applied across the Bureau to-day although it is extensively
used in electronic areas and R&D programs. Integration of relia-
bility and maintainability requirements on a total shin basis is
not apparent in shipbuilding, conversion or fleet improvement
programs. With the recoinition of the total system concept, we
expect you to initiate the implementation of reliability improve-
ment programs as a part. of the Fleet improvement Program.
The effectiveness of a reliability improvement program depends

not only on the available control tecnniques and the competence
of the personn-l hut also on manayc:ient's active interest and
understanding of the p•ioblems. The best way to motivate an engiri-
eer is to let him know that tlie top manayement will not tolerate
anything less than his b1,-L eetorts. T( evaluate the efforts of
the enc, ;r reo{uii es that the top management read and understand
the proqress and problem reports. To pass the word back down
requires that the top marnagement react to Lhe reports, even with
as little as a hand-written comment or request for more informa-
tion.
To instill in the engineers tho concept that reliability and

maintainability considertions apply universally, rather than
only in R&D, one obvious step is to develop a reporting procedure
that gives equal emphasis on reliability and maintainability
whatever the program. Thfe PERT and milestone concepts are
familiar to the Bureau. Whichever concept is used, a standard
recuir-ement that each report include a section on reliability
and mdintainability goals, achievements and problems would initiate
1-,19
cons ideration of reli1 biity by the enqineers and provide manage-

ment with visibility of the level of consideration.
The establishment of Shipbuilding and Operatiig Fleet reliability

improvement programs require -<oordination across the Bureau and
with the CNO. The initiation of a program to analyze the present
situation and determine what the present problems are, to establish
reliability and maintainability goals for each system in which
such goals are applicable, and to establish reporting systems to
prnvide management visibility of the progress toward achieving
the goals, .n only be initiated from "he top manaa aent level.
5.3 S I4MMARY
Why should you work toward improvement of reliability and main-

tainability? I can summarize in a few words:
1. It will improve the effectiveness of the Fleet.
2. It offers ultimate dollar savings in maintenancý repair, and

logistics.
3. It can eliminate the need and reduce +he cost and effort of
"fix" programs.
4. It wisely invests the, resources made availablo by the cust-Croer

by matching equipment to resources.
5. It improves customer satisfaction.
6. But, most of all, cood reliability and good maint-inability

are "good" design, achieved by the logical application of
sound engineering analytical methods.
As top managers of the enqineering effort, you have a heritage to

be proud of, the outstanding capability and perforihance of the
ships you designed and built in thie past. As the technicAl Mf"
of the Navy, it is up to you to assume the mantle of leadership
to maintain in this complex technoloqical era that traditioft1
excellence of , siin to assure t.iat the equipment furnished to
the Fleet reflects "good" engineering an( lependable performance.
5I
1-20
6. REFERENCES
1. The Javy Personnel Outlook, R. Adm. J. 0. Cobb, USN, Asst.

Chief for Personnel ContrAl, Bureau of Naval Personnel at
the 7th Navy-Industry Conf.--ence on Material Reliability,
16 October 1963, Washington, D. C.
2. Costs of Maintenance of Army Ground Electronics Equipment,

presented by McLaughlin and VoegtleL at the 15th National
Symposium of Reliability and Quality Control.
3. BIMRAB Status Report, R. Adm. E. E. Fawkus, USN, Asst. Chief

for Research Development, Test and Evaluation, Bureau of
Naval Weapons at the 7th Navy-Industry Conference on Material
Reliability, 16 October 1963, Washington, D. C.
4. Reliability and Maintainability Obligations in Opera-Iona!

Requirements, R. Adm. C. T. Booth, Deputy Chief of Naval Oper-
ations, Development at the 7th Navy-Industry Conference on
Material Reliability, 16 October 1963, Washington, D. C.
5. Department of Defense Reliability and Maintainability Poli:ies

in Future Weapon.s Systems, J. W. Roach, Asst. Director,
(Engineering and Management) , Office of Defense Research and
Engineering at the 7th Navy-Industry Conference on Materia!
Reliability, 16 October 1963, Washington, D. C.
6. Chief of Naval Operations Memo to Chiefs of Pureaus, S2rial

13P07 of 13 March 1963.
7. Future Navy Weapons and Support Systems, V. AMum. W. A. Schoech,

USN, Chief of NavL11 Material, Northeastern States 'aval Research
and Devellopnent Clinic, Philadelphia, Peni,.. 18 November 1964.
Chapter 2
Lage
1. DEFINITIONS OF' RELIABILITY AND MAIf.NTAINABILITY 2- 2

1.1 Reliability 2- 2
1.2 Maintainability 2- 2
2. THE INTENDED, USE 2- 3

2.1 The Function 2- 3
2.2 The Capability 2-3
2.3 The Requirements 2-.- 4
3. THE RESEAkRCH ANDM DE1VELOPMENT i-LAN 2- 5

3.1 Mission Orientation 2- 5
3.2 Development of Ships 2- 6
3. 3 Develop.ment, of s-,rsten's, 2.. S3
3.4 New Development: A Management Problem 2-12
3.4.1 Ev~aluati.-n and Revie;., of the RDT&E Program 21,
3.5 Irnpk,-t of Proposed Technical Approaches 2-15
4. CONTENT OF '\ PROPOSED T1ECELNCAT, APPROACH 2-16

4.1 Reliability andi Mai-ntainabi-lity 2-16
4.2 Developm,?nt of Reliability, Rf, Icvknnts 2-18
4.3 Trade-off Analysis 2-20
TECHNICAL DEVELOPMENTr PLAN 2-20
6. REFERENCES 2-22
LI
2-2
Chapter 2
REQUIREMENTS DEFINITION
The development of reliability requirements requires an under-

standing of what reliability is and how it is a-hieved.
1. DE•Nri'IONS OF RELIABILITY AND MAINTAINABILITY
Reliability and maintainability are performance characteristics

cf systems. Tb'ey express how weil functional performance capa-
bility is kept available.
1..1 RELIABILITY
Reliability is defined as "the probability that systems or com-

ponents will perform thleir intended function for a specified
period ,inder stated conoitions." Probability means the fraction
of attempted uses of the system that will be successful. A
parameter of interest in the mcnsure of reliability is the Mean
Time Between Failures, defined as the average Stress Time be-
tween failures. Reliability is defined by tnree factors:
(a) The intended us.- or function requi- 'd to be performed.

From the intended use we derive a definition of failures,
the incapability of performing the function.
(b) The specified petiod. From t, e intended use, we can

determine how many periods or cycles of lese will occur
on the averagie for each expected ai lure. For an equip-
merit with an MTBF of 240 hours, otr reliability for a
24-hour period would be 9 That is, Tbout one cay in
ten we should no.t be surprised to, have it down.
(c) The stated conditions. For any systtm, - severe environ-

ment will reduce the reliability, increase the averaqe
frequency of failures. Envir•_,nment includes w'-ath--,
imposed stresses such as temperature or vibration and
the human "climate", skills of operators.
1.2 M,.,!NtAINABILITY
-Maintainability is defined as tho speed or econc-ny with which a

system or ccxnponent can be kerr in, and or testored to full per-
formance capability.
I
A IT, rit, In abiIi t v t-rnct i:-'2!t. owJ-fr't I fy artiiii:y

It i s d(- f ined as the ii I hi.; nt :,) a r, - ri,-icn c~ it io n
.s i ni1t Ia ted un de r s t at to- v'
nit 1 1, s i fai Led item wji11i6e r e-
stored to opor~ible *crc.)ndi t i nts wilthin a t-tal speck-:,11fied dow-Yn t iv,.
A(-aI ,;i.t -is d c fin ed by th re t- fac toýr s:
(a) De f in it ions o)f fa ilu r.e. Th is i-ý the sam- as for relia-
b i Iit v.
(b) The s--ecific-d _peri-od- of t iMe. This is the t ivo bet,.een

,cc-urre~nce ,-f a faillure and restoration to, pc f or'm-anrce
of the functio-n that can h)e toleraLted wihnthe p'lanned
use of the etjuipTrent. Fo~r Li system, tiftn sumn of all re-
storat ion times dividedl by t~he, number o! fai lures is
ca lled the Moean Trime to- Rcestore (MTTR).
(c) Thc stated conditio-.ns. Co)nditions uinder which aý-repair

or restoration actioýn o.ccur inc 'uce the nu-Pbers and'
skills of personnel, the restor-ation philoscophy, loQL5-
tic support. (tos u~ nparts) , instructions,
the wovkinci envi.*ronment.
T.T::F I :NTF U5-ý

E
The. purpc~se ., t' vt" is t'1 ;yr vI r it' ;-er fcrm-

a n ce o f a f unct i -.,n s uch ai s in t tricz n t t a ricts ,
steering a ship, ,r That, vr.
. Vihe us,r is 'itt it steA, in the
perforTTance ot tn it, tun ti on at t sb''~ r th'e
nature of his miissi',ns. Tbu pt nalty r t uiC -- tunto
can be assessed fro.m t nr it i'e ý"t')e i
Develot-,Aient o0 ý-i tcchnicll, suL t*. c ~m t, in

of a reo i reve-'e n ad %f 7,1 3 t V r- ',. 1 IIrU t 7!U S't be
ev1:aluted in t -'-s -ý t 1 r ati 'In A nct :bit
1
is nf:-Je in terms of ae p or -~ n1 x teiote
co-nt nue -,erfocrm mIn, thec func t ii w I th a

Ilures a t an -i -ccep
ot ablIe
r'Ate 'And w."ýth In thle capaibi Iit Ies :' thie rn oros t '.)
.,a1n-
tda in.
2 .2 THE CAPABILITY
The technique or technoloiy pro-posed ;'-ii~ include the basic nature.

of the systerms, ralar , computers , ort-~ mi ' . I Lef furc-ion
~2-4
tobe per for-,-d vii I Lrd icate h 1, the systems w eused,d~t

cycle, anC, pr b,-Able envi ro)nment 'rhe pt.na 1t ies -Assoc iotated w-1 t h
equ~ipmenLt ail,_r e and fa i lure repa;ir with .a speci fied t ime
can be predicted and valuies of reliab-ility expected to be ao-Celz-
table proposed. These valves car. be comnpared acja inst tb e presont
capability of whateve- industry is invol,)ved as shown b," presentlyv
available similar systems and an estimate miade of the, amount e'ft
develournent effort which will be recquired to aohieve the accep-
table value.
2.3 T11EREQUIRFMENT
Every system developed must be responsive to, a General Operat >ufil

Requirement. The need for thie system and the nature of its -cse
most be stated in or inferred tro,,nt such a ec ret*: system
to be used in a ship mnust be respcons ive to the unt i:-ns im pose d
by the missions and tasks assiqned to that shi.p..11
I n a t tem pt 'Ln, t o defti n e a rp Irem ent. f or r t2 Lb it y those0

"oUestlins m,,ust be askQ4an answered:
(a) What* is meant by the ýailure of t-he s, ste<'r Th1) 1rs,er

can be statod in sri ple ter~ns -the fatili .-e o ver form
its funct io-n T hi r T,,Aiir c t, le statorni nt of funoti,.n
in speci tic .1oamn i-t vive ter-ms with sot cifviei-d t. ~rirnces.
For- eyample, a faio - arsimitter may send
' u a s-,;,na.1
If the :3iina 4s toý wtuAk the' uci 1nt~~-y
It. T~h. mu st bc cons~ *-.ia
's system tail urt tun ,
mus t inc'iude :1 ra7",,e oý,tr-,mf i~ ~ o

Cajrrie ( 1r o qute n.-y s e 1 ec V ~ivt. ' dA (_-her fat -
4
,st be inf-cioe,4 -P, t'g( u.k'e Sfn nt
('0) s~nt tr''Ueit

M i ,, - tveu r t et at e e t "r n~
bý;t a v iri ts :on ,1e n-<

c-r s'e mu~ G., e tt ten
expense O t ti"re wei.'ht or,~ la -Ity VT1e t '"t f

must 'be ý"id.. 8t rtin ,_ rvl (In 01r1loinall Osilt lot
Ca a L) .t v 'S ,-zC ,St lb %, c ~rnr, i:r the ~ ~ tit's -ISSý1--
1 ZA ej it var! os le el ýt r 1wn-1 Lb
1
(c) Wh it 1 1t tn' r ~ns-

n,-i neiýet A c fn J it c.ni s 1rr- ~uri !1 P
..Ise arl'i '"'t ~ h~~s~m2 ' in etý -cn
rut ~rs ondnoued
n; u-j . *mens sch as xp> ýs-
1
ure- toc. a> c ya os suddien sok. t
aI r f ts .o the 'huma n rlI)'mat e

of ope r a orS sski 1Is
.and .i jrIntnA. Ce t concerns th'- natur - 1 habi-
Trnre
tat of the sy~.toý-rr dlir mij its li feti-ime inclu inq eid
of inact ivity as well as -ict i v I t. The envircrirnent v
erta lir(-? measur~e (., coý,ntrol on the reliability
aunec~i withi~n ort.,sent capabiiit-Les as well as cost
(d) Whai~t is the__plann2(1 cycle l94Loerations? This iuestiuni

r-i ti totefelec as 1-ell as the duration ot oper-
a1t i U,r It describes the funct ions to be per formed on
each :ype of miss ion, the lenqtl f tm tefncos
e r'edd ,cover inq each and every mode of op~eration
(A t the sys temn.
These .. uest i-rs a,-re answered in twoblý,ct ive oa.th developmnent.

Let's lo,_k at theý. Rusearcn anrd 1(velii-ýcnt Plan.
T~LRFSEP ANLPLDFVED NPLAN
3.1 MT SKIN ki'R IF, 7I ON
Thle iRese.arc, ani

Pel-,e' -pont P, -cir-am (3) ft-xccn-Pt for basic, re-
SO 3 1c-1 ort'ted t )-.'Are! sp~cif. .,issionis in part ic: I.ar en-
N ir..:nr.rts. The ba,'-zic in;',ut intý t'-o P.&[D Pr:_orx- c-mes from th--
Nx.v in,! Joit.Ln Rmoe -,fratte1 ic S~tudlies, which deiethe
tattorer erio nis.n nL- tmi-,
e av v -h V-w no rancq, threcat ,
po~tenr i es--) t1poss le -_rer ios and he expected
n-ol~tic iii C-imt' are a s-.ed.'-s ½'v~ert the 1I *no r un q ~ud.i e s
Asses,; t'-, .- ''Od be6 1d te~"n ve'erq,
'' tl'e N a" io 3o StuudV -,
conrned -mtn t 1't 'priý. ' 'ut t) tee vyear! "le " uTo ~ ajc
0 b e c i v f, 1n ~-)'i, b~i t ve or tht 5- v tpeT
yEdA Jo
U isS.n e o t El -i t A: n ot the Nivy''s pro po a ed jdraeshi-
t001-_ Ml~n ~l:ec tivt~ -ptra ticnai c~nd ha i nq ce~nm lt i, D,
Tht ý tatt'mient. of Miss i,,n Tasýks v'p"-oved bv theý CNo fo r each

*ý,ntm
typf. 'I T. S. Na-val thip F v< te 'key to a S h ;p'S u1t im a t.
ca pab 1 it. i es ,Ch aract 1r 1St I -S an", co0st . 11 irn ih -s A br~oad
sS ýit P- tnt o~f the purpose tor wh0ich tile si.o i to-, be desi loed
and t'ie tasks which the shncan 1
be .pt-e t'' akuCcrrpl ish.
)The spc~nsor fo-r the type shiprIn (O'PNA1.mpi ie the i nfor-i-na-

tic~n contained in the sta-t~ement of missior~s and tasks- intc. a
singleu c~e
haract~eristics o,ýEýIineatinq thc ;scgn-' Ucant features
and capahilitieýs o1F the nie-w- shi.P txl-;ch L.fiirnig;he~d to tne oniair-
man of the 3hips Characteristic- Board. The type sponsor prepares
formal .'D requirement.- to providee caoah-ilities required :but_ not
;o:t developed. T.he 5-yeiýr For-ce S-;ructure a"Id Fi;nanciAal Proqýramn
initiate the start of budgetary actijun For the acq-uisitions of
th'.e hardware.
The development and establishment of the Five Year Force Struc-

ture and Financial Program (FyFS&FP) have emphasiLZCd the necessity
for defining the Navy~s mid-range shipbuilding and corveis-s'on
prcqram with an ac~curacy and in detail coimparable to the budget
aubinission increment. The shipbUi 'ding and conversion programs
submitt-ed to the Secretar- of De-fense for appro.val must there-
fore be justified by the Naý'y in terms of requi-rements, technol-
ogical feasibility, production availability, chaaracteristics and.
cost.
3.2 DEVELOPMENT OF SHIPS
The Ships Characteristic Board has one prime objective, (Fiqure

2-7), to insure through timely recommend&.ions to the Chief cf
Naval Operations that the characteri-Icics of all naval vessel3
not only meet, but anti~cipate w),,ýrever possible, t'he require-
ments of navall warfare in'i,ýent to approved mission and tasks.
The specific tazks 1-eýrformed by the SCB are:
(a) With regard to all naval vessels:
(1) to recommend, based upon primary guidance from the

Standing Committee, Shipbuilding and Conversion,
tie nature and extent of ..ch 4 installations as may
be necessary to meet operational requir~ements after
considerc-.K',`n of thkeir effect upon other character-
isti-s and when applicable the installation of items
still in a research and development status, atter
consideration of their compatibility with research
and development plans.
(2) To ~eview the arrangement of material, instruments,

and facilities to ensure efficiency in operational
use.
(3) To make reccommendation to CNO and the de,.ýeiopmental

agencies relative to the adequacy, weight and moment.
requirements, compatibility, etc., on all types of
4- /
I j
I
I
I
I I
KI
I
I
K1
10
I -
zi -Th
H
o zI *2QK1 H
1 0' Q 01
Ii
i 2-8
developments of shipboard equirnent, particularly

electronic ecquipment, in order that new equipment
shall be adaptable to shipboard utilization in ful-
filling operational requirements.
(b) With regard to new construction, conversion, and modern-

ization of ships, landing and service craft, and con-
sideration of merchant type ships planned for Naval
acquis ition t
(1) To study the requirements and guidance furnished

and from such study develop the broad ship charac-
teristics which will support the mission and tasks
assigned.
(2) On the basis of estimates furnished by the Material

Bureaus in connection with design sLLadies, to advise
the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations (FO&R) and the
Chairman, Standing Committee on SP;pbuilding and
Conversion, of the probable costs of the ships in
the program.
(3) To recommend the characteristics in such detail as

necessary to guide the bureaus in their preparation
of plans ... specifications.
(4) To review pre-characteristics design studies before

the annual program is developed by the Standing
Committee on Shipbuilding and Conversion, and before
detailed plans and specifications are finalized by
BuShips, and recommend changes when required.
The characteristics of the ship are generally defined in terms

of speed, cruising radius, type of propulsion, size, weapons,
and other special equipment to support the missions and tasks.
In the effort to anticipate the needs of the Fleet and to match
or anticipate potential enemy capabilities, the early introduc-
tion of newly developed capabilities into the fleet is mandatory.
T4.ese new capabilities are being developed today (Figure 2-9)

and are planned for future development in the Naval Material
Research Objectives. Each system or capability in a ship had at
one time a development phase. (Figure 2-10).
3.3 DEVELOPMENT OF SYSTEMS
Several years ago it was realized that significant improvementb

2-9
H Ci
- H -<
-~ :4
y
2-10
U
U
Q -
CI2 H
H =
U
C12
Q
Zn
ZI *
Z .L4
Q
Z
C CJ2
flb-
= -
r.L L4
N
F7
ft /f F--I
4I I I H
H if
z -
N X
o ci
-
0 0 0 III xI
H
0
I I 2
N
N
H
H
2-11
were required in R&D management to avoid the large cost overruns,

schedule slippages and performance/design changes that had become
a pattern in major development projects. During these past
several years, in order to effect significant improvements the
DOD has tried a number of relatively new things (not necessarily
new in concept but in emphasis) among which are Incentive Con-
tracting, Contractor Performance Evaluation. c-qt-Effectiveness
Tnalyqis, Categorization of R&D and Project Detinition Phase.
The most important objective of the PDP is to provide an adequate
basis to assure that management decisions to proceed with, cancel
or change development projects are made on a total system and
total cost basis which includes realistic cost and schedule
estimates for the production phase.
The other objectives are to:
(a) Establish finn and realistic specifications.
(b) Define precisely interfaces and responsibilities.
(c) Identify high risk areas.
(d) Validate technical approaches.
(e) Establish firm and realistic schedules and cost

estimates for the production phase.
(f) Establish schedules and cost estimates for planning

purposes for the total project (including production,
operation and maintenance).
PDP can be considered to be one step in a series of steps in the

research to production sequence. It is that step which immediately
precedes the full scale development and is the means of defining
it. The steps prior to PDr are necessary to assure that the
proposed development project is ready for PDP. These include
technology and building block component developments which are
accomplished without specific reference to the proposed system
development program, and studies specifically aimed at the pro-
posed development, such as trade-off studies, feasibility studies,
cost-effectiveness, operations research, etc. The development
and studies prior to PDP must assure that the prerequisites to
PDP have been met:
On January 18, 1963, Dr. Brown sent a memorandum to the Depart-

mental Assistant Secretaries (R&D) covering several major concepts
in the management of research and enqineering. One section of
2-12
this memorandum treated Project Definition and set forth positive

ground rules for its application to new projects. These ground
rules required that PDP be used for all new Engineerirg Develop-
ment and Operational System Development projects with cumulative
RDT&E funds of $25 million or more, and provided for application
of PDP to other projects at the direction of DDR&E or the option
of the department. DuD Directive 3200.9 "hich was just issued,
includes these same ground rules for application with one addition:
that Engineering Development or Operational System Development
projects with anticipated expenditures for production investment
of $100 million or more are also required to use a PDP.
The terms Engineering Development and Operational System Develop-

ment and their place in the R&D structure are outlined in DOD
Instruction 3200.6. The Engineering Development and Operational
System Development categories are tht last development categories
in the research to production sequence and are developments
intended for Service use. Inadequate or tardy definition of
these projects results in drastic consequences in terms of total
costs (including R&D, production, operation and maintenance),
schedules and operational effectiveness.
The Project Definition Phase (Phase I) is a formal step preceding

full scale development (Phase II) during which preliminary engin-
eering, and contract and management planning are accomplished in
an environment that encourages realism and objectivity.
While the project definition phase requirement applies to new

projects of $25,000,000 or more, the basic concepts of manage-
ment of a development are applicable across the board. Where
the basic concepts were not followed in the original development
of equipments in use in the fleet today, we still have the design
and SOFIX problems. And they won't go away. As each problem
is identified, the fire drill starts again.
3.4 NEW DEVELOPMENT: A MANAGE4ENT PROBLEM
The problems to which DOD Instructions 3200.6 and 3200.9 are

addressed are not technological problems, but problems of manage-
ment. Let's look at the structure of the dialoque between the
CNO and the NMSE (Figure 2-13).
The various documents covering the definition of requirements are:
(a) General Operational Requirement (GOR). A GOR is a gen-

eralized statement of needed operational capability pre.-
pared by the CNO.
2- 13
p
*f. -h-- - 7.
-,
- 7L -
-I -
* 7
4¾
- - . -
.- - I- -
- FT-- 7
(2/2 - -.
H I K:
z
-,
7- -:I . H
r.z E1 -** -.- -.- j4. H I7
i:--7, 0
7 I -
-
- -'- -.
-, -'
__
___
-
L
_
__
7'
K =
0
z
/1
o
jI
_ _r
H .-
K I; I -j
Z I --,, -
C I .7
I 7
0 7 .-
- ,. -i.-'
.4- .-
- r'
H..ItI
Z7. j'2Z..Z
I
2-144
(b Tentat ive Specific FN.ra rmn

Req r ema t (TSO'1<
TSOP. is a document -i rintud by tht- (?NO hy,/
CNO requests certaina inf r'y' io -f A ttchni a? n iire
which is nec-ssary in ar :cr tw-turmi no if a'.I dn
research and devel opmen ei n t txistts_
(c) Proposed ecn Ar.'h (PTA): T>,I

ments prepared by the NME MPr thq MR() Oat! lnin tech-
nical approaches by wh ich a orart C IAlr 'rap~ll Mr1.
be achieved.
(d) _________ Operational Rjqrecount (SON) ½

7W SOP i s
d o cum e nt b y wh ic h t he ','Nn t. a1tesStlIT k2 r tr t"dtW
opment~ of a particular roerat icnai capbi~l ity.7
(za) Ad\vanced__De% e iopment Qbjet ive (AMO An- M> is na u

ment prepared by the CMO and ~rsu t,) ',ne CNN
states a need to conduct ce rtain exper '.renra i '
tests and development cffor.t fo)r tl-, ptlr; ý,
1 ishing the potential capabili.ties of a mno nwy~ cco
cept , the technnolooici ca a 'ili 1i ty o f Jitcx'vt i, lu
system, and to dex-e op yroatt r accurac.y n,- `ý %ý
time, and per formance estim~ates ruquirod t ýtnii
financial acceptalbiity a nuw vt:i
Mf Technical Development Fln (01'ý TIPi1 ; : n;e l

oped under the directia tf th NMSF tir tinh npK i
documenting those actios p'nror ire and: ranrcý
which are reqjuired in ora.'r to achicex th 1yhlt
described in the SOR, or thos.:e ic't.n "4 i 1
achieve t~ie 01: ijct Ow it I nn A in an
3.4.1 Evaluaticn on~d Review at t'iP> POKE !Aira Ast a

development of weapon systp barmo i ncrer imi ly , q,
in critical resources~, i i~s maat ar t t es, 1 t t~
WI: ,'j(n
programts be continoous ly appras in'4 e '.'r 'dor toj
miit timely reallcat ion of runrt
e-v:(a i
ever such action appears to be In ner tojývd
for this appraisal, standaru i zx r tin ; pr o eduroes hieWr
established. The following 0parrayns oesct bo suveral(: hr
management -or ient ed rep, rts,
(a~) Prqj e ctRepr. - 1"l-? Cont-iins La' r >

in format ion r equiri by in i o~mf'nt
' for the ain 1\ 1
review of RPT:E p-r rts in the DOP Re-,:vz& v xlr
atory Devcl:opment. cateo,.rims.
2-15
(b) Monthly Project Evaluation (MPE). The MPE is a monthly

report submitted t- the CNO by the bureau c- ottice having
management res7>"Onsibility for a project in advanced de-
velojyient, engineerinq development, or operational systems
development. The -,urpose of the MPE is to direct the
attention of the top Navy RDT&E managenrent echelon to
present or potential problem areas -n the RDT&E program.,
(c) Research and Expl-ratory Devlone.ntW-ram Highlights.

This report is to keep RP'r&E ad2 n:stratc;r- and managers
informed as to progress, or lack thc .o;-rds objec-
tives within the categories of Resear anc Ex[Loratorv
Developnents. These highlights include all s-jnificant
accomplishments and problems, actual or anticipated,
within the approved programs for R-se -rch arnd Exploratory
Develou~ent. Program highliqhts are reported on an
exception basis.
(d) Hotline Report. This report provides a formal .ethod ot

ensuring tat the ASN(R&D) and DCNO(D) are made quickly
aware of RDT&E problems which are, or have the potential
for, seriously affecting RDT&E projects. This report
will provide interim coverage when major or critical
problems or other significant events occur or are anti-
cipated between reqular monthly progress reports.
(e) Quarterly Project Reliability Sumimary. This report serves

as
(I) A reliability annex to the TDP sunmary by providing

the minimo.m acceptable reliability requirements and
the contract goals as the basis of the r,9iability
ratinq (in the Monthly Project Evaluation) of each
prcject in engineering development and operotional
systems development, and
(2) A convenient quarterly progress report to top Navy

Research and Development management in these two
categories of systems development.
3.5 IMPACT OF PROPOSED TECHNICAL APPROACH-ES
The Chief of Naval Operations has been charged with the respon-
sibility of devele-ping the ma>:<ijium capabilities in the fleet
consistent with the strateqic uhjectives and the Fo-oe-Year Force
Structure and Financial Plan. In the evaluation of needs to
support Missions and Task against Capabilities, Schedules and
2-16
Ccosts, the Pr POoseLd Te chInicalI APco-,roacre s cons titut the( B urea

bid on the -iob offer-d byý a GOR e-r TEOR. The (No., in his ¶38120-W
ment, mus-t trw. to spend his nn-ney ir, thie Na-Y ms k t:.
achieve t-'he mcst pressinq of his needs. The M'.: mustJltn
Bureau's understandling of the need ano, aor.Cu'4 e soon':-
ness of tht;, approaich. Pailure I.I cWt.-it ftn
equijxnent can be proviýded, wiflhin the requirel ime -,I thIrn bud-_
get iimitati-ons and' with adequate cauabi 1tv, Ml',k .hi
decide that t.- ':sk is toe(- qreýAt '-- pursue the orý tct ;.nSO
miqnt never be issued.
4. CONTE!-:! OF A PROPOSEP TECHENICAL iPQA't
Referonce ((I requiresý that the, 7TA cents Pa int

0 ion to- th-e
func, jona I and operational doscr' tIeR of th> an; the
problem to be solvcoJ an es tim &o )+, the ert o M
of the proposed System. Th~s shall be sa
formance reliabi litY. olucrabji It'' Pan,¶10 fl
taxes ln prraneco~st an~ L~'i~rr
. Ir
bracket the. orepo)Lsal irn pertcir7aneu.- and urt±>n "
ment schedule.
4.1 RELIABIL-ITY AND IMAINTAINABILITYi
4.1 .1 The dc,, elaopme nt ofth I ablty

i exot 'trv
the alterrn-t ives S<cull cons ide'r the pr11 n Lv

of the pcarticu~lar tnA_ýr as al
ms t "t- n
t
in impro.veAmet "he co s , ~'i ýid r,-
ptesent state of t~he art reVi + Pa 'A ' r
to develop the-, rnx-imln"u f . i 1-1"r C i.I
constra3tntc. m:1ou ld t'ý th i,- s'h .-. n ;1v1--
i IRý
to the assumedýf acceptabl"evle
4.1.2 Sa Ial I I th e dk'VevIl'tr.'nt o 0'tS't ue r-v*

and maximumn mat ntainabiii1ty -love l-oi-ent wt;P 'st
straints shio-ud be evaitnitecl and hon in tCci''.at~s:
the PTA.
4.1.3 The cost co,-nse.:uences tr c~i'ý- 1ce r- il1

na inta inibi Iitv s seu 1-he es t Trir
it sIn,
t cp am
duty cycles ;)revireus 1% 7iSi In" es t ¾ '"'
and consequent c >st Nýf re'n'~ as V n c -

maintenance and, -perrt inp 1-iPr '..,,
4
numbers re~iuired anJ ttain-in.. 1 re''
2-17
0
z
& .1
)
C"
C$
H ,. • ;
0]
U-
JS•,-
2-18
4.2 DEVELOPMENT OF nELIABILITY REQUIREMENTS
An zxample of the developtment of reliability and maintainability

requirements is provided.
4.2.1 We consider a requirement for a shipboard fire control

system. The function is to actively defend the ship against
enemy aircraft. Since the system is quite complex; we break it
down 'nto its subsystems. The four subsystems are:
(a) Detection system: to detect aircraft approaching the

ship.
(b) Trackinq systeni: to provide continuous ly the slant range

and bearing of the designated targets.
(c) The fire control direc or: consisting cf director radar,

computer and controls.
(d) The weapon: a surface to air missile.
Tho wpaeon and .irector system are already developed and avail
able. The system to be develope& is the detection and tracking
system. Acquisition range reauired is 40 to 50 miles based on
]isumed aircraft speed, time required to develop tracking inform-
ation and reaction time for target acquisition and time of flight
of missile. The a oach selected is a single radar with ,.earch
and tracking capab:_•ties with a computer to convert range and
bearing to predicted position.
From comparison of data on operational systems very similar to

the proposed new designs ý% can establish estimates for certain
par-imet-rs of the new systems. These are considered the para-
meters achievable with present design methods. Performance is
defined as the probability that the system, when operating with-
in specification will accomplish its tunction. For example,
performance for the search ridar is the fraction of the time
that appruaching aircraft will be detected before they reach the
minimum acceptable acquisition range of 40 miles. For the
tracking mode it is the fraction of detected aircraft successfully
identified to the fire control director.
Search Mode Tracking Mode
Performance .95 .99

Reliability (MTBF) 118 1-s. 58 hrs.
Maintainability (MrrTT) 3 hours 4.2 hrs.
2-19
4 2 2 Thec Juty cycle iplan of operat-ional use for th-e radar

- - 11 be tested3 aga' oist ,h-ee stand2ardis:
(a) A fourr-hour period (nominail) comparable to the normal

duration of general quarters.
(b) A 90-day period comoDarabie to a normal, patrol or cruise.
\C) er:~, co
Afouryear r-'e-- to the expec :d duty to ir
betý,een shrp\'ar6 -VerhatuL3.
For the search mode th;-e periods of interest are the four-hour
ad90-day cycles. The radar will 'be operaied continuously in
th-Ie search- mode, tio dezect tlle start of t attack. When, the
attack has started the t---cking onU~CIýr IS actvtdt rvd
tracking on designated targets. The period of interest in the
tracking mode is the probable_ maxi-mim durationt of an at-Lack.
We can make the following assumptions:
(a) The equipi-ent. will be operated daily at morning general

quarters and whienever an unidentified target is detected.
(b) Ahbouit six of the operations will result in attack by

enemy aircraft.
()The period of each operation, scheduled or unscheduled,

will be four hours.
(d) Failures can occur only during operating periods.
The probability that the radar is operable in the search mode at

any time a tarniet might come within range is its availability,
A MT BF
TBF + MTTR
assuming that the radar set is designed for negligible preven-

tive maintenance downtimne during the 90-day cycle. Using tho
parameters prE.7iously determined, the expected availability in
the search node is .975.. The probability that any target appear-
ing will be detected in time is the product of probabilities for
performance and availability. This product is .925. The relia-
bility of the radar, operating in the tracking mode for the four
hiours, is .933.
The probability that the radar will perform its function of

2-20
de te in~ th e st Ar t f _-nraat t ac-f< C~ Kc71 a r-r aft for t-,r

rourc
nrs is pc',~ tuse or Aumns,;
sus id5 Ls
d.dstha sixx -Jch a tt wcks woo ocu .n a` ~>-av Darl
.1d h
probabillity, c-f succress fully ope,-irat_1nq dlur i-ncj six atý_acks wo:Culd
bo . 4 2. h risk ùnd-er the aso~inof six attacks) of 3
chancteý in 5 of not suirvivinga%-daa Patrol choes no,_- :aoppc
acceptable.-
4.2.3 Alternate approaches: lmrpro-v i 1g the- reliability of the

sear-ch and tr--acking radars by a factor of fou'r would improve the
MTBF in the t-rackinq mode 'a 232 hour-, in ou-orrla
bilitv of .983. Thisý- amiount cf imu.ro;emtent is cons-i-ered with.in
pres ent industry capability.
The avai-lability ofth(ý searech radar in search mode i's imnrovedc
t~o .994. The improved effectiveness of the radar becomes .92?.
For a 90.J-day cruise with six actual attacks, the probabilitUy of
succ-,±ssful detec-tion and tracking is3 ir.1proved to, .63.
With a nerforrnance inmproveinent iii detection oraircraft at 410--

50 miles, thhe efIfectivenes-s will see a signifi-cantiprven
A per for-mance improvement- t-, .99, for example, woul!d ic
the single attack effectiveness to) .957 and the r<a <.
ness (six attacks) t.c .77.
4.3 TRADE-OFF ANALYSIS
A trade-off analysis, sliowinq th-'se <atrsi-milar to Figure

2-21 should be prepared to prov.ide clear rfiltvto the CNO
of the cost, schedule and per formance factors to enable him to
make a decision, basei on a solid foundation, as to which course
to pursue. Development of such trade-offs is covered in chapters
23 and 26, With this minimium level of detail, an SOP can be
definitive not only ot the performance characteristics bL.t also
of the level of effort to apply in the improvement of reliability
and maintainability.
5. TECHNICAL DEVEUOPMENT PLAN
Once the foundation is laid for the development pro,,-,am throug.h

achoice of objectives and the Specific Operational Requirement
issued, the development of the plan for achieviny the objectives
is fairly straight forward. With the requirements and industry-
capability known, the plan for dependability requires a level of
control adequately identified by the gap between present capabil-
ities and requiremenlts. The planning for accomplishment:, however,
amr
2-21
0i'
w z
00-
>
E- 0 0 0 z
4 o 4
0,4 0 0-4 [. gN
4 000
2-22
is the CNOs opportunity to judge the management effectiveness of

the Bureau on the project. Lack of confider,- in the outcome,
based on inadequacy of planning, m3y still prevent initiation of
the project. Inadequacy of the planning presentation in the TDP
might well convince the CNO that the risks involved are too great
fcr the gamble. The TDP must reassure the CNO that the Bureau
is aware of the problems and is planning to overcome them. If
this conviction is not clear, some other allocation of the funds
rmay well be made.
6. REFERENCES
1. Definition of Terms for Reliability Engineering, MIL STD

7 21A, 2 August 1962,
Defense Supply Agency, Washington, D.C.
2. Planning Procedures for the Navy Research, Development, Test

and Evaluation (RDT&E) Program, OPL"'11J '3truction 3900.8C,
Department of the Navy, Office of the Chief of Naval Opera-
tions, Washington 25, D. C.
3. Procedure and Responsibilities in Development of the Navy

Shipbuilding and Conversion Program, OPNAV Instruction
4700.12B, Department of the Navy, Office of the Chief of
Naval Operations, Washington 25, D. C.
4. Appointment of the Chip Characteristics Board, OPNAV Instruc-

tion 5420.31, Department of the Navy, Office of the Chief of
Naval Operations, Washington 25, D. C.
5. Proposed Technical AF-roaches for New Systems and Components,

OPNAVINST 3910.8, Department of the Navy, Office of the Chief
of Naval Operations, Washington 25, D. C.
6. Reliability of Military Electronics Systems. Report of

Advisory Group on the Reliability of Electronics Equipment
(AGREE) OSD(R•E) 4 June 1957.
7. Failure Reporting and Corrective Action Piograms, J. R.

Holmes, IBM, published in the 7th National Symposium on
Reliability and Quality Control, 9 January 1961.
8. Cost and Time Factors Relating to Reliability in Development

Planning, Bird Engineering-Research Association, Final
Report on Contract NOw 62-0990-C.
3-1
Chapter 3
SYSTEM DEFINITION
1. DEVELOPMENT OF SYSTEM APPROACH 3- 2

1.1 Definition of System Task 3- 2
1.2 Selection cf Components 3- 3
1.3 System Optimization 3- 3
1.4 Si system Definition 3- 7
2. REPRESENTATION OF SYSTEMS BY MODELS 3- 7

2.1 Models and Their Purpose 3- 9
2.2 System Model Elements 3-11
2.2.1 Mission Objectives and Requirements 3-11
2.2.2 Event Sequencing and Operating Times 3-11
2.2.3 System Operation 3-13
2.2.4 Environmental. Profile 3-13
2.2.5 Success/Failure Criteria 3-15
3. LOGIC BLDCK REPRESENTATION 3-17

3.1 Simplifications 3-17
3.2 Application to Reliability 3-18
4. APPLICATIC.. OF THE MODEL TO DECISION MAKING 3-20
5. PERSONNEL AS A SYSTEM 3-21
6. REFERENCES 3-22
I
3-2
Chapter 3
SYSTEM DEFINITION
A system is a collection of components that are made to operate

together as a unit. The term was originally used in the com-
munication field to describe 'he various techniques (telephone,
telegraph, wireless, amplitude modulation, frequency modulation,
pulse modulation, etc.) used to transmit information from one
location to another.
Th- term weapon system has been used for a collection of smaller
systems. For example, the weapon system used for intercepting
bombers includes the interceptor, airborne fire control system,
arnament system and propulsion system and in addition a ground-
to-air communication link and possibly an automatic landing
system. The interceptor is only a part of a still larger system
called the Air Defense System which includes the early warning
systems, anti-aircraft weapon systems, interceptors and associ-
ated GCI (ground controlled interception) systems and also the
communication links which tie all these together.
A ship is a weapon system in the sense that it is a collection

of systems which transporls itself plus a load along some sea
path to a particular destination with a specific purpose or
function. The load, for military applications, consists of
weapons and the destination is some operating area.
In the development of a highly complex system such as a ship,

there is a major need to consider the interrelationships between
systems. Unless such interfaces are considered, there is a great
danger that efforts to achieve perfection in one area may reduce
the overall effectiveness of the ship, rather than enhan e it.
It is often difficult because of the broad technical knowledge
required to know how to make compromises judiciously. It will
be the purpose of this chapter to describe some of the consider-
ations that are involved in the development of integrated systems.
1. DEVELOPMENT OF SYSTEM APPROAChi
1.1 DEFINITION OF SYSTEM TASK
As we discussed in chapter 2, the selection of the task for the

ship is complex. Each ship has a variety of capabilities, cne
or more defined as primary, others as secondary. The primary
6apabilities are based on requirements for the class of ship
3-3
as defined by the Ships Characteristic Boare. Sometimes, as in

the FBM, the primary characteristic is related tc the weapon.
Again, as in the DER it is related to detection and tracking
equipment. Or, as in thu MSO it may be related to counter
measures equipment. '2he start of the analysis may then be the
identification of systems that are used to fffect the primary
function or mission of the type of ship. The task of the ship
is to support these primary systems.
1.2 SELECTION OF COMPONENTS
Rvgk -lentified the primary sstems of the ship, the next phase
is ae uetermination of the systems needed to support them. For
a particular case the-c supporting systems may include Navigation,
Propulsion, Ship Con rol, Electric Power, External Communications,
Internal Communications, Search, Detection, Life Support, Damage
ContLrol.
113 SYSTeM OPTIMIZATION
Havi!,g selected the primary and supporting systems an analysis

must be made of the performance of this group to determine the
ch, .act, ristics which will result in an integrated system.
A useful aid to thinking at this stage of development is the

system bl( 2k d Lagram. A block diagram is a schemaLic description
of the woy the system operates. Each system or subsystem may be
thought of as a box. (Figure 3-4). Certain inputs, such as
signals, pover, and decisions are required to make it perform
its function. As a result of the inputs, the box produces a
certain output such as position, energy, or other signals. The
relationsilips of the output to the input is established by what-
ever mechanism is within the hbox. The effect of operation of
such m:2chanism we call a transfer tunction. The box operates
under the influences of its environment which may have an effect
,n th2 transfer function to modify the output. A simple example
miqht be a steam generator. On the provision of fuel and air
(,)roperly combined and iqnited, ot course) and water, the steam
generator produces t flow of steam. The flow is controlled by
variation in demand and the quantity of fuel and air burned.
The traŽnsfer function includes the transfer of heat energy to
the water.
;
'ysterr -qsists of a number of such boxes. To describe the
. nc•.i :fnl.1 of the ship, the systems are arranged in blocks with
c-1 e -i, n ineo to illustrate the flow of info-rnation. A
. a! o]ock diairam for a generalized weaporn system is illus-
I__
3-4
IIF
P4o
3-5
trated in Fiqure 3-6.
There are secondary relationships involved in these systems.

Navigation may support the weapon directly. Communications
provides the input to ship control. Electric power supports each
other systems mnd is itself supported by elements of the propulsion
systeir.
A complete diagram (usually much more detailed than that illus-

trated in Figure 3-6) showing all of the relationships is some-
times called the interaction diagram. The functioning of each
system is described by the transfer functions which relate the
outputs of each of the blocks in the diagram to its various in-
puts.
In the conceptual phase of design, these systems are not yet

identified as specifi½ pieces of hardware. Their inclusion as
systems only identifies that "hardware" systems are needed to
perform the functions. These functions need to be described to
a greater level of detail, breaking the functions into subfunctions
and these lower into sub subfunctions until a conceptual equipment
or assemblage can be named that can perform the function. For
example, Navigation might include identification of position on
the spa and identification of true North. It might also require
information on the speed of the ship through the water. Several
equipments can be named capable of performing these subfunctions.
For position on the sea, Celestial navigation, LORAN or SINS
might be considered, for identification of direction a gyrocompass,
for speed a pitometer log.
Thp output of each such pro)posed system operating within its

intended environment must be tested against the input require-
ments for all related systems. The trade-off is made; selecting
the optimum systems capable of meeting all requirements from
considerations of cost, schedule and performaince parameters. The
per fotinance para-meters should at this time include weight, space,
speed, accuracy, reliability, maintainability, availability, etc.
Orc. very good way to acccxnplish t-his is to select, first, the-key
properties of the s 2 'stems, s .ch as response time, voltage, pressure,
etc., which ipproximately describe the operation of the system.
These are compared and values of the key properties selected which
produce the best performance of the system task, mccounting for
the performance parameters named above.
Variations in the performance parameters are then te-sted against

cost. and schedule, keeping the key properties within n-rmissible
777
C
-- J I
_I2 I
I - 1
H
C.,) L. • - -
I
- - - -
"
"-. 4 E,,
K;
-• -~~'
i...L -
3-7
limits to arrive at an optimized system.
1.4 SUBSYSTEM DEFINITION
Having identified system function to general types of hardware

capable of performing the functions, the next step is to eval-
uate the type of hardware to define the characteristics of the
systems to be used. Working within the constraints already
selected, the input ,;nd output for each system, the function
assigned that system is again broken down, one level at a time
until the subfunctions derived are each identifiable to an equip-
ment. For example, "external communication for the command net,"
may be broken down into transmit and receive, requiring a trans-
mitter and a receiver. Transmitting equipment may be available
that meets the key properties and required performance character-
istics already selected. If not, one can be synthesized by break-
ing down the function to the next level (Transmit to generate a
carrier, modulate, amplify, and radiate). Working within the
constraints imposed by the key properties, the components cap-
able of performing these functions are tested against the per-
formance parameters. The new performance parameters are then
tested at the next higher level of functional breakdown -to
determine their effect on the optimization of the system. This
successive breakdown to finer levels continues until each system
is defined in terms of components accepted as within the state
of the art.
Using the developed values of the key properties, tentative

specifications are made and designs and drawings are made and
new estimates of the performance parameters are made. These new
estimates, plus additional parameters, are fed back into the
analysis while hardware construction is proceeding. Tests on'
the development hardware are made and these results are fed back
into the analysis. A flow chart illustrating the entire operation
appears in Figure 3-8. The information may flow continuously but
the configuration can only proceed in steps for compatibility
reasons.
The important concept here is the system Approach. The relati•n-

ships between systems is continuously used as a control/,on the
definition of the system. The approach insures compatibility.
and enables system optimization.
2. REPRESENTATION OF SYSTEMS BY MODELS
The system block diagram provides the basic skeleton for the
system model. A model is an analytical representation of the
z
CIO
z 0
E-4
9
H- 0
F-~
0-~ 4 4 -4
,n
3-9
system in terms permitting asses'ment of the characteristic of

interest. It describes what the system is; what, how and when
it does it; and what external influences affect it. Xt contains
descriptive data regarding the system permitting evaluation of
the characteristic of interest when performance data is applia.
2.1 MODELS AND THEIR PURPOSE
The system model is the means by which relevant information is

utilized in an organized manner to formulate estimates concern-
ing the system. The model makes it possible to evaluate systew
performance with regard to a characteristic prior to actual pro-
duction of the system. Perhaps more importantly, the model
approach provides the means of evaluating the effects of desig
and development decisions cn the system. This provides a sourA,
rational basis for desiqn trade-off studies, design selection
and parts selection. Finally, by means of a model, critical
portions of a system in development or in use are identified.
From this knowledge the needs for further development may be
defined.
A model always expresses quantitative output (such as systm

reliability) as a function of component inputs (such as failure
"rates); accounting for all relationships between components
(con f igur at ion).
An important application of the model is in total s1,ystem trade-

offs to obtain an optimum balance, within the mission and per.
formance envelopes, between total cost, schedule arnd operational
effectiveness of the system as discussed in Chapte:c 26.
Models such as these permit the design engineer to simulate

alternative approaches, such as configurations or redrundancy, to
determine the probable effect upon Effectiveness an, Cost. This
provides a much sounder basis for trade-off than does intuitie.
It is obvious that a model can be made extremely complex and

detailed. In a detailed form it contains functional, analytical
and logic block diagrams, environmental profiles, missi-on pro-
files, a list of ground rules and assumptions and a camplet* et
of equations. But the model need not be extreanely coAplex. A
simpler model, consisting of a simple diagram and a elew equations
is adequate for many purposes. The model is a tool of design
and should be no more complex than necessary to serve the i•-
iate purpose. More, it should be kept flexible so that as
additional knowledge becomes available, it can be added to te
basic skeleton, with no reconstruction exiept as required to
3-1C
incorporate changes.
For major system trade-off studies prior to design or for pre-

design apportionment the model will treat the system at the major
functional block level as was done in Figure 3-6. General
assumptions pro',iding great simplification should be used at this
point. Suchi assumptions are just as valid as those requiring
elegant mathematical treatment, because of the lack of detailed
knowledge of the system. All that is required at this point is
a first approximation of functionltl bl-ck values. These will
suffice foi: making the major trade-cff decisions to establish
-the optimun feasible set of system requirements and to establish
general design and development approaches.
As design progresses and more detailed knowledge of the system

is made z',vailable, the model will evolve in detail and refine-
ment. For prediction and especially for demonstration the model
should reach the degree of refinement permitted by program and
data constraints. Such a model will provide a basis for selection
of design and parts.
The importance of a mode:. lies not in the absolute values of

numeri..cs that it generaces, but rather in the discipline of
analysis and comparative analysis that it provides. The model C
is a frame of reference within which certain quantities are
measured. These measurements will provide fair or poor approxima-
tio-.s to the true values, depending on the completeness of the
model and the quantity and quality of data supplied.
But the measurements have a great deal of relative accuracy.

This permits comparisons to be made for the purposes of measuring
progress and growth and of making trade-off decisions. Because
a system inodel is necessary to arrive at major trade-off decisions
and to establish system requirements, development and use of the
model makes it possible to measure progress in achievement of these
requirements. This process requires apportioning the requirements
at the proper level of details and retaining the same general
ground rules contained in the original statement of requirements.
At the detail level problems are detectable by comparing measure-
ments with requirements. Effects of corrective action can be
evaluated. Although the true value of some characteristics or
parameters may never be accurately known, the model allows useful
measurements of these by comparison.
It is, therefore, not all-important that a specified requirement

be accurate in an absolute sense, but rather that it be stated in 4'
terms that its achievement is measurable within program constraints.
3-11
2.2 SYSTEM MODEL ELEMENTS
2.2.1 Mission Objectives and Requirements: A system co,,?s

into being as a result of some operational requirement. A
function has to be performed, and a system is designed and pro-
duced to perform the function. The system model begins with a
mission objective, that is, a statement of the operational
requirement. This requirement might be detecting and tracking
a target: propelling a ship or any other objective.
In order to meet these objectives certain functions must be

performed. To detect and track a target a radar system might
be selected. If a radar system is to be used for this purpose
1he subfunctions might include control, generation of an
electrical pulse, radiation of the wave, receiving the return
wave, separating the incoming wave from the transmitted wave,
synchronizing a display with the outgoing pulse, abstracting
information to provide input to the tracking computer and dis-
plays. Equipment can in general be named to perform eachs of
these functions. (Figure 3-12).
Therefore, each function in the system is identified with a class

of hardware to the extent required to estimate the magnitude of
the development effort. In a propulsion system icr example there
is a fuel supply, burners, air supply, boilers (including pre-
heaters, supterheaters, etc.) steam lines, turbines, condensers,
feed subsystem, reduction gears, screws and shafts. Each of
these can be identified in some manner with one of the functions
required for propulsion. A state-of-art constra..nt has now been
imposed, in that general design approaches are now defined. No
particular boiler has been specified, but the system will have
at least one boiler, which, together with the accessories, will
perform the function of energy conversion.
2.2.2 Event Sequencing and Operating Times! Now that system

functions are identified and schematically related, a sequence
or set of sequences of activities necessary to complete the
missi.on objectives must be defined.
Along with the sequence of activities, the necessary system

operating times are determined. This enables a time line
analysis of the mission to be made. Mission activities are
appropriately.spaced on the time line to determine the ope:,. ting
state or mode of the system at-any given time. From the~system
time analysis the periods of operation for each function;,l block
4 is determined. The periods of operation (duty cycle) fcr each
functional block are represented by time lines plotted on a scale
U
0
-J
- z
Iz
H 'N
0
F-'
U,
1
z
z
U,
3-13
of missicri time with activities shown. Some of the mission

activities may occur at random times. This -.-ill be quite common
for shipboard situations. It would be impos.•ible to formulate
an exact schedule of events for many shipboard systems. This
should not present much difficulty. A sequence is necessary only
to provide duty cycle times for equipment as a reference for
requirements analysis. A typical duty cycle should be assumed
and used for the analysis.
2.2.3 System Operation: The time line analysis already per-

formed provides the basis for the study of system opezation. The
activities may affect operating modes in a manner prescribed by
the function affected.
The radar system has a specified mission of 90 days of surveill-

ance with a four-hour tracking period upon target acquisition.
(Figure 3-14). Detection of a target is a random event, so that
frequency of tracking periods is indeterminate. This makes no
difference because all system elements operate the same during
surveillance or tracking.
For the moment let us assume that the computer in our radar
system is kept off during surveillance mode. Then, when a
target is acquired the computer is switched on. It is kept on
until completion of tracking, after which it is switched off for
system return to surveillance mode. The time line for the com-
puter would show this intermittent operation as a blank during
surveillance and a line for the length of the tracking operation
(four hours).
2.2.4 Environmental Profile: A descripcion of all critical

environments as functions of time for a system mission is called
an environmental profile. On board ship it is not always feasible
to consider environmental levels as a function of time unless the
environment is the predictable result of itpattern of equipment
operation. Many changes in natural or operational environments,
such as temperature, ship motion, etc., occur randomly. Frequently
the most practical way to consider environmental levels on board
ship for estimation of reliability is to assume them to be con-
stant. The system will, of course, be designed to withstand the
most damaging operational levels. But for reliability analysis,
the assumed environmental level should be an average value, some-
where between most benign and most severe, according to the anti-
cipated frequency distribution of levels. The assumption of a
single value represents a simplification in the model affecting
the accuracy of the estimated absolute reliability. However,
X
X, x x x
x X1 x x xi x
Ix I I X I x I X
x xx x
x' -
xx
xIx 'I i' .L' - -
u 4
3-15
assumption of properly chosen constant environmental levels makes

the model sufficiently useful.
One example of a system whose environment is a function of time

is an underwater television system. As the system is lowered in
the w the ambient pressure increases at a rate proportional
to the rate of descent. The portion of the environmental profile
describing pressure would indicate pressure increase to a maximum,
a constant for some required time at ma:-imum depth and decrease
as the system is raised, all as a function of time:. It is nec-
essary to recognize the fact that this variation in pressures will
be present. But for the purposes of reliability estimation, un-
less the failure pattern for the system can be determined as a
function of varying pressure, a constant pressure will be assumed.
This will probably be chosen as an average maximunm level. The
environmental profile will be used in this case as a check to
assure that the problem of varying pressures has been taken care
of by design.
The enviroiunental piofile for the radar system might look some-
thing like the following:
Electrical Subsystem: Range Nominal
Temperature 600 to 950F 800F
Relative Humidity 20% to 80% 60%
Salt Atmosphere, concentration, etc.
Antenna Subsystem:
Temperature -200 to 1200F 10OF
It is necessary to state the ranges of values so that design can

be checked at significant points within the ranges, Nominal
values are chosen for use in making reliability estimates, as
previously discussed.
2.2.5 Success/Failure Criteria: As discussed earlier, a system

has one or more objectives to fulfill. In order to fulfill its
objectives it is necessary that the set of measurable system out-
puts conform to a respective set of tolerances. These tolerance
bands need'not be equal to the designed tolerance ranges but
"should certainly include them. The ranges of required output
values may shift as a result of a change of mode of system opera-
3-16
tion, as implied in the discussion of system operation. The same

is true of input values as well.
If a system whose inputs and environments are within ranges

specified for successful system operation performs an entire
mission with its outputs remaining within tolerances required
for successful performance, a success is scored. If the inputs
and environments are within specified ranges and any system out=
put deviates from its acceptable range at any time during the
mission, .At is considered a failure. If the system is restored
to operation within a specified allowable repair time a mission
success may still be achieved. Otherwise it will be scbred a
failure. Tf any input deviates from its specified range the
result should be scored "no trial", unless it is conclusively
shown that the apparent success or failure would have resulted
without the input deviation. It is evident that in treating
reliability data it is just as important to consider input con-
ditions and environments. These system inputs affect system
performance as much as do the outputs. An obvious case is a
deck winch attempting to hoist too large a load. On the other
hand, a PPI scope may be presenting an acceptable display, as
measured in millilumens, only because the sb'.p's a-c voltage
is too high. Such occurrences often result in false reporting
or non-reporting of failures.
The probability that the system will be able to meet the success
criteria depends on how stringent the criteria are. The criteria
are est~blished from the system objectives and are the limits of
acceptable ranges of operation as previous described. In order
to obtain uniform reliability estimates, these criteria must be
stated. They are also required in order to collect reliability
attribute (success/Failure) data or interpret variables (output
values) data.
For the radar system under study, the su~ccess criteria might
proceed as shown below in incomplete form:
Output Pulse:
Power 8 magawatts min.
Frequency 2198 + 5 mc
Pulse Width - etc.
Input sersitivity at 2198 + 5 mc: 20 mv max.

3-1"7
Tracking AccLjr acy:
Range
Bearing ! 50
Course - etc.
These criteria are not necessarily equal to performance specifi-

cations but the specified tolerance ranges must be included with-
in the success criteria. If the product meets all of the complete
set of success criteria, this is no absolute guarantee that the
system can detect and track targets 100% of the time chat the
system is so operating. A small target in rough seas may not be
successfully tracked, or a target might not be detected in heavy
fog. This is no reflection on the reliability of the system.
It simply is not designed to cope with these situations. In
other words, the input conditions in these cases of apparent
system failure are not as specified. Therefore, though the
system fails to meet its objective, it does not fail in its per-
formance. Success or failure depends both -•n input and output
performance.
3, LOGIC BLOCK REPRESENTATION
Up until this pcint the model elr.ments discussed are those re-
quired for making any kind of rational system analysis. These
elements are mission objectives, functional flow diagrams, time
,'salyscs, description of system operation, environmental profile
and success/failure criteria. Some degree of information is
required for each of these elements. The accuýracy of the analysis
depends on the accuracy and completeness of the input data for.
each element. How these data are integrated in the mode.7 will
be shown.
3.1 SIMPLIFICAT IONS
In the discussion of the generalized model, it was shown that

the exercise of a model requires detailed data regarding the
equipments, environment and interrelationships. All quantities
in the model are time dependent distributions. Due to model
complexity and lack of accurate data, it was further shown that
such a model is difficult to handle in most cases. Simplifying
assumptions which degrade model accuracy were given. Some of
4 these are restated here:
(a) Drift failures may be neglected;

3-18
(b) Syst-:m elements are considered to fail ideredentlv;
(c) A failure of any system element is considered to result

in inevitable system failu•re, unless ar, alternate element or
procedure can supply the failed function.
These assumptions make it possible to construct a logic diagram

of a system from the functional block diagram. The logic di.a-
gram describes the system creration In simple terms, allowing
immediate derivation of a system reliability equation. Several
forms of lnq ic diagrams are zvailable, including one that
utilizes symbols of gate functions and time delays. One, that
is fairly easy to set up and understand, shows all possible
alternate ways that the system can perform its function. This
.s illustrated in Figure 3-19.
3.2 APPLICATION TO RELIABILITY
Estimation of reliability requires the use of a model to describe

the system in terms such that application of available reliability
data produces the required reliability evaluation. The model
should _,c only as complex as the system and its requiremcats
demand. It will range from a single function block, with a single
equat ion to a set of complex detailed logic diagrams with an
elabc-ate computer program. Very complex models are seldom re-
quired for shipboard systems.
To provide useful reliability measurement, the model must be

appliea consistently. An assumption used for apEottionment must
also apply to prediction, demonstration analys;s and support
analysis. Curing desiqn and development it is frequently
necessary to alter initial assumptions as more knowledge of the
system is gained. The consistency requirement of the model means
that the ltest changed body of assumptions be applied to analyses
previously performed, if the results of these analyses are to be
applied in the future. The purpose of consistency is to permit
-alid comparisons to be made. The measured achievement must be
in the siame terms as the requirement. Measured growth must be
consistent with the period to which the growth is referred. The
value of the quantitative approach to reliability is realized only
when these measurements are made within the same frdme of reference.
It is this consistency that provides discipline in reliability.
Thiz reliability analysLs model can be expanded to include other

characteristics or program constraintS for trade-oft analysis as
d(i:cussed in Chapter 25 and 26. The trade-off analyses provide
an ins iqut ito the contractor's understandinq of the developrent
|I
-i •
-..
cC'
S-%,
8"I' .
I *
-.
S,,,T.
< I<
--- ~1-~~1
a cc nce - t ai1 r 1.l1 o1 1

to aliticutc ee~-n'
ovorelia-bJIlity and nt'', ~'~i
".h t- t nt n.' I --I
imp'osed b" clevei-cment lxi:ý ot n~cisc
constiý,nts anc. their ef f-~- - ' r- ri"~- r --a a

Thei amo un t c) e f fo-rt f o tr- a-de-D f f s e to r r A" o:-
reliability reuuiired ano-- thý-e sieIvo o o~r n.
'Io comple~xity or, C1eve ioprmie nt
4. APPLICATION OF T! E 0ODEL 0 DE IN
I
1,3TC M
As the des ign gets underway, the Cr iterL a anaCon t ei..o

Mi't select ion o:- an avuroori ate ~c2 m 4`1c'e~n
f~o:~
able tools. Th e model1 is cons tr uctedý býy t he 'e~ snI - nnro
by reliabil ity engineers if so dceieated. As *enat-I
'e JteS In
environmental and sequence information is dx i'cand b~est
a~alaLledata (such as fa ili-re rae)is p~ue notemdl
it can then be-fin to prov,-ide useful )utputt.
Mlthc-ugh an apport~ionment of reliabk-ili-ty ar-1 other -desigýn su

eleme-nts may have been made, the first mode- predicti~on is ;a far
sounder apportionment. Any dilscrepancy betw-een~ Predicted and
required valuc- can be apportioned rationally, on the odlstr.iict-
ure, Tf rational apportionmuent toD lower levels will not reach
achievable values, the des igai enqrineer has a problem.
Frorm this time on, the model is used rfor regular (such as bi-
weekly) predictions of reliabilit~y and other des,-;n as-surance
parameters. Updated plots of the prediction vs. schedule pro--
vide Engineering supervision with regular progress reports. At
the overall systemn levels, these providc prouress repocts to
Management.
Since the model always expresses outputs as a. function of

constituent inputs, derivatives thercof: may also be published.
A Sensitivity List may show the ratio of output improvement tu
an arbitrary improvement of each component input ý'stch as halvilnq
the failure rate) , in rank order of potential improvement. 'Thus
the design engineer can quickl-- spot the best opportunities for
improvement.
Another derivative is the Criticality List, which ranks ccrnponents

in the order of probabi~litj., of causIrg system failure, taking
failure modes and effects into dccount. This provides a basis
for design review, criuical component iientification and actio-n,
3-21
and special handlino.
As design problems are brought iTnLO focus, by the model or other-

wise, the model can be used to evaluatu alternative solutions.
The deq-gn engi4neer substitutes
_ie alter:•ative configurations
and/or components into the model, and lets it calculite the con-
sequences. This is especially powerful if the model accounts for
total cost, as it provides the economic basis for a change.
The system model approach is a methodology designed to give co-

hesiveness and visibility of the problemi. It is one or many
methods of organizing data to identify the complexities of inter-
relationshlips between the equipments. In the Radar example:
(a) The task was identified Ly the characteristics of the

weapon, since the weapon identified the nature of the t~rcet
and so disclosed its characteristics and ic-ntified the
nature of the operational employment of the ship. An alter-
•dion to the weapon or a change in wcapons (such as from
rifles to missiles) alters tne requirement on the Radar. The
documentation provided in the modet will clearly indicate any
need for change in the design of the Radar.
(b) The operating requirements, with time, environment, and

failure definitions, described the equipment adequately to
identify technological areas where problems may exist.
(c) The model, identified the reliability requirement, or a'

least laid the groundwork for sucn identification. It will
assist in reliability and maintainability prediction by de-
fining the equipment and j-iticipated stress levels.
(d) It will be used to design test and demonstrition programs.
(e) During the entire development, it provides management

visibility of the objective and the progress toward achieving
that objective.
5. PERSONNEL AS A SYSTEM
The impact of personnel at every stage in the deve]opmnent of a

system cannot be ignored. People design, build, operate and
maintain the eqh1.icr•,nt. In many systems the subjective eval-
uation of the information provided by the display initiates the
succeeding operation. in other systems, the adequacy with which
maintenance is performed has a matkod influence on the success
3-22
or fal.ure of thie rtpe.
The modern hakbox" concept ;n equipmeor.t.d~I~ r.:wh

the le~ rf-,c~e to fface with11 the i~noperatr.r Tur:;OD!erm- ?'
he hzsto co.)nsider thc- onr eitc;` c~eec~tro u c 1bar
so miust he consiicr th;-e hum~anz '"biack box". Each unit -i a yteý
wi-11 accept. only certain inp-tits arod e-mit only certa-in 7 t'3l
eac~h in tarn will .opera-11e satis :actor-ily o-nly W oez
fl 7;t16
qiveri toliera~nces. The human cocr~ponerit is no, excep'r. In or Ler
-to obtain reli able human p(er Lo,:rnarce "n a iz-lan-macri.ne sy,,ste7P,
the man must be able to work wi'2'jx4 'h:-s oaatrztctlr
The design of the equipm7xent he oneýzatfc- must- matchý -1L5 ,iiaso
at both input and output stagqo.
As a "black box' , mn cart~ rerpresent~ed rin the system as -a syflem.

element as s~hown in- Ficure 3-23 tLo -xake the czystem complete. e
must, in fact, consid~er the role of man in the ci~rcuit. T'e efec'
of man on th~e design process and hiý; relationship to the re#~a-
-ilirty of thle svstem will be discusse~i later. ~Chapter -14)
6. f?3FERENCE1--S
(1) System Reliabilitýy ninýeeina, Ger ald H~. Saidielr, Fren-t-ice

Hall Technolocay Se.: ie6, Enqole-wo-od Cliff~s, New Je~rsey,, 1963.
(2) Svstem Reliability. Measurema--nt arnd Anialysis, R. R. '-Lancders.

Proceedings of the Fourth National Svm'ou-%iumv- on Reliah-1ii-ty
and Quality Control, January 1956.
(1) Some ReliabLl _jt_ýAsects of System Dcsijný, F. Moskowitz arid

J. B3. McLean, IRE Transactions on Reliability and Quality
Control, Sep-tember 1,956.
(4) Decision Theory and q~ystems Analysis, Dr. A. Enthoven,

Lecture at Lisner Auditorium, Dýeember 5, 1963.
(5) Prediction of Reliabil~ty, J. Connor, presented at Sixlth

National Symposium on Reliability and QualIity Control,
January 1960.
(6) Integrating Reliability Progress into Design arid Fnrqrneerinq

A Study of S stmManacpinent. R N~elson and A. Steinberg,
Aerospace Reliab-ility and Maintainability Conference, AIAA,
SAE & ASME, May 1963, Washington, D. C.
(7) Interatý ion of Dsiqn, Overa~llSystemCon:3.derations,

J. C. Fletch~er.
3-23
|0
S1 .1
Q Cd
p 'a
II
13-24
(H On \aýP clM ou; dt7 C . Sy,,st ems W. i.rush'

0
Systemr De(-,elo-pmcn!t Corp.(A 5>
(9) Model-ing and Simulation ds I±wsearcb Tool, W. JeDslyn, Boeing

Corp. ,, resented at tihe COP-OR R S; 1964 J'int Ciontference , Ma,-y
1964.
(10) Military Dyvj~ems Analysi, E. S`. g.uiade, Parid Corp). (AD292026),
(11) An Overall Viewpoint of Systems AnaflvsLS. M. Flood, Universi ty

of Michigan, Ann Arh-nr, Mihgapresented at- SAE Annual.
Meeting, Jranuary 1960, Detroilt, Michigan.
(12) Human Factors in system Analysis, Hf.(30oLdhamer, Rand Corp.,

ASTIA Doccument, AT 7826 .
4-1
Chapter 4
PR (B3AB I L ITY
i. SIMPLE EVENTS 4- 3
.1 Denotat ion of Pr,)bab i lit y 4- 3

1.2 Favorable Outcome 4- 4
1.. 3americ di B,&si s 4- 5
1. ' DcfLnitions of Related Terms 4- 5
2. COMPOUrND EVENTS 4- 6
2.1 Simple Combinations 4- 6
2.2 Complex Combinations 4- 8
2.3 Sumrmary 4-10
3, BINOMIAL PROBABILITY DISTRIBITYION 4-10

S. L Large Numvbers of Trials 4-10
3.2 Definit ions 4-12
Binomial Theorem 4-12
3.4 Binomial is a Probability Distribution 4-12
4. iLýMPIRICAL PROBABILITY 4-13

4.1 Funciamental. Concept 4-13
.1.2 Definition 4-13
4.3 Th" :,)le ot "Empirical" Pcobability 4-15
4.4 Assumption of Eioally Like y Events 4-16
4.5 \.'aiidit• oL P'crbability The -ry in Reliability
Fn q i neeer i n, 4-16
5. PATT ORE PENSITY FUINCTIONS 4-17

"I. E. uipmrent Pailures
E 4-17
'5.2 Use of Probabilistic Mathematics in Reliability 4-17
0. APPLICATION TO RELIAIJTLITY COMPIrrATTON 4-17

6.1 Complete Systems 4-19
6.2 i'e-dictir, Reliability of Systems From Reliability
of Parts 4-26
I. SAMPLE COMPUTLATIONS 4-27

7.1 Series Case - Normal Distribution 4-27
7.2 General Scries Case - Normal Distribution 4-29
7.3 Series Case - Exponential Distributioni 4-il
7.4 Series Parallel Case - Expnential Distribution 4-31
;.5 Standby Parallel Case - Exponential Distribution 4-34
P. REFERENCES 43
4.
4-2
Chapter 4
PROBABILITY
Our purpose in this section on probability is to acquaint you

with the basic ideas of probability underlying che analysis of
reliability. Our goal is not to convert engineers into
statisticians, but rather to create a common ground for the
efficient exchange of ideas concerning reliability.
The word probabilitLy is used loosely in our daily conversation

and wp know vaguely what it means. We talk of the probability
of winning a game of cards or dice or a football game, the
probability of its raining tomorrow, or the chance of a person
livin'j to be so many years old. In all these cases we are
interested i: a f.;turc event, z.= -;;hich the ,utcome is uncertain,
and abuut which we want to make a kind of prediction. We would
like to be able to devise a way of measuring the probability of
an event - not only to determine its probability. but also to
compare the probability of different events.
Historically, probability theory has had a strong relationship

w*.th games of chance, i.e., gambling, such as roulette, dice,
poker, bridge, and black jack (twenty one). The one common
characteristic in all these games -f chance is the unpredicta-
bility of what happens on a given deal or a given turn of the
wheel, i.e., on a given trial. However, as is known by any
indivil..ual who has played any one of these games, there is
regularity, and hence predictability, in the course of a larqe
number of trials. Probability theory is, in genera], concerned
with the predictability of occurrences in a large number of
trials, i.e., predictability "in tho long run" or "on the
average."
There are a large nLunber of areas in which the characteristics -

unpredictability during a given trial and predictability over a
large number of trials - can be found. Probability theory has
found an application in each one of these areas. The diversity
of application of probability theory can be illustrated by list-
ing some of the areas in which this theory is used.
1. Theoretical Physics: Stitistical thermodynamics

and quantum mechanics.
2. Nuclear Reactor Technology: Atomic Bomb development

and critical sizes of nuclear engines.
4-3
3, Crn-mnunication Theory: relephone trunk li'es and

RF c-omrunication links.
4. Insurance: Life insurance and automobile accident

insurance.
5. Medical Research: Genetics and the,-y of epidemics.
6. Theory of Learning
1. S IMFLE EVENTS
1.1 DitNOTATION OF PROBABILITY
Since the term _robabilit- is applied to so many different

events, it seems that one can hardly give it a definite meaning
without some simplification. Later on we ;;.,ill see that we must
extend the Iefinition to include more complex situations in
order to have a useful theory. So, taking fund._rmentals first,
let us see how much we may already know about :a method of assign-
inq numbers to the likelihood of chosen events. C7onsider the
simple experiment, the tossing of a coin. On a single toss cf
the coin, there are only two outccnes - heads or tai ls. Every-
one wi 1.1 agree that if the coin is "honest,"+ .- . uni"foIn nly and
symmetrically made, and if the tossing is "fairly done," there
is no reason to expect the appearance of -Ahea• ay more tnan
the appearance of a tai l. In everyday Ianguaoe, .Ae s,- that
"the coin h I chance in 2 of faIlin, heads ; in t ýchn:zaj.
lanquage, we saw that "the probabi 1 ity of heads is 1, 2." In
w~ beiS, •-e write:
P ( .-- 1(2
Simiriary, in the tossinq of a -4ie, the face with six dots has
I chance in 6 of landing on top; fo)r it is -assumed that the die
is well, made, thrown "fairly," and there is no re-ason for expect-
in,,; any one face to turn rather than any ;Aher. We say that
"the probability c-f 6 dots on top is 1/,6." Tn r-xm;bols:
If/6
Lihewise, when we take a caviJ from a well-shuffle!d bridge deck,

wt have:
r (A) ,5.2
4-4
1 .2 FAVORAB3LE OUTICC-ME
Noýw,, as an ,?xperi1-ent, consider a 10'--ticke J1a fo a pfze

name is written on each of 10 tickets, +'7 tickets are t'hen
thor-oug;hi mixed in a bag, and 1 tic,-ket is drawn, 'The person
whose name appears on the ticket so draw-n is tht winner.
Tf Susie's name appears on j~ist 1 t icket, he-r chance ot winninq

the Prize is, 1 in 10, since all outcomes in the drawinq are
equa-1y likely, " that is, )ene of the 10 tich.ets shall be irawn,
and there is ro Ireason for expecti-nci any 1 ticket to be d~rawn
rather than any othe~r. Th us ,
P (S) = 1/1,
Similarly, if Susi <s name appears on -/ rickets, her chance or

winning is 7 in 10, and
The general idea is that of separatino wh Sot ''h)le
equally likely outcomes, the speciai subs et 't) fav(,ril1 I

ccknes . We uise tie term -st:-t to) speak ta airozl 01t~nt
with, a particular ch.eractpri,3t.i(, as the *set' -t all %wk--a'
maIes. Wo --ise the term "subset" to mnean a1 qr, p cm)ut
in the set, with some ether charac-tzr'rist ic as the .
ed-har eu Aerin
%i ,,ales.
The prokibabi Iitv, of 'A favo~rablo oit come .s ss1-ve b tlW'
P ( favo-able outcr".') nmer oSihi& '
Tb is meth.)(- of assi.gn inc- to a favoratie out 0--m"o' 1'

nwnber, calle.- .it~s Luroltbility, ha-, an ~ie~t
for if there a'-e no fa:rb ce.cc,)es introt c .
outc~ves, to
and, if all u~~bc-ourccvnes ýir-oefvra
It
folowsth'at
4-5
that is, the probability of a favorable outcome lies within the

range of numbers from zero to 1. For if a favorable outcome is
certain to happen, its probability is l;. if it is certain to
fail, its probability is 0; in every other case its probability
must be between 0 and 1.
Another consequence of this method, since every outcome must be
either favorable or unfavorable, is
P (favorable outcome ) + P (unfavorable outcome) = 1
1.3 NUMERICAL BASIS
The definition of probability is based on a count of the number

of possible results of.a trial. Since there are six possible
outcomes of a throw of a single die, the probability of any one
number occurring is one sixth, assuming no bias. In general, if
an event can occur in m ways-and can fail in n ways, the proba-
bility of its occurrence is m/(m + n), provided the ways are
exhaustive;, equally likely, and mutually exclusive.
The concept "equally likely" is basic; it can play the role of

the undefined element. Indeed, it-is quite difficult to define
the term "equally likely" without using the word probability.
The term can be described as being the lack of any bias favoring
one way over another in the random trial.
The ways are "mutually exclusive" if, when one is known to occur,
the other is known not to occur. For instance, if the event is
the drawing of a single card from a deck and obtaining an ace,
there are four mutually exclusive ways of doing it: by drawing
an ace of spades, hearts, diamonds, or clubs. If a single card
is drawn and it is the ace of spades, it cannot be the ace o,.
another suit. Here the ways are equally likely if the drawing
procedure is not biased in favor of any one card. The proba-
bility of drawing an ace is 4/52 under these conditions.
1.4 DEFINITIONS OF RELATED TERMS
Some of the terms which were used in the definitions of

probability and some other terms which will be needed later are
defined as follows:
1. Exhaustive: As used in the definitions of probability,

the term "exhaustive" means that all possible ways for
an event to happen are included. The reasons for this
restriction in the definition should be obvious.
4-6
2. TrialI Each attempt under a certain set of rulws to

produce an event A (where the outcome of the event A is
uncertain) is a trial. Thus, each repeated throw of
dice in a game of dice is an atterapt to make one's
point. One usually speaks of a random trial. The term
"random" implies "without bias.'
3. Independent Trials: If the outcome of one trial does not

onfluence the outcome of a subsequent trial, the two
trials are said to be independent. Each throw of dice in
a dice game meets this criterion. However, the drawing
of carJs from a deck without replacement does not meet
it, since the number of ways an event (drawing a speci-
fied card, for example) can happen changes with each
drawing.
4. Conditional and Unconditional Probabilities: The con-

ditional probability of an event is encountered when
information about the occurrence of some other event is
available. If one is informed that a certain event has
occurred, does this tell bim anything about the probabil-
ity of the occurrence f an'ther event? Knowing that
B has occurred, what is the probability of A occurring?
If the events are dependent, the knowledge that one has
occurred does modify the probability of the other, and
this probability is conditic-ial. If no informaticn is
available as to the result of an event on a previous
trial, the probability is unconditional.
2. COMPOUND EVENTS
S.)m times the problem requires that A set of outcomes be con-

sidered a s-inole event. The problem of throwing a six each
time3 on two succcssive trials, and the problem of drawing four
aces (:,n successive trials without replacement are compound
events.
The determination of the probability of succes•s in these two

cascs roquires some refinement to our method of determining
possible outcomes.
2.1 SIM LE COi-BINATIONS:
Expressions of the form "A or B" usc the word "or" ii. two
different wa;s: (1) in the exclusive sense, which connotes "A
or B, but not both" (e.g., a coin falls "heads or tails"); (2)
4-7
in the inclusive 3ense, which connotes "A or B or both" (e.g.,

"The weather looks as if it may sleet or snow.") Ordinarily.
the context is a sufficient guide to the intendea meaning. When-
ever the expression "A or B" is used in referring to events, we
will always use the inclusive "or"; in other words, event "A or
B" means "A or B or both". This inclusive "or" is defined in
probabilistic language as a "union" of sets.
The idea of simultaneous membership in two sets is connxoted in

our use of "and" when we talk about events. Thus, if events A
and B are subsets of a set, then "A and B" is their "intersection".
that is, the event "A and B" contains those sample elements that
belcg to both A and B.
By using our definition of probability (2.2), three rules are

needed fcr the calculati.a of the probabilities of c-xnpound
events. Let E and F denote events; then, we want to knew the
probabilities of the following events derived from them:
a. The event "not E" (E does not occur). (or "not F")
b. The event "E or F" (either E or F or both occ-ur).
c. The event "E and F" (both E and F occur).
For example, the event "E" may be "we get a 6", the ezent "F"
may be "we get a 5". "Not E" is simply "not getting a 6"
(getting any of the faces from I to 5). "E or F" is "getting a
5 or a 6". "E and F" is impossible for a single throw.
Rule 1. The probabilities of the events "E" and "not E" satisfy
the equation.
P(not E) = i - P(E)
Example - Three coins are tossed. What is the probability of

getting at least one head.
Solution - Since the questio-n as stated really asks what is the

probability of getting one, two, or three heads, it can be solved
more simply by computing the probability of getting 3 tails (0
heads). There are eight equally likely outcomes (HIH, HHT, HTH,
T1III, HTT, THT, HTT and VTT). Only one of these (TTT) corresponds
to the requirement of three tails. The probability of thi i-s
1/8. This is "not E". The probability of E (at least one head)
= 1 - P (Not E) or 7/8, hence P(E) = 7/8.
Rule 2. If two events E and F are mutually exclusive, then
W_
4-8
P(E or F) = P(E) +
Example - What is the probability that a card drawn at rancioqt

from a deck of cards is either C neart or the queen of spades.
Call E the event "heart ard F the event "queen of spades". By
our definition
P(E) = -152 and P_(F)

52
By rule 2
13 1 14
P(E or F) 1• -+ .
52 '52 'S2
Rule 3. If E and F are independent events, then
P(E and F) = P(P) x P(F)
Example - From a deck of cards, two cards are drawn at random,

successively; the first being replaced before the second is drawn.
What is the probability that th,- first is a heart and the second
is not a king. If E denotes "a heart' and F denotes "not a
king".
13 48
P(E) = -L3 P(F)
52, 52
By rule 3
e(E 2(1n
and F)) 3 x 48
52~ 52 512
52 52 52
2.2 COMPLEX COMBINATIONS
2.2.1 Conditional Probability: To introduce the notion of

dependent events consider the following example:
An urn contains 3 red balls and 2 black balls. Two balls are
drawn in succession without; replacement. if the first ball
drawn was b]ick, what is the probability that the second bell
drawn will be red?
Solution: Since we know the first c-ne was black, we are

actually in a new situation, - we have a- c•i.Lininy
3 red balls and 1 black ball; hence by definition, r(R) 3/4.
If we locus our attention on the ever:t "getting a red ball", it

is L±~: from the exaimple that the *robability of this event de-
pends upon the information one has at hand. The probability
4-9
usually isn't written as P(R) but rather P (getting red given

that black has occurred), or symbolically P(RIB). This probabil-
ity P(RIB) is called the "conditional probability of getting a
red ball on the second draw, given that a black one was drawn on
the first draw."
We saw that by taking into account what actually was happening,

P(RIB) was easily calculated. Another way of calculating P(RIB)
is the following:
Number the balls rI, r 2 , r 3 , bi, b 2 ; then list all the equally
likely outcomes of drawing two balls from the urn when the first
ball is not replaced. The 20 equally likely cases are:
rI1 b1 r 2 , b] r 3 , b1 bi, b 2 b2, b 1
2 2' 2 3 r2
1 2' rl
rI1 r2 r 2, rI r 3, r1 bit r2 b2, r2
rI, r 3 r2, r 3 r3, r 2 bit r3 b2, r3
Since the first ball was found to be black, the equally likely
outcomes for the second ball leing red are only those 8 among 20
original equally likely cases that have black in the first place;
and the favorable cases for the second being red are those among
the 8 equally likely cases with red in the second place. So, we
have
P(RIB) = 6/8 = 3/4.
More generally, we have the following 1 ule for calculating the

probability of dependent events.
Rule 4. If E and F are dependent events (i.e., the result of

event F depends on the results of an earlier trial of which
event E is a possible outcome), then
P(E and F) = P(E) x P(FIE)
or inversely P(FIE) = P(E and F)

P(E)
2.2.2 Events not Mutually Exclusive: In the example under
Rule two the events were mutually exclusive. That is the success
of event E "drawing a heart" precluded event F "drawing the
Queen of Spades. They both couldn't happen on the same draw.
Suppose the question had been, what is the probability of drawing
1i
4-10
a heart or a queen from -the deck? In this case tbe. nrobability

*off event E, "drawing a hneart" is PIE) = 2.Thie probability of
event F, "drawing a queen" is P(F) = 2 But the pr-obability

13 + 4 .5
P(E or F) is not ---,2 since one event (the Queen of Hearts) is
common to both. The events are not mutually exclusiv,.e. To comn-
pute the probability of "either a heart or a queen" the ratio of
the r imber of hearts plus the number of queens minus the number
of queens of hearts is taken to the total number of cards
P(Eor ) =13 hear-ts + 4 queens - 1 queen of hearts _16
52 cards52
Rule 5. If E anid F are not mutually exclusive, then P(E or F)
P (E) + P (F) - P (E and F) .
2.3 SUMMARY
The probability of a simple event was defined in the ratio of

successful outcomes to possible outcomes. The p1-robabilit-y of a
compound event was shown to be equally the ratio of successful
outcomes to possible outcomes where the outcomes are described
in somewhat more complicated w,.ays. The five rules oiven are
adequate to compute the probability of any combination of
events, provided the probabilitics of the individu~al events can
be dutermined. .T'o facilitiate comp,,tat~ion certain mathematical
techniques may be employed.
3. BINOMIAL PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTION
3.1 LARGE NUMBE.RS OF TRIALS-
Consider the followi:-.- experin,.,nt: Ten coins are tossed. What

is the probability that exactly two of tn~m are heads?- This
simple piobleni is -omplicated somewhat by the fact- that fl-hr.
!-lmber of equally li rzely -utcomes and outcomes favorable to in
event, is larqe, and enumeration of them Ls impractical. For
example, if we tried to list tho * iually likely casels we would
have
1f9EH1 IIH11
U-1H, HfM91H:-H1111T , HHHHIIiII-l{ITH ~fHHIU1l 1T~1V ,
HFHiI1nrnH1lr , HTHHIU~f11TTT , . ..
and so on. ~ocompute this probability, we can reason as.zfoil11

CWS: Each coiib ha~s two) possible (outcomes, heads or tails, and
4-11
the occur--
. - , ther of these to one does not affect what hap-.
Pens to the other's Using the basic principle that if event E can
occur .n v-,i s and, f in n ways then the event "E and F" can occur
in m x n ways (by ,ule 3) we can determine that there are alto-
gether 2 x 2 x 2 >' x x x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 = 210 equally likely
out comies.
But 210 = 1024 and it. is no longer practical to list these in

order to look through and pick out the outcomes favorable to
some event.
Looking at the possible outcomes we can reason that there is only

one of the combinations that shows no heads (TTTTTTTTTT). The
number of combinations that yields one head are 10, a head in any
one -)f the ten positions. Going one step further, to determine
how many ways two hieads can show, we know there are ten ways one
head can show. If one head has shown, there are nine ways a
second can show. The prcduct of 10 x 9, then, gives us the total
number of ways two heads can show. Since we make no distinctton
between H(1)H(2) 77T .... and H(2)H{(l) TTT... each successful
outcome has been counted twice. So the number' of combinations
that yield two heads
10 100 9 i0
2'S ' .........
1 :x 22 T notat
-,- ion ( i -) presently
used in statistical work, replacing the sy-nbol you probably
learned (
£ollowin; the reasoning to compui. the numrber of combinat ions

yielding three hcads, we ca:t say that if 2 heads have shown,
there are 8 remaininq coins lea'. ing 8 ways the third coin can
show . Sc) th(.re are 10 x 9 x 8 possible ways 3 coins out of 10
can be heads. Again there are duplications, in this case 2 x 3
or 6. rhe number of discrete combinations is (I() ]C x 9 x 8
3 1 x 2 x 3"
Continuinq the reasoning we can state trhat

710-1k) x 9 x k x / x " x x L the number of combin at ions
lx2x3x4x5x6x7
17 the number of combinations
in wh i'h 7 heaus show. If we compute the number of combinations
in which 3 tails show, we find ( 10 x 9 x 8
1 x 2 x 3
3
Since 3 tails is the same as 7 heads, those should give the same
S10 ) 0 x 9 x 9 10) 10 x 9 x 8 x 7 x f x x
3 1 2 x3 7 1 x 2 x 3 xA x )5x x
4-12
3.2 DEFINITION
The product of all the integers from 1 to n is termed "n factor-

ial" or n.. Using this notation, the term (n) can be written
n.
r(n-r"
For the term ( 0 this becomez
l0 x 9 x (8 x 7 x 6 x 5 x 4 x 3 x 2 xl) -45 noting
1 x 2 x (l x 2 x 3 x 4 x 5 x 6 x 7 x 8)
that the portions in parenthesis cancel.
45_
The probability of two heads in ten coins is then 4502- .044.
3.3 BINOMIAL THEOREM
This can be reached in another way. The number of ways (r)

successes and (n-r) failures can occur in n events is (r) as
defined above. The probability that an individual success (heads)
will occur is p, in this case 1/2. -
The probability that the event will occur in exactly this Way,
(r) successes (heads) and (n-r) failures (tails) is
(n ) p (I- p)', or ( n) p- qr.- where q = 1 - p.
r r
This term, called the binomial probability distribution, is
mathematically the same as the computation used previously.
Tables (1) are available that tabulate the terms for values of
n up I-o 50 for any value of p between 0 and 1 in increments of
.01.
3.4 BINOMIAL AS A PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTION

The term probability distribution refers to the probability of
achieving various events.
The distribution of expected outcomes is proportional to the

probabilities of the individual outcomes. For the 10 coins,
the number of ways in which favorable outcomes can occur are:
,!6
4-13
Favorable Outcome Ways Probability
0 Heads 1 .001
1 Heads 10 .010
2 Heads 45 .044
3 Heads 120 .117
4 Heads 210 .205
5 Heads 252 .246
6 Heads 210 .205
7 Heads 120 .117
8 Heads 45 .044
9 Heads lu .010
10 Heads 1 .001
1024 1.000
Plotting this on a histogram provides this view of the binomial

probability distribution (Figure 4-14,.
4. EMPIRTCAL PROBABILITY
4.1 FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPT
The previous discussion of the Binomial Probability distribution

illustrated the fact that the probability that exactly r successes
would be observed in ritrials ,uld be expressed as
P (X = ri (0) q
where q = I - p and p is the constant p-obability of success on

each trial. In pzevious discussiions, the probability, p, of
success on each trial was determined by deduction. However,
this binomial distribution form can also be used when p is de-
termined analytically, say by an integration, and turns out to
be an irrational number. Even when p is unkno-wn -- the only re-
quirement is that p be constant for each of the n trials. rhe
discussion of E~npirical Probability relates to the problem of
what can be done when p is unknown.
4.2 DEFINITION
In the events oe have been discussing we have been able to

compute the probability of an event by en<uneration. We could
compute the number of possible outcomes and of these identi fy
those we considered favorable. In a larqe class of events,
however, we cannot identify or count the equally likely outcomes.
Can we predict whether or not it will rain on the Fourth of July.
There are two possihle outcomes, rain or no rain, but we cannot
4 4-14
LO
c -F
UDANH
4-15
say they are equally likely. If we had maintained records of

,rain in Washington over the last hundred years we could identify
the number of times event E "rain in Washington on the Fourth of
July" had occurred. From this we could make an estimate of the
probability of its occurrence this fourth.
The probability given by our previous definition is called "a

priori," or prior, probability because the probability of an
event can be deduced directly without actual experimentation,
e g., the probabilities associated with a die are deduced
directly from observing the uniformity and symmetry of the die
and the "fairness" of its tosser. On the other hand, the follow-
ing definition requires that enough experimentation can be per-
formed in order to study the relative frequency of the occurrence
of an event; in fact, henceforth, we will confine our discussion
to probabilities of events that can only be determined by re-
peated trials and the use of this definition. Probabilities
defined in this way are called empirical or experimental. Thus
we have assumed that there is a number which gives the correct
probability of an event, although one cannot say what that num-
ber is. Furthermore, we will assume that the empirical probabil-
ity obeys all the rules developed for "a prior'" probability.
"If whenever a series of many trials is made, the ratio of the

number of times the event E occurred to the total number of
trials is nearly some constant p, and if the ratio is usually
nearer to p when a longer series of trials are made, then we
agree in advance to define the empirical probability of E as p.
4.3 THE ROLE OF "EMPIRICAL" PROBABILITY
Whenever the subject of tossing coir's arises, everyone readily

agrees that a priori probabil.%y of heads is 1/2. This, of
course, is because they believe, that the symmetry and uniform-
ness of coins insure the equal likelihood of heads or tails --
which results in the value 1/2. As an example, let us consider
tossihg thumbtacks. When a thumbtack is thrown, it falls "point
up" or else "point down", and even though it possesses symmetries
and uniformness, it is very difficult (if not impossible) to
assign a priori probabilities in this case. To find the pro-
bability of "point up", one would simple calculate the empirical
probability of this event.
This was tried experimentally, a thumbtack being flipped 2750

times. Of these, the tack fell "point up" 2054 times. From
this we can define the empirical prcbability of "that" thumbtack
falling point up on any succeeding trial or series of trials as
4-I 6
.747. One can then define the Probability of 3 "points up" in

5 thumbtack tosses as ( 5) (.747)3 (.253)'.
3
We will go into greater depth on the treatment and application
of empirical results when we introduce statistics several
lectures from now. The point being made here is that we can,
with certain justification, apply the results of past trials to
estinating the probability of success or failure of future trials.
4.4 ASSUMPTION OF EQUALLY LIKELY EVENTS
Probability deals with the prediction of future successes. Once

a trial has taken place 3t becomes a statistic. It either
succeedea or failed. Probability is no longer associated with
that particular trial. The statistic, representing an event of
the past, does however provide some information useful in the
future. Having once conducted the trial we have some assurance
that if exactly the same conditions are encountered on some
future trial, the same results will 'Be obtainnd. It is in the
inexactness of the repetition of conditions that probability
theory finds its place. In drawing from a deck of cards if the
23rd card from the top were drawn, this would be a certain card.
If the deck were again ordered exactly as before and the 23rd
card drawn, it would still be the same card. This is not a
probabilistic study. Probability assumes that the card is drawn
at random, that every card has an equal chance of being in the
position selected. Probability theory assumes that there is a
certain, but not necessarily known, distribution function descri-
bing all possible outcomes of the event.
4.5 VALIDITY OF PROBABILITY THEORY IN RELIABILITY ENGINEERING
In the operation of equipment, failures occur. These failures

are caused by physical causes, such as wear, overstress, "deteri-
oration, contamination, etc. In some kinds of equipment these
failures can be predicted fairly precisely. In others, they seem
to occur randomly, at unpredictable times. Where they are pre-
dictable, the cause is soon known. Where they are not, evaluation
of the failures indicate many different causes. From this we
draw the conclusion that in the unpredictable case a large number
of factors are at work, each causing some of the failures.
4-17
5. FAILURE DENSITY FUNCTIONS
5.1 EQUIPMENT FAILURES
In the testing of equipment, and in its operation, records have

been kept of failures and operating times to failure. Histo-
grams have been prepared showing the relationship between opera-
ting times and failures. Among others, the histograms shown in
Figure 4-18seem to occur with relatively high frequency. A
histogram like this displays the distribution of times to fail-
ure and is called a"density function . gnqineers have identi-
fied these distributions as characteristic jensity functions
which describe, to a degree, the relationship of past failures
to the incidence of the physical factors causing them. If this
interpretation is true, then the histograms shown may be used
as probability density functions describing the probability of
failure with time. Later we will impose some
severe restrictions on the use of these functions, but for now,
we will say one can be identified.
5.2 USE OF PROBABILISTIC MATHE4ATTOS IN RELIABILITY
The dictionary defines reliable as trustworthy, suitable or fit

to be relied on. Reliability, then, is the degree to which
equipment may be trusted to do a job. Because of the apparent
relationship to probability taeory shown in testing, reliability
has been defined as the probability that equipment will perf6rm
within specifications for a specified time when operating ini
specified environment. When we use the term "within specifica-
tions," included in the meaning is "failure-free operation."
In probabilistic language, reliability is the ratio of the
subset of failure free operations to the set of all attempted
operations. Probability theory, and its application to estima-
ting the probability that a failure will occur, or will not
occur, within a designated time, is one of the major mathematical
tools of reliability engineering.
6. APPLICATION TO RELIABILITY COMPUTATION
As we discussed in the last lecture, systems are not simple

entities. They consist of a great many parts, each of which is
subjected to different working conditions, environments, stresses.
In attempting to evaluate the reliability of an equipment or
system two approaches are available.
(1) Build some and test them, or

4-18
CY
44A3N3OIIA
4-19
(2) Test the parts anJ combine the orobabi lity; of Success
of all the parts in suclh a way as to determine the
probability of failure - f tl.e assembled unit.
6-1 COMPLETE SYSTMIS
In the first approach, we use the test results to determine a

single failure density function, the distribution of times to
failure. The fraction of failures that occur prior to the time
of interest, t, , is used as the probability that a failure will
occur prior to time t- . We call this probability q,- The
number ob!-ained by subtracting q, from 1, (l-q.), is the pro-
bability that no failure will occur prior to time ti. This we
have lpfined as our reliability.
6.1.1 Two Useful Distributions: As mentioned earlier, two dis-

tributions have been found to occur most frequently. These dis-
tributions have been approximated by mathematical functions use-
ful in computation of the reliability. For reasons which will
become clear i- the statistical section, we normally predict
from the ohysical factors involved which distribution function
should apply, fitting our data to the curve assumed. Two fun-
ctions useful for this purpose are:
(a) Normal or gaussian

(b) Exponential.
These are shown overlAid on the histograms of failure times in

Figure 4-2G. The curves show the (idealized) probability of
failure at any time. The probability that the equipment will
have failed by a time, t,, is the aggregate of the probabilities
thai it fails at times prior to t•, that is the area under the
curve from t = 0 to t = ti. Figure 4-21 shows the normal density
function and its relationship to the reliability function. In
A the hatched area shows the aggregate probability of failure
to time t,. This is the value q . The value (I - q, ) is
plotted against time in B. This value is the reliability to
time t.
6.1.2 The Normal (Ga'issian) Function: This typifies the situ-

ation caused by wearout of a single part. It applies where the
failure pattern is caused predominantly by the failure of one
particular part, as for example in a pump with a bearing greatly
overloaded or of poor quality. The probability of successful
operation to time t~is" the probability that that one part will
operate to that time. In this case, variations in quality or
loading cause minor deviations from a characteristic or mean
!I
* 4-20
I::,
z x
C -1
U
p.4
z
I-
o
- - - F- -
H
I
4 F-
H C
-
z
C
H -
A N3 £1 3 U A A J N3fI I3 HA
I
-J
4-21
4• z
C•
- _ --1,-- z
i2;
z .IIIV13
0 0
4-2?
life. Very few failhres occur at times greatly distant from that
mean life.
The characteristics of this function are defined by two para-

meters. The mean life " and the standard deviation -: 4 is the
measure of central tendency, the average of the recorded lives;
Sis the measure of dispersion from that average.
Tables of the ordinates of the normal curve and areas under the
normal curve with mean zero and standard deviation 1 are pub-
lished in most reliability books aiid many other books of mathe-
matical, tables (2,. These can be used directly for reliability
comt alions, entering with the value Z -
Example: For a part with mean life 8 hours and standard

deviation 2 hours, find the probability that the part will
continue
S~2 to operate for 5 hours. Z = 5 8 -1.5. From the
table of areas under the normal curve for Z = -1.5 we find the
portion of total area under the curve from .. to -1.5 to be
0668. This is the probability that the part will fail by 5
hours. The reliability is one minus this value or 0.9332.
(Figure 4-23)
Example: For the same part, find the probability that a failure
68 10-8
"-ill occur between 6 and 10 hours Z. -=--
2 = -l Z2 = 2 = +1.
The areas under the curve are, for Z, -I, area = .1587 for
Z- = +1, area m .8413. The area under the curve between 6 and
10 hours is the difference or U:626. The probability that a
failure will occur durinq this period is .6826.
6.1.3 .Exponential FunaI tion: This typifies the "chance"

failure rate function found to be evident in a large preponder-
anct of situations. It ippears to be typical of most electronic
systems and numerous mechanical systems. It indicates a bal-
anced design, ,n effect, whlire no single part (or few parts)
failiures predominate. The characteristic of the exponential
distribution is that the probability of failure is constant for
any equal periods of time. This constant probability is defined
by a characteristic mean time between failure, MTBF. The
density furction, or distribution of. times to failure takes the
form of the -egative exponential equation Xe-\t where e repre-
sent- the ba'•e of naperian or natural logarithms e = 2.71828
(Fig. 4-24). The reliability is again 1 minus the area jo time t,
so R = C-,t where I is the reciprocal of the MTBF ()- --z ) and
t is the interval ot time of operation of equipment. The symbol
! ,
4-2:3
,4
04
A.TZUV4~
4-24
0 1 •
z Z
5:4
F" u
0H
MU H0
Z 0
4-22
is defined as the fa i lure rate. The chrict •rist i cs oF this

funct i on are -ompIt I.' f i nod by the cný, p<r,imet cr MTPF'. If
t-he value of Uhn s MTBF pjara,-i ter (or its fcC I p )c l,, • 1 i- ko',,ný
then o)nr can computý, prof. a l ities of i r-c (cc,:rrrc
1o,, ( J I;n,o
'ir
qiven intervals.
Example: The MTBF for a part is 100 hedrS. Find the probabi1-
ity that the part will fail in the first 10 hours of o}pration.
'10
1 0/1 -,C 1) 100
P)(t f 10)
0 10- e dt 1 - e
1 - e 1 - 0.905 0.095
The reliability of operation of this part over the 10-hour

-10/100
intervFl is e -- 0.905.
Example: The reliability of a part is known to be 0.98 over a

150-hour time of operation. Find its failure rate.
0.98 = e -1 x 150
1n 0.98 -k x 150
-1n0.98 -
.02020 - .000135
150 150
Examp'le: A part has -n MTBF of 100 hours. Compute the probabil-
it-y theft this part will not. fail in the time interval r100 hours
to 200 hours' qivn that it operated successfully for the first
100 hcurs
If we let A symbolize the event "no failure in the interval"

r.100, 200!" and B the event no failure in 0, 1001, the desired
probability is seen to be a conditional probability, P(A!B).
According to the definition
P(A and B)
p(A IB) , I'
1, (B)
Now, A and B is the event "no failure in the interval, f0, 200)".
-200/100 -2
P(A and B) = e = e
-100/00 -1
P(B) = e = e
-2 -1 -1
P(AIB) = e /e e- 0.368
WSW
4-26
One point that should be niotedi is týhat the. reil.-ioiliry for a

period of time equal to the NrBF is onlyJ .37. A sec mUd po! nt is
also of interest -- giý,cn ltjD hours of successful operation1 the
probabil ity o)f 1> rot re iurs of scSs fu prtincnb
computed on the same has is. as 100 0'urs on newý eGUiFIP 'at. The
same statement can be ma-de if' we c~ns i-cr an interý'nl of it
hoiurs aftor vin~ hours of muccessfu._ opor.'tion. in oart±c-ular,
for the negat ive exponential case re,,alt from tests -involvin-.;
success fully used equipmeýnt rather: tha m new.% eCl-uliment re- -still
v a iid.
This type of result is uni,:cue to th, nea :u xcontenti1al anJ

is not applicable for Normal, ;;-eibul! cr other 1: str ibutions
of times to failure wher-e the a i lu-re rate is not constant,
6.-2_ _ P REDETICT'ING RELIABILITY OF SYSTLMFNS FPýt_VRE.ýLIABITýLITY OF PARTS
6.2.1 Re aso)n s Butli.-,

fo?:.to e ro'J
lp-l nt i ion:
tor:tinoo
it to determine reliabilit p
:rovides thi's ros'tt l ate tO-
in fluence the aJesign. 105 Ioe I c Id t-,rfr 31 4 ate th-e *e
reliabi~lity of the dcsiq'a before hie penis, mone on uout~

Th is woou 1d ýen.r r nmn) t c make c1h1an e s toý hi1. r r-ipos d ,s on to
meet the req iz:rements at oreit,7st ecor'nnv. V)r a ler Cna ti e to
testinli the compli-te uni -1 - -, lLn A .. ,te "1- itty r
tai,,.~ f the par~ts t'oa-t _L
'-fie t. ., nit a" tO-n 5W'"' Th
1
comb ino t'z i n f'or r.at io.n t. n
1~is r' t,, t
assemibleý ',nit. ThV ist '0- _U)'A ii ] i
utrl'e~11
The m ~Sivýt t
eu~~ *' 'It
the roles .if rmt: of na st Al-r n..,
Lýbabi i it~ v f ~ an ctxm-' 1)t. C*m The1
bilit v o.r p ro ýýb I i t,:.4 O~'S~rao
t-,i~
en t i p~i
T cv rt s are t hI, rt 11elý
6..2 C a_ S Tt
t-ex' hb ~ A'~'"~ 'U?
Part is~ *accts~~ a'"%t'x*

Ipi c trjý-n rL~ p~e
u 1 c* aro~
P p I iL T
fal1
v-1&li I hbisest &r 11C'It". S r t aLl ý
our probab~i litt eomýinat~ion rule, R 3l.-
Tihis is llilke a .. a in. f1 ':ln br'astr''1'~ ls
& 23 (Xs e 2 na I le 1:
, I eu jen t w~iI
th (I uce
eI t or ttwo (C7r mnore p a rtcs p(2r :orm
succe ss l, ei it+
hn l
4-2-'
fail only if both (or all) parts fail. Using the multiplication
rule (Rule 3) with rule ].
K_ = I - (1-R x (l-R 2 x ... x (1-R)

1 N
6.2.4 Case 3, Series-Parallel: It is frequently the case that
both series and parallel situations exist simultaneously in the
e2uipment. To determine the reliability of the equipment, re-
solve each parallel situation into its equivalent reliability
then the total may be treated as a series case.
SAMi LE COMPUTATIONS
7.1 SERIES CASE - NOR.MAL DISTR:BLU7ION
Normal or oausstan failuro. density functions. Assume an equip-

ment F consisting oe four parts (A,B,C,D) (Figure -- 28),in set-ieb,
with the following characteristics.
Standard
Mean Life Deviation
A 4 1
B 5 1.25
B 1' 5
27
" 'l ."' t..

•ens... + ' - - ' '-' 4-27
;',.i,,il itv of t!',' .:ui-nt to time t 2 is comnut~u ias
"ArQA R
B .2 . . -I n
.7.- - 2.66" . , 3.•8 . '•62
"' ,"" ':i2';v P• P x F, x P .<

E A P <
f:,i,,.,t =rs, ass'ums th • ,,i !'arts are ne'•., start nu fr-c~n1
."x.~d
4-28
zI
o e•
- I,10
F- -
U
CI)
4-29
>4 4
4-30
time 0.
7.2 GENERAL SERIES CASE - NORMAL DISTRIBUTION
In the more general case, the parts have various operating times
already accrued, as for example when the equipment is operated
to failure, repaired and continued in operation. We might look
at the reliability of the equipment for some other two hour
period, say, from the 14th to 16th hours (Figure 4-31).
Whnt e this situation obtains, the normal curves have to be re-

drawn to start each at the time the repaired part started opera-
ting,still with the same mean life and same standard deviation.
The reliability for the two 'our period in question is still the
product of individual reliabilities. The probability that any
part will fail during a particular period is the area under the
normal curve for the period in question, obtained by subtracting
thc area under the tail ci the curvi (-- to t 2 ).
Knowing that the equipment has not failed at time t = 14,

implies each part has a conditional probability of failure,
given that it has not failed at time t = 14. The conditional
probability that the equipment will fail during the period 14
hours to 16 hou 3 is the ratio of the area under the in 'Jivdual
curves between 14 and 16 hours to the area under the curve from
14 hcurs to +-. In the case shown, the reliability of the
equipnent is found to be.
SERIES CASE - NORMAL DISTRIBUTION

TO FIND RELIABILITY OF EQUTPMENT E FROM TIME t = 14 to t = 16
PART A B C D
I time of last failure, 12.6 10.8 11.4 9.6
hours from 0
2 mean life measured 16.6 15.8 17.4 19.6
from last failure
3 Z =- computed for -2.6 -1.34 -2.27 -2.24
•" 14 hours
4 Z = computed for -1.6 +.16 -. 93 -1.44

a 16 hours
5 Area under normal curve .0548 .5636 .1762 ý0749

(-® to 16 hours)
6 Area under normal curve .0047 .0901 .0116 .0125

(-o to 14 holirs)
4-1
Yc
-C~
4-32
PART A B C _
7 Difference .0501 .4735 .1646 .0624
8 R .9499 .5265 .8354 -176
9 R .3917
E
7° SERIES CASE - EXPONET"AL DISTRIBUTION
When the negative exponential distribution applies to the parts

failure ratee, the probability of failure is independent of
prior operation. For any period of time t the reliabilit, of
the e~jipent for the serial case is the product of the relia-
bilities of the part3, that is
-xct
RE =e
A. x e -At
I-t C x It
D ...
S-•' + •L + AC ' ... )t

=e 'A L C B
Vie reliability of an equipment consisting of four serial parts

with NTBFs, as before of 4, 5, 6 and 1C hours, for a 2-hour
period, can be computed as follows:
I-t
Part MTBF X= R = et
MTBF
A 4 .25 .606
B 5 .20 .670
C 6 .183 .691
D 10 .100 .818
£Li,3
-
i=A
) 733
RE E
e- = e -. x 2 = e -1.467 = .230
7.4 SERIES PARALLEL CASE - EXPONENTIAL DISTRIBUTION

In the previou6 examples, it was assumed that the failure of any
one component would cause equipment failure. If there are
parallel components or series parallel combinations the principles
4-33
of cOulujiidkj'jfl Uf ~robbIicies liscussed earlier apply. A com-

putation will be -erfcrrne-l for suc)h a combination to explain the
procedure. An equipment consists of four parts, (Figure 4--34)
with part B such that a failure of B, would not constitute an
equipment failure unless Balso failed. Likewise a failure of
Bw would not constitute equipment failure unless B, also failed.
we assume a negative exponential distribution of times to fail-

ure for all parts. The reliability o£ the equipment is the
product of the reliabilities of eacI .art A, B,• and B2 C and D,
where 3. and B: must be considered together.
MTBF R(2-hours)
A 20 .05 .905
B1 10 .10 .819
B: 15 .067 .875
C 25 .04 .923
D 30 .033 .939
But the probability that both B, and B2 fail is the product

(I - RB ) x (1 - R,). The combined reliability is 1 minus the
product. Expanding the product gives RB,P,.= 1 - (I - RB)
(1 -
= 1 - 1 + RBI + RBý, -RB RB•
-RB" C - R. RB2
-B .819
RB. 87 5
RB, x RB. = .716
RBs Bp .978
The reliability R R x R x F w, RD
E B, Bp A C D
Thete last three term6 may be combined as befo-e to
Re-( A
(A :,C + XD)t
D•,
AC D
=e(.123)2 = .781
then RE (.978) x (.781) .752

4-34
z
0
F -44l
4- 35
7.5 STAAMBY PARALLEL CASE - EXPONENTIAL DISTRIBUTION
The foregoing example assumed both B, and 3. operating s'.multan-

eously as, for example, two generators operating in parallel,
where it is clear that one can handle the entire load without
increasing the probability of its failure. Let us look at a
slightly different situation, (Figure 4-36), two generators, one
operating the other not operating unless the first fails, at
which tiTe it will be substituted for the first. Two switches,
S, and S, have been added to indicate the increased complexity
of the system.
The switch, S, or S2, can fail in either of two ways. Considering

S,:
(4) It can fail to cause a transfer from B, to B2 when B,

fails;
(2) It can, in error, cause a transfer to B2 when B. has not

failed.
Let's take a closer look at that switch. It might be a starting

valve fnr the diesel engine driving generator B2 , held in the
closed position against spring pressure by a solenoid energized
whenever there is a voltage output from B1 . The valve is, of
course, locked closed electrically whenever the generator it
starts is running. Failure by the first mode might be a mechan-
ical failure, such as the valve freezing shut or a mechanical
linkage broken. Should this type of failure have occurred, the
valve cannot operate on a failure of B1 , hence a failure of B1
would cause the entire system to fail. Failure of the switch
by mode 2 might be an electrical failure, an opening of the coil
permitting the valve to open, startinq generator B2 and connec-
ting it to the line. An interlock is presumably provided to
shut down the diesel engine driving generator B1 , discrnnecting
the generator from, the line, where it remains ready to start
again should generator B, fail. Should the switch fail in the
second mode, the operation is still cuccessful unless the gener-
ator B, fails. If this should occur, the identir--I switching
arrangement on qencrator B, cannot successfully transfer back to
B, since each attempt to transfer back will result in the switch
failure trying to start B2 and dropping B, off the line.
Looking at just the four equipments (B,, Bp, S, and S,,) we can
! I;
identify the possible events that may occur. To describe the
possible outcomes an abbreviated notation will be used.
4-36
CI)
Uj
<7
z
4: i2Ci
4-37
B1 Means generator B1 operates successfully.
B, Means generator B1 fails.

I
SM1 Means switch S, or-erates successfully to transfer from.
B1 to B2.
SE1 Means switch S, does not fail electrically and so does

not cause an unnecessary transfer from B, to B2 .
SM1 Means switch S, fails to activate to cause a transfer

to B2 on the failure of B,.
SE, Means switch S, transfers the load to BE while B~is

still operating correctly.
The same notation will be used referring to the performance of

generator B2 and switch S2. (Figure 4-38). Note that the bar
above the abbreviation denotes unsuccessful operation.
The probability that at least one of the eight indicated

sequences occurs is 1.0. The sum of the probabilities of all
possible sequences, then must add up to 1.0. To compute the
reliability, or probability of success, we can compute the
individual probabilities that each successful sequence occurs
and add them, or we can compute the probability that each
unsuccessful sequence occurs and stbtract the sum from 1.
Successful Sequence 1 can be seen to be: B1 operates success-

fully, S, does not fail electrically.
Successful Sequence 2 is seen to be: B1 operates successfully

but Switch S, fails electrically, transferring the load to B2 .
Ba operates successfully and S. does not fail electrically.
Successful Sequence 3 can be seen to be: B, fails, Switch S1

operates mechanically starting generator B%. B% operates
successfully with no electrical failure of S.*
Consider now the question. What is the probability that either

B1 or B% will operate successfully for a time t.
-(RS e + BSE)t
R (Sequence 1) =RB x RSE = * e 1
4- 38
r.Lr
I
U
zr
tn
<~
° ()
~r..
-4..
oJ :
4-39
R (Sequence 2) = R x R x R SE. x (I - RSE)

-NBx t B ÷ SEB )t2
+ I• SE- -• SE t
Se xee E2jSI
R (Sequence 3) = R SM x R x R SE x (I - RB,
-(0 + x
x
X ) -I t
B SE, 2 e B,
SM,
-It
Although this is not capable of reduction to a form R Ce
i, can be solved to provide a numerical answer R i~is answer
BS
can then be multiplied with the combined product R to obtain
the final answer.
Assuming a negative exponential distribution of times to failure

for the various components a• in the previous example, with
reliabilities oP the switches as follcws:
MTBFI
SEI, SE2 50 .020
SMI, SM2 75 .013
The probability of the successful sequences can be computed to

Oe
1) .905 x .961 .870
2) .90• x .039 x .935 x .980 = .032
3) .095 x .987 x .935 x .980 = .086
The probability of successful oper3tion for a two hour period.

can be seen to be the sum of the probabilities or .988.
The probability of successful operation of the system is

.988 x .781 .763
4-40
8. REFERENCES
(1) Tables of the Binomial Probability Distri` ition - Department

of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards Applied Mathematics
Series 6, U. S. Government Printing Office.
(2) Mathematical Tabl -s Irom Hlandvbook of Chemistry and Physics;

10th Edition, Chemical Rubber Paiblishir Company.
(3) Reliability Principles and Practices; S. R. Calabro,

McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.; 1962.
(4) Statistical Process and Reliability Engineering; Dimitris N.

Chorafas, C. Van Nostrand "ompany, Inc.; 1960.
(5) System Reliability Measu;rement and Analysis; Proceedings of

the 4th National Symposium on Reliability and yuality
Control, R. R. Landers, January 1958.
(6) The Statistical Analysis of Redundant Sy,3tems: F. Moskowitz;

Proceedings of the IRE International Convention; March
21-24, 19'2.
(7) Some Reliability Aspects of System Design; F. Moskowitz

and J. B. McLean; IRE Transactions on Reliability and
Quality Control PGRQC-8; pp. 7-35; September 1956.
(8) Statistical Analysis and Optimization of Systemb; E. L.

Peterson; John Wiley and Sons, Inc.; 1961.
(9) Reliability Theory and Practice; Igor Bazovsky; Prentice-

Hall, Space Technoloqv Series. 1961.
(10) Reliability Manual- Boeing Airplane Company, Seattle,

Washington; Document No. D2-3246.
(11) Modern Pro-b,tbility Theory anO Its Applications; E. Parzen,

John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
(12) Pro-bablit_ .. ; M. Loevu. Van Nostrand Co., Princeton,

New Jer'sey.
(13) Intro~iuction to the The_,ry ot 5tatistjcs; A. Moo., McGraw-

Hill Book Company, Tnc.
5-1
Chapter 5
RELIABILITY PREDICTION
Page.:
1. STAGES OF DESIGN vs PREDICTION 5--4
1.1 Pre-Design 5- 4
1.2 Design 5- 4
1.3 Completed Design 5- 5
2. RELIABILITY PREDICTION APPROACH 5- 5

2.1 Types of Failures 5- 5
2.2 Validity of the Exponential Distribution 5- 6
2.3 Reliability Prediction Approach 5- 9
2.4 Compilation of Parts Lists 5-10
2.5 Stress Analysis 5-10
2.6 Assignment of Part Failure Rates or Probabilities
of Survival 5-10
2.6.1 Sources of Part Failure-Rate Data 5-11
2.6.2 Failure Rates 5-15
2.6.3 Environmental Stress Correction 5-16
2.6.4 Special Cases 5-20
2.7 Combining Part Failure Rate to Obtain System or
Component Reliability 5-20
3. COMPONENT RELTABILITY PREDICTION 5-21
4. EXAMPLE OF SYSTEM RELIABILITY PREDICTION 5-21

4.1 Typical System '>5-21
4.2 Exceptions to Series Parallel Solutions •5-29
4.3 Examatple of Reliability Operational Model, 5-33 ,
4.3.1 RFB Descriptions 15-33

4.3.2 Logic Diagram 5!36,
4.3.3 Reliability Equation 5-36
4.3.4 Failure Rates 5-37
4.3.5 Operating Times 5-37
4.3.6 Time Bar Graph 5-3.8
4.3.7 System Reliability 5-38
4.4 Summary 5-38
5. RELIABILITY GROWTH APPROACH 5-40

5.1 Reliability Growth Models 5-40
5.2 Application of Growth Approach 5-42
6. PURPOSES FOR RELIAbILITY PREDICTION 5-43
7. REFERENCES 5-44
5-2
Chapter 5
RELIABILITY PREDICTION
Reliability prediction, performed as part of the system

development, is analoqous to the analyses the desiqner makes on
measurable performance characteristics such as voltage, pressure
or temperature. In desigqn the designer computes the expected
performance values. He: used techniques verified by previous
experi.ence. Later testing merely confir-ms his analysis. Wh ile
reliability is not measurable in the same sense, it is a tangible
charac7teristic of the design. Reliability prediction is the
analyt ical method of determining-z w_ t the consequences of design
decisions made hefcre the manufacture and test of tne equipment
will be. Tt is based on techniques confirmed by previous ex-
perience. It provides a ,uantitative measure of the reliabilit.,
of the equipment as designed which may be compared to the require-
ments to assure that the final design has achievei those
recuireinents. The operational reliability of the equipment may
be compared against the predicted value to identify areas where
improved training or improved production processes can be
effr-cti.1ely used. In this chapter we will describe how the
prediction is performed.
As described in Chapter 3, the prerequisite for performing a

system analysis is a d9--cription of the system. This description
is usefully provided hy a system model, including
(a) Identification of the system to its component

parts .
(b) Definition of failure of the system in terms of

functions required.
(c) Environmient in which the system must operate.
',d) Time of required operation.
For reliability prediction, the system model must describe the

relationship between component failures and system failures.
This relationship for most systems can be adequately represented
by either series (serial) or parallel. (redundant) models or by
combinations of the two as discussed in Chapt,,r 4. In the series
system it is assumed that a failure of any of the components will
result in the failure of the system, c>r in other words, the
system dill ,'periie successfully only if all the componcnts
operate successfully. This is ar.alogous to a serit.s electrical
chir,,; tr
circ':it n . c l S'. t st at t
5--stem will faill o:- if 311 t"" , n s fa i ' in , theV

'Acors0 the st Ce,
n ,.il .:crate C S Iccs t2 S'. i I an. :C ;f th.
components operate success fu liv. T , analogous 0o a carel1o-
electrical lig-htinc circuit.
As a quick review, the svstoem moco'Cs can lr.- mo-e , recjiC, l

described in ter.s ,1f events, the s _,ccss ,r rai r f
cormconents of the system. Let S co-note the event that th. system
success.ful and Si the event th 1 the th comoncent -cerates
slcces fully. The event S in a ories s'ste-. mahc c.
,f
cormonents can be e>:n-resscd as a combination of tn- ,-. ,nts
Sj, !i=l, 2,...,m, as
S = S1 and S2 and...and Sm
toe intersection of the events S4. In a similla -the event

S in a parallel system can be expressed as a combination of
the events Si.
S = S1 C" S2 or...or Sn
the ,nion of the Sj.
The reliabil'ty of the series system can then be written

n r,
R= sP(S) 1 P(Sj) R.
in which R1 is the reliability of the jth component. In the

same manner, the reliability of the parallel system becomes
m m
%ý P(S) I -
jj1l
(I-P(s )) = i fl= (1-n.)
Techniques useful in the analysis and prediction of equipi;ent

reliability have been uncle development since about 1957. In
the field of electroni-s the techniques have been developed
extensively; the met ods utilized in e,.aluating reliability in
mechanical systems has been a moie recent developlnent. At the
same time that the prcdiction techniques have been evolving,
emphasis has been placed on the giatherina of failure-rate data
on parts and the measurement of reliability of existing equip-
ments in order to provide numerical significance to the various
mathematical expressions used in describing reliability. It
must be remembered that the real value of these numerical
jxpressions lit, not in the number itself, but in the information
it conveys and the use made of that information. Reliability
5-4
predictions do not, in themselves, contribute to the reliability

of a system. Control cf failure frequency for any system can be
improved with more complete knowledge of failure modes and fail-
ure mechanisms (Chapter 12). Reliability predictions provide a
set of criteria for selecting courses of action for this investi-
gation and, therefore, affect the actual reliability of a system.
Reliability prediction techniques are those methods used to

obtain a numerical indication of the inherent reliability of a
device. Inherent reliability is the reliability potential of the
design, excluding the degradation which will occur in production,
storage and operational use.
1. STAGES OF DESIGN vs PREDICTION
R'Žliability predictions should be started as soon as the design

begins to take shape in identifiable components, before the
selection of such components as parts of the system is made.
The prediction should be used as a working design tool, used to
compare the effect of alternate possible courses of action so
that the best can be selected. The prediction should be kept
;,ý,rru2rt as the design becomes more fixed, to be used in evalua-
-•-on of interface problems, to confmirm previous analyses as test
results accrue and to provide an analytical evaluation for
proposed changes. The prediction changes as the design develops
o;s follows:
1.1 ['RE-DESIGN
rei-LtioNs made in the pre-design stage are based on little or

no detailed design information. They are used in feasibility
stadies, evaluation and comparison of alternate design configura-
tions, and in reliability allocation. Because of the limited
information on which they are based, these predictions cannot be
""is precise as later prediction-. These initial (pre-design)
predictions do not cuntribute appreciably to identifying
specific reliability problems or indicating areas of data de-
ficiency. However, tov influencing decisions on design concepts
S:ind tlie scope of the reliability program, they can have a
Sbt.i,•id]. infl.rence on system reliability and system develop-
.1.2 DESIGN
tPre-desiqn predictions must be updated periodically in order to

-,id in making timely decisions on design details as well as on
Shr: ot.h1er elements of the program. Predictions during the design
5-5
phase are made after the pre-des!jn prediction and prior to

design completion. As the design progresses, consecutive
predictions can be made with increasing precision. These
successive predictions will be based on the accumulated knowledge
of tle parts to be used, the application stresses, the manner il
which the functions are accomplished, and the environmental
conditions to which the parts will be subjected.
1.3 COMPLETED DESIGN
TWhen a design is completed, an updated prediction is made. This

prediction will be the best reliability estimate, before actual
reliability measurement through operational testing, because it
will reflect complete design information. This is not the final
prediction to be made on this design, however. As the design is
chdnged the reliability prediction must be re-'ised accordingly.
2. RELIABILITY PREDICTION APPROACH
A system is a collection of parts mechanically and/or electri-

cally joined together in order to perform certain specified
functions. If a system is capable of satisfactorily performing
its functions at some point of time, it will continue to have
that capability until a significant change occurs in the opera-
ting characteristics of some part, or group of parts. Part
failure occurs when the characterist'-:- of a part, or group of
parts, have changed to the pDint Wi>ere they exceed the limits
within which the system functions are satisfactorily performed.
Whenever a system fails, a group of parts have failed. Thus,
the reliability of a system is directly related to the number of
parts it contains and the reliabilities of these individual parts.
The prediction of the reliability of a system is the determination

of the expected reliabilities of individual parts as they are used
in the system. The reliability of a part is determined by three
factors: (a) characteristics of the part at the beginning of
the operating period of interest, (b) the characteristi- limits
which constitute failure, and (c) the magnitude of the changes
occurring in characteristics during the period of operation,
which may Le directly related to environment, or physical or
electrical stress.
We consider two categories of parts ta.iLure. The first

(Catastrophic Failure) is that in which functional character-
istics change abruptly and drastically, e.g., a tube becoming
WWI
5-6
inoperative due to heater opening or a pump bearing seizure.

The second category (Drift Failure) is that in which there is a
relatively gradual change in measurable functional character-
istics until operation is no longer satisfactory, e.g., a tubý
whose transconductance diminishes to the point of failure due to
a build-up of interface resistance, or the gridual wear on the
pivot of a cam, permitting a misalignment in an operating
mechanism.
Prediction of failure is a process that remains basically the

same regardless of the data or procedures used. It is based on
the premise that like parts have approximately the same relia-
bility in one system as in any other system, if they are
subjected to the same stresses. This permits the -pplication of
data obtained from prior operation of parts to predict their
reliabilities in new systems.
At this point we must further clarif-v the relationship between

part failure and system failure. A part used in a redundant
element of a system cannot cause the system to fail unless the
other redundant element "fails." For parts in a redundant
element, failure is redefined as occurring 'when the character-
istics of a part, or group of parts, exceed the limits within
which the system's functions would be satisfactorilh performed
if the part(s) were not in a redundant path. Therefore, the
reliability of a system which contain7 redundant elements is not
simply the product of the reliabilities ot its parts. A more
complete formula relating system reliability to part. reliabili-
ties must be used for predicting the reliability of a system
which includes redun.lancy (see Chapter 4).
2.2 VALIDITY OF THE EXPONENTIAL DISTRLBUTION
The assumption of the exponential distribution of times to

failures in conducting predictions of reliability of systems is
usually made because of three facts.
(a) In general, sufficient data is not available to

provide confidence in the selection of an alternate
distribut ion.
(b) The mathematical computation is grettly simplified

by this assumption.
(c) It provides answers on the conservative qide.

5-7
Lacking any theoretical basis for assigning a distribution of

time to failure, one naturally turns to empirical data for
possible generalizations about the nature of the distribution.
In 1952, Davis (3) published an article containing an analysis.
of failure data from a wide assortment of unrelated systems. He
concluded, "The exponential theory of failure appears to describe
most of the systems examined here. Those systems which exhibit
reasonable agreement with this failure theory are characterized
by predominance of human errors as the cause or a careful and
well developed operating technique for minimizing failure.
Systems which are subject to a wide range of environmental
severity also appear to follow this pattern." He also found
that some of the systems examined generated failures in a way
best described by a normal distribution, but these systems were
characterized by what we now refer to as wearout failures.
The Davis article has been referred to quite often as justifica-

tion for the assumption of an exponential distribution of the time
to failure of electron tubes. Further evidence was published in
a series of ARINC monographs (4, 5,.6, 7), in which a large
number of electron tube failures were found to fcllow an
exponential distribution. Other electronic components, however,
were found to fail in a manner best described bl;, a normal
distribution. Kao (7) has more recently found that a Weibull
distribution best fitted the failure data relative to over two
thousand electronic tube failures. Weaver and Smith (8) have
found that the failure times of certain electromechanical devices
can best be fitted by a mixed Weibull distribution. The above
evidence casts doubt on the notion that a single distribution
can safely be used to represent all types of failures.
MacFarlane and Mickel (9) show that'the exponential time to

failure assumption provides a reasonably accurate solftion in
the case of normally distributed times to failures where each.
failure is repaired as it fails, as long as the standard devia-
tion is greater than one tenth of the mean life of the parts.
The important concept is (Figure 5-8) that when a population of
lif.e parts enter service together at time t = o, they will all
fail in a greater or less concentrated period centering about
their mean life. When, however, each of the part population has'
been replaced several times, thereby maintaining the population,
the individual ages of the replacements become so well mixed
that failures and renewals occur in nearly random fashion. As .,
the equipment becomes more complex and as parts each portraying
individual failure characteristics increase in number, the"
"Random" approximation improves in accuracy.
5-8
-4
z
/
z
I"
/ 0
\/
0
-
H
ii
II
4
)-9
The best procedure to follow in s~lecting the distribution to

use in the computation is to examine whatever evidence might be
at hand, select a distribution which seems to be compatible with
the evidence, and submit the selected distribution to suitable
statistical tests of goodness of fit. For example, if it seemed
reasonable to the engineer that a constant failure rate would be
a characteristic of the device, one may hypott~esize 4 hdt the
time to failure follows an exponential distribution. If wear
out failures are expected, a normal distribution may> be a
suitable first estimate. Expe-ience with similar devices may
indicate that a W,'ibul] ilistribution is appropriate. In the
absence of ar! t.chnical reasons for selecting a particular
distribution, one might examine '-everal of the distributions
which may be compatible with t ie expected failure pattern. The
Weibull, exponential, normal, and gamma distributions would all
be suitable candidates for a first approximation. Distributions
of time to rail' re are carried to greater depth in Chapter 9.
For the: -urpos~s oL prediction of reliability, in the absence of

goo," information on the distribution of times to failure, the
assumption of the negative uxponential distribution should
be used.
2.3 RFT.IABILIT'Y PREDICTION APPROACH
To acc(,,nplish the prediction of reliability of a complex system,

the fol'owinq steps are recommended.
(a) Develop the system model (Chapter 3)
(1) Mission Objectives and Requirements

(2) Functional Flow Diagram
(3) Ev.nt Sequencingj and Operating Times
(4) Syst .m Operation Modes
(5) Env •ronmental Profile
(6) Success/Failure Criteria
;)
j Logic Representation
(b) Develop a formula for the combination of individual

failure rates (or mean times between failures) of
the sub.systems or components to derive the
reliability of the system (Chiapter 4).
(c) 2ompile parts lists fcr subsvytc.ds or components.
(d) Perform Stress Analysis.

5-10
(0) Assign failure rates to parts.

(f) Combine part failure rates to determine relir-
bilit<'_- ef subsystems or components.
(g) Compute system reliability.
2.4 COMPILATION OF PARTS LISTS
List the individual parts comprising each block of the -'elia-

bility block diagram. Even though all parts of block are Listed
only those parts which can cause the failure cf a block are
considered in the reliability prediction. Parts lists wil,
serve as basic worksbeets to determine stresses, part failure
rates, and estimates. When entering part descriptions, al o
record ratings, operating voltages, currents and power di-:s oa
tion.
2.5 STRESS ANALYSIS
Record on the worksheet the oF r- inq voltaqes, currents and

other characteristics needed to i1-ulate stress levels of
electronic equipment (for mechanic- equipment, a limited amoean-
of data is available correlating th2 rate of failure with stress
levels).
(a) Determine from design analysis and/or actual

measurements the operating voltages, curronts.
power dissipation, etc., for each part.
(b) Calculate the stress levels by compariny oper,-

ting characteristics or cond:tions with the
rated values.
2.6 ASSIGNMEýN" OF PART FAILURE RATES OR PROBABILITIES

OF SURVIVAL
This step in the reliability prediction consists of assiqnino

failure rates, or some other measure of reliability, to the
individual parts. Most part failure rate cdti is computxd
assuming a negative exponenti-l distribution. Thc stress lev'els,
determined in the stres- analysis, ambic-nt temperatares, and
other applicable infor-mation will be used to mosi fy )r adjust
these failure rates f,)r use in a particular s-;st,,t ani, or
ariplication. If th-, ;tr-e:s 'ev-s o-: tih, environiiontaL
characteristics vary during a mission, separau,ý failure rates
-ist b"e alcilated fo,- eaih ii3sioi phase.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . S..
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5-11
It is evident that a key factor in making a reliability predic-

tion is the determination and/or availability of failure rates.
In some cas'es the failure rate of an equivalent equipment can be
obtained directly from past performance data. However, the
failure rate of an equipment is not generally available in the
design stage. This is due to the lack of operating and failure
data from which a failure rate could be determined. Therefore,
the determination of the failbre rate of ar •-uipment ,hile in
the design stage is usually based on the details of the design
that are known, i.e., types of parts, ratings, type, duration
and magnitude of stresses expected, and the kind of operating
and failure oata from which the expected failure rate can be
,•e ermined.
2.6.1 Sources of Part Failure-Rate Data:
A. Shipboard Applications
1. Handbook for the Prediction of Shipboard and Shore

Electronic Reliability by R. G. Stokes (NAVSHIPS
93820, Apr. 1961).
2. A sununary of Reliability Prediction and Measure-

ment Guidelines for Shipboard Electronic
Equipment (Vitro Labs Rpt. #98, Apr. la57).
3. Techniques for Reliability Measurement and

Prediction Based on Field Failure Data (Vitro
Labs Rpt. #80, Oct. 1955).
4. Study of Maintenance Cost Optimization and

Reliability of Shipboard Machinery (United
Control Corporation Report, June 1962).
(AD263428.)
B. As a Function of Electrical & Environmental (External)

Stress
I. Reliability Stress Analysis for Electronic

Euiment (RCA Rpt. OTR-1100 or NAVSIITPS 9•0-193.
Nov. 1956) . (RCA Report TR'-, 116-I updates this.)
2. Philosophy and Guidelines for Reliability Predic-

tion of Ground Electronic Equipments (RCA Ppt.
4P4-57, Oct. 1957).
7. Reliability: Predicting Thermal Results by
- I
5-12
T. C. Reeves (Mi litar'" E ectronics, July 1957)
'4. P.ADC Reliability Notebook (Depcrt #RADC-TR-

S58-111)
5. Reliability Stress Analysis for Electronic

Equipments, MIL-HDBK-217, 31 Dec. 1961.
6. Prediction of Field Reliability for Airborne

Electronic Systems, ARINC Research Corporation
Publication No. 203-1-344, 31 Dec. 1962.
C. Utilizing Adjustment (K) Factors
1. Investigation of Electronic Equipment Reliability

(Aeronautical Radio, Inc., Air Force r~eliability
Assurance Program, Proqress Rpt. #1, Feb. 1956).
2. Improved Techniques for Design-State Prediction

by H. B. Brown. W. C. Fredrick, and H, r. Kennedy
(Air Force Reliability Assurance Program, Progress
Report #2, AINC Research Corp., Pub. #110-1-136,
Apr. 1959).
3. Reliability and Maintainability of Military

Electronic Ejuipmenrt by J. H. Hershey (Bell
Telephone Labo, 3rd Signal Maintenance Siposium,
Apr. 1959).
4. Reliability Analysis for Electronic Equipment,

Radio Corporation of America, TP-IQ-416-L,
jan. 1959.
5. "Comnponent Part. Failure Rat. Analysis for

Prediction of Equipment Mean Life," R. L.
Vander Harem, Collins Radio Co., CTR 19,,
March 1958.
6. "Reliability Evaluation Techniques for

Electronic Equipment, Defense Electronic
Products Division, iRadio Co poration of
America, Central EnginLering, Camden, N. J.,
Vol. 14, 1962.
I-
5-13
D. Generic Failure Rates & Application (K) F~ctors
1. Component PaLt Failure Rates Associated with

Installation Environment by D. E. Earles
(Martin-Denver Report iM60-47, Dec. 1960).
2. Reliability Growth Prediction During the Initial

Design Analysis by P. R. Earles (Proceedirnjs of
the 7th National Symposiimn on Peliability and
Quality Control, Jaiiuary 1961).
3. Reliability Application and Analysis Gulide b"y

D. R. Earles (Martin-Denver Report #M60- ,
Failure Rate Handbook, July 1961).
4. Bureau of Naval Weapons Failure Rate Data Han_-

book, (FARADA). U.S. NrvaL Ordnance Lab., Co-rona,
California. (Available only to qualified
contractors and government aqencies.)
5. Failure Rates, D. R. Farlos and M. F. Eddins,

AVCO Corporation, April 1962. (An updated
version appears in Proceedinqs, Ninth National
Synposiu, on Reliability and Quality control,
Jan. i9o3.)
6. Temco Reliability, Manual - Vo' . I, C. M. SChwahii,

Temrno Electronics and Missiles Company, Dallas,
Texas, July 1961.
E. Mechanical and Electro-Mechanical Devices
i. PrpL•sed Procedures for Reliabilitvy tress

A-aivsis of Mechanical and Electro-M.chanical
Devices by I. Kirkpatrick (PCA, Ltd., ReporL
*176, Feb. 1958).
2. Reliability Analysis Data for Systems and

Cc-•nuonent Design Engineers, General Electric
Company, Missile and Space Vehicle Department,
Report TRA-P73-74, distributed by U. 17. Depart-
ment of Com',¶erce, Office of Technical Services,
Wishi.ngton 25. D. C., as PB 181080.
F. Assigning Reliability Indices
1. Prediction of Missile Reliability by 11.R.
I-
5-14
Powell and M. J. Kirby (Sperry Engineering

Review, Jul.-Aug. 1955).
G. Active Elements
1. One Reliability Prediction in Satellite SyStems

by G. T. Bird (ARINC Research Corp. Pb,h.#4226-
1-205, May 1960).
2. A Technique for Estimating Ballpark Reliability

Figures byf Tube Counting (RADC Rpt. #RADC-TN-
58-81, March 1958).
H. Part Variability
1. Designing Reliability into Electronic Circuits

by A. H. Benner and B. Meredith (Proceedings
of the National Electronics Conference, Vol.
10, 1954).
2. Circuit Design Conqepts for High Reliability

by F. E. Dreste (Proceedings of the 6th
National Symposium on Reliability and Quality
Control, 1960).
3. Statistics: Key to Reliable Military Electronic

Design by F. E. Dreste (Military Electronics,
i
Vol. VI, No. 3, March 1959).
4. The Evaluation and Prediction of Circuit

Performance by Statistical Techniques by
S. Marini and R. T. Williams (Proceedings of
the Joint Military-Industry Guided Missile
Reliability Symposium, Nov. 1957).
5. Designing for Reliability by S. A. Meltzer

(IRE Transactions on Reliability and Quality
Control, Sept. 1956).
6. Reliability and Components Handbook (Motorola

Western Military Electronics Center, Jan. 1959).
7. Electronic Parts Failure Rates Analysis by D. J.

Fisk, Hughes Aircraft Company, Aerospace Group,
Culver City, C.ilifornia, Feb. 1963.
8. Reliability Data Book - Engineering Reliability,

5-15
Martin Company, Electronic Systems and

Products Division, Baltimore, Maryland,
June 1962.
These sources contain part failure rates based on part character-

"istics and applied stresses. The same source nf failure rates
should be used throughout all reliability pre Uion calcula-
±.
tions (for a particular system) because the failure rate for the
same part may be different in each of the sources. This is
due to the fact that the •ailure rates in each source are not based
on the same operating conditions and/or failure criteria. These
sources categorize parts and tubes by their physical character-
istircs and function. Variations in failure rates are presented
as a funrction of stress severity expected and the stress level
for which the part is rated, i.e., voltage, power, frequency,
temperature, actuation rate, speed of rotation, etc.
2.6.2 Failure Rates: Failure rates can be expressed in various

ways:
(a) Failures per hour
(b) Percent failures per thousand hours
(c) Failures per thousand hours
(d) Failures per million hours
(e) Bits
2'
The bit is usually considered to be the minimum failur'6 rate

which would be experienced and is equal to 1 x 10-8 failures per
hour.
Table 3.is provided as an aid in converting failure rates tol the

desired units. To use the table, sel.ect the units to be Convert-
ed at the left and multiply by the factor at the intersectioni'\%
with the column headed by the desired units, e.g., to,converti
failure rate of 1.4% failures per thousand hours to failures per
hour, multiply 1.4 by 10-5 to obtain 0.000014 failures per hou:r
UP:i 2P T.s T~
pý wvTi P AT'i
Bits Fails,'l06hrs X."lO hr' P.-4ls,,0 3 hrs Faij , hr
Bits 1 10-2 I 0-3 0- 5i0-8
2 10-6
Fails/i 6 0- 10-
nrs
,/103 hrs 110 1 10-2
Fails/10 3 105 103 102 1 10-3

hrs
Fails/hr 108 10 6 105 101
2.6.3 Envirormental Stress Correction: The availdbility of

dependable failure rate data is essential in order to arrive at
a meaningful reliability prediction. Unfortunately, the data
available from the various sources are based on dissimilar
failure criteria and/or different use environments. It is for
this reason that the tabulated failure rates may vary consider-
ably. A list of a few basic failure rates fromn thirteen sources
is presented in Figure 5-17. An inspection of the table shows
that it is not uncommon -o nave variations of three orders of
magnitude for many types of parts.
For example, the data presented in MIL-HDBK-217 are based on

three classes of ground-based equipments; i.e., a long-range
search radar, a communications radio set, and a radar identifica-
tion set. Part failure rates are considered to apply to ground
based or laboratory bench conditions. In comparison the Jata
presented in NavShips 93820 was based on average severity levels
found to represent several dozens of equipment types used in
shipboard applications. ARINC Research Report 203-1-344 was
based on some 200 million hours of operation in 9 different air-
borne qyvterz.
It is evident that care must be followed in selecting and utili-

zing any source ot failure rate data for a specific system and/
or application. There are wide variations in the quality of
failure and data analysis as well as the effects of factors stch
as success/failure criteria, applied stresses, and operating
environments. Many types of parts do not have derating curves
available. The FARADA Handbook offers by far the widest selec-
tion of data, with good source documentation. Care must be takcei
5-17
c~ 0t4 0 0o to Q
C; -l 0 to m CD
C-44
710 C;,t
cc 0 cm w C;
"0 to to t- to-
0 o0 O
0 04 0 0 to C.I
Go t to Li "l
C; C;C; C4a; t: " 4 W4 14 -
"t-4 wo Q o to U) Go (o) V
o) W o 0 mI 00 "4 " V- 4 v') Q-
V-4~"
" t "4
to 0q to to 0 t Qo
,
0 0 4 04 "o
Z4 "4 " C4Q 1 to
0 9 9
0 0 000 0 0V
Cq to 04 0
P44
0.0
to N
1 4 -4
0 C0
U-F-
V a)
LO~ 0
If' Z
J4,,
c)~a
0 o Lr
Le)-
Ha
4< &.
CC
Lj > M U, 0U Z
ý
,-ý t- 0-
" ~5-1.9
w.hen u,3ing FARADA to convert failare rates tc a common environ-

mental base.
In many reliability prediction proceduree the basic part failure

rates must be modified to take into account the expected environ-
mental, electrical, mechanical, and thermal stresses. A reasonable
point estimate of system reliability can only be made after
extensive stress analysis. The predicted reliability may not be
as accurate as is desired, but the procedure is useful in focusing
attention on potential areas of unreliability.
_n general, correction tacto-c will take a •rrm similar to the
following equation:
S••0••K:•
= •..K, ... Kn),
where: i is the adjusted failure rate, i, is the basic, or gen.-

eric failure rate, and K, represents the correction factors
needed to modify the basic failure rate due to differences in
applied stresses, ratio of likely tolerance failures to random
catastrophic failures, external environments, maintenance pra--
ct;.ces, complexity, observed cycling effects, etc.
Reliability prediction techniques vary in the degree of utiliza-

tion or consideration or correction factors.
a. AVCO mcthod (Report listed in paragraph 2.6.1 D3): In

order to predict the failure rate of a system, the parts generic
failure rates, which have been normalized to laboratory computer
conditions, are multiplied by application or derating factors
and then by factors which represent the installation environment.
b. MIL HDBK 217 method (Reliability Stress Analysis for

Electronic i•quiprlents): To obtain a failure rate prediction
for a system by this method, the parts basic failure rates are
modified by expected electrical and thermal factors and then
further modified by a factor related to the environment in
which the system is expected to operate.
The following table compares the environmental factors used in

the AVCO method ,.,th those used in the MIL HDBK 217 method.
5-20
TABLE 2
Installation Environment Environmental Correction Factors

A17CO MIL HDBK 217
Shipboard 15.0 1.0

Ground 8.0 1.0
Aircraft 50.0 6.5
Missiles 900.0 80.0
Satellite: Launch Phase 900.0 80.0
Boost Phase 800.0 80.0
Orbit Phase 1.0 1.0
2.6.4 Special Cases: Data applicable to parts whose failure

rates change with time, to one-shot devices and/or to parts
whose probabilities of eurvival do not depend on time, should
be recorded in the form of a probability. If the probability of
survival is time-dependent, the corresponding value must be
recorded for each of the time periods under investigation.
2.7 COMBINING PART FAILUJRE RATE TO OBTAIN SYSTEM OR COMPONENT

RELIABILITY
In the Radar example of Chapter 3, an example of redundant use

of controls, transmitters, receivers and indicators was shown.
The logic diagram, at the bottom of the chart (Figure 3-19 ) shows
the alternate paths that would constitute success, similar to
the example in Chapter 4, (Figure 4-37). An alternate method of
a mapping technique for solving problems of combined series-
parallel probabilities is given in Reference 10. The logic dia-
V gram shown describes the rule of combination of probabilities
for the combined system. For each component (controls, synchro-
rnizer, transmitter) the Dbassemblies ,a.st be identified and a
block diagram constructed to show the interrelationships so that
any redundant sections can be identified. It is not usually
warranted to attempt to evaluate redundancies between parts,
(transistors, capacitors or relays), since in the usual design,
such redundancies will have a relatively insignificant effect on
the system reliability. In some special cases, where such re-
dundancy is employed as a reliability improvement technique to
solve a specific problem, it can and ssould be computed.
The failure rate of a block which contains only parts in series

having constant failure rates is the sum of the parts failure
rates. To obtain the failure rate of a block containing redun-
dant groups of parts, or parts which do not have constant failure
rates, substitute the part failure rates or probabilities in the
block reliability formula developed from the system model.
5-21
COMPONENT RELIABILITY PREDICTION
Figures 5-22 and 5-23 demonstrate the computation of reliability

of a component. All parts are considered in series, that is, a.
failure of any part will cause a failure of the entire component.
The .ailure -ates of the individual parts, corrected for applica-
tion stress and envirotunental factors are added together to
r.utain a failure rate which is converted to the MTBF shown.
NAVSHIPS 93820 provides a more comprehensive example of predic-

tion of reliability. It establishes four leve]s of reliability
prediction for electronic equipment based on the degree of know-
ledge of the system. Method D, the most comprehensive, applies
derating (or load factors) to the parts based on application
data.
As previously mentioned, the prediction of reliability of mech-

anical systems in lagging far bchind the electronic systems.
Some data on expected failure rates for mature (well developed)
mechanical components is available itL the literature. This must
be used with caution, but can be use& with engineering judgment.
If a proposed hydraulic system, for example, is about the size
and sees about the same load factors as the hydraulic components
in an airplane, data from airplane experience (FARADA for example)
can be used. Where the sizes are much greater and the loads less,
the values given may be extremely pessimistic. In this case,
personal experience and consultation with suppliers of hydraulic
components typical of the proposed system will prcvide a better
guide.
A prediction is an estimate of achievable reliability. Engineer-

ing judgment may in many instances be superior to available data.
If the purpose of achieving high reliability is to be served, the
engineer must seek out the facts and apply sound judgment to
their interpretation. See Chapter 12 for a more comprehensive
approach to the prediction of reliability of mechanical systems.
4. EXAMPLE OF SYSTEM RELIABILITY PREDICTION
4.1 TYPICAL SYSTEM
The first step in calculating the system reliability is to obtain

a reliability estimate of the individual subsystems. The follow-
ing reliabilities will be assumed for illustrative purposes
(Figure 5-24):
-22
0. zi -
>1
o-) F-
N
Ki -Hi'
N - -i -
I-v.
- z
L2VM
y
0 AJ
I
-
-i -
- -"
0-- ______
p ji
2
(IQ -
-2 3
.2~ Cl X
'-4 c C c c
I
CM
En TI :, c
.4.___ T "
i V, T,
ct :t
X 71-
w- .4° r , •t
L. J.S,. .,
7~I2
-c
C1 N -j- CN
. -
.. . o •f'. I-•
1...4' -
'J~I
F-i-i
I
j - I
LIJ
I 7E]
I K
- I
U-'
H
I LI
-
1
H [
ci
i.j
5 -2 5
"-_. :•.si-q67 >••
nex t C' t r -ne the series an' paralle1

circuits a-. es•t-
. h•L is, success iv,,'; simp er block diagrams. This
is il!ustrate,d s f2,ilows:
Step L: Reduce t-,e parw llel combim.ation of items -, 10, and 11

to, sinile Item A, in. series with the remain.nq circuit.
(Figure 5-26•
A : - (1 - R9)
R (1 - P ) (1 - R
1 - (1 - 0.9983) (1 - 0.9980) (I -- 0.9967)
0 09999
. +
Step 2: Reduce the series parallel combination of Items 6, 7,

and 8 to a single Item
R - (1- R ) (1 - R R8
1-
L (1- 0.9980 •1- (0.9980) (0.9989)1
- 0.9999 v
St-'p 3: Reduce the series combination of Items 2 and 3 to a

single Item L.
RL R 2 x R3
- 0.9950 x 0.9967
= 0.9917
Reduce the series combination cl items 4, 5, and a -o

a single Item S.
"- R R4 x R x R
= 4 5
-0. 997 5 x 0. 1%7 x 0. 9999 +
5-26
i -
--- 1i
i K
ITI
TI-4
Noc
S] -
-1-
-
- Ll
i"
U U
5-27
= 0.9961 +
Step 4: Reduce the parallel combination of Items L and S to a

single Item B.
RB = 1 - (i1-PR) •(1 - RS
RB (I-RL RS
- 1 - (1 - 0.9917) (1 - 0.9961)
- 0.9999 +
Step 5: By reducing the seriJe combination of Item 1, B, and A

-weget the overall system reliability, Rtotal"
R. R R R.P
total I B A
= 0.9980 x 0.9999+ x 0a0'99+
= 0.9978 +
The reliability of a system compod of two parallel redundant

branches, each containing two series subassemblies would be cal-
culated from the following equation: (Figure 5-28).
R = 1 - (I - RA, R ) (1 - RA_ RB.)
A system composed of two series sets of paiz.llel redundant sub-

assemblies would have a reliability given by the following
equation:
L- ( - RAl) (1 - RA 2 )li1 - (1 - RBl) (- RB2 )]
Assuming only a non-transmitting mode of failure, equal relia-

bilities of the corresponding components in Systems I and II,
and that there is no physical interaction that would change the
system reliability, and giver:
R Al RA2= 0.950
RBI RB2 0.900
then RS = 1 - [I - (I - 0.950) (0.900)][1 - (0.950) (0.900)]
= 0.979 for System I,
and PS [l - (I - 0.950)(1 - 0.950)[1 - (1 - 0.900)(1-0.900)]

= 0.988 for System 1l.
51-2
caI
zI
0I
uI
zI
5-29
It is possible to demonstrate mathematically that under the

_.-nv', ssumptions the reliability of SYSTEM II is better than
the rel-iability of SYSTEM I. The numerical results above cor.firm
th.-i point.
4.2 E!XCEP'TIOITS TC SERIES PARALLEL SOLIYrIONS
All reliability problems cannot be reduced to clear-cut cases of

series, para"lIel or stand-by models. Consider the case illus-
trated in Figvre 5-30.
A in'd At Enre in series and so are B and B'. Paths A-P' and B-B'
tre in par-•!lel, so that an output is present if at least one path
is furnction-ijng properly. However, to improve
I reliability, unit
C is added, Its function is to supply A or B , if necessary,
when an p;ý-'opriate signal is received. C is not in parallel
with A or B, and hence the circuit will not resolve to a simple
parallel-scries coxnbination.
To solve the problem on hand, use can be mdde of Bayes probabil-

ity leirma, which 4n terms of reliability, states:
Q = Qs (if C Jis good) RC + Qs (if C is bad) QC
wnere QS denotes the probability of system failure
RCel denotes the reliability of block C
QC denotes the probability of failure of block C
In otrher words this therem states, that the probability of

failure of the complete system (no output) is the probability of
the system failing if C is good, times the reliability of block
C plus the probability of system failure if C is bad times the
probability of C failing.
Now, if C is go, the system will fail only if both A' and B'
fail. A' and 13Bbeing in parallel, the probability of system
failure (the unreliability of the system) is then:
Qs (if C is good) = (1-R A) (1-R B,)
If C is bad, the system reduces to a common series-parallel

system and the probability of system failure is:
Q (if C is bad) (1-RA R :) (-R B ,)
S A.A BB
5-30
z
z
5-31
where (1-R R A is the unreliability of A-A series path, and

A A
(1-RB P B) is the unreliability of B-B' series path. The unrelia-
bility of the whole system can nov' be written:
Qs = (1-RA ) (1-RB,) RC + (l-R AR A) (1-R BR B) (l-Rc
Hence the reliability of the system is:
Rs = l-Qs 11-Rc (1R A, ) (1-RBI) - (1-R C) (1-RAR A') (1-RBR ')
In order .a illustrate further the application of Bayes Lemma,

consider the following example:
Example: A 30KV, GO cps transmission line comes to a paper mi.ll

area and is there stepped down to a 440V by two main distribu-
tion. transformsrs, blocks A and B (See Figure 5-32). These
blocks also have cirruit Lreakers associatcd wi-h trans-
t
formers and required to protect the transformer in case of short-
circuit or overload.
we assume in this case that the reliability of the transmission

line is 100%. Hence we can consider A and B as two independent
sources of power. A' and B'include the distribution equipment
(circuit breakers, cabling, bus, etc.) for power supplies A and
B respectively. The outputs of A' and B' are connected together
and thus feed the load in parallel.
As in most piocess industries, a power failure is rather critical

and will cause extensive losses, because re-starting of the plant
after recovery of power cannot be immediately effected. There-
fore reliability must !,- increased considerably by adding a third
power source, C, which Lunctions as a standby for both primary
sources. C is a diesel-engine or steam-turbine-driven three
phase alternator, with its two circuit breakers, CBl, CB2. Now,
without block C, if, for instance, A fails, B will feed the load,
but the parallel redundancy is lost. With C in the circuit a
parallel redundancy is maintained if either A or B malfunctions.
Assuming the following reliability values for the blocks A, A

B, B' and C, let us compute the system reliability for the cases
without and with block C.
Let R RB 0.8
. R~~ABp:o9<
R R 0.94
A P
R 0.
c - 0.8
5-32
I I I
r.• z
Ik I:
I p
5-3 3
a) Without block C
(I-R AR ) (1-P P
R ) = (1- 0-8 x 0.9) (1-0.8 x 0,9)
= 0.078
R = l-Q = 1-0.078 = 0.922

s s
b) Block C included
Rs = 1-RcC (1-R A ,)(1-R B ,) - (1-R C b (1-R R ,)

A RB )
(1-R BB
= 0.976
As -an he seen the reliability of the system has improved about

5.4%, after block C was inserted. By comparing the decrease in
unreliability, the improvement appears even more dramatic. The
,inreliabilities in the two cases are:
a) Q = 0.078 = 7.8%
b) Qs = 0.024 = 2.4%
En other words the system unreliability has dropped from 7.8% to

2.4%, a factor of 3.25.
4.3 _XAMPLE OF RELIABILITY OPERATIONAL MODEL
Figure 5-34 illustrates the power generation section of a qround

support electrical system for a missile site. In order to evalu-
ate the system reliability, failire rate data for all equipment
in the system must be known or estimated.
The system will be broken down to subsystem or compcnents for the

purpose of establishing RFB's (Reliability Panctional Blocks).
The RFB's should be composed of cinmponc(nts or subsystems, which
are replaceable i_, the field. In the examole, the RFW3% shown
in Figure 5-35 could be used.
4.3.1 RFB Descriptions:
1.1 Diesel Engine: This function consists of the diesel engine,

engine instrumentation board and other apparatus needed for
controi and monitoring the operation of the diesel engine.
5-34
o ,J
rII
Q•
I.)
Z©
JI
CI
"-0
,--2N
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com ___I
I
'1
I
I
I
I
I
.1
-- -
F;;
I
77i]
K
_
I
I;
I
F-
- I
I
LJ
2Z
9
LI
II
0 I
0 1
0 --f -
H .9-
C)
z
Li
U
K--n
I FY71 _
1
I- -1 _________ I
-, I
- -
..............
5-36
1.2 480 VAC, 60 CPS Generator: This function is defined as the
qenerator itself, its controlling equipment and the appara-

tus necessary to transfer the generated power.
1.3 Circuit Breaker: This block contains that portion of the

switchgear which carries the electric power from RFB 1.2 to
the distribution bus.
2.1 Incoming Commercial Power: This function is defined to be

that portion of the commercial power system to, and inclu-
ding, the switch on the power pole.
2.2 High Voltage Cabling: That section of the wire from pole
switch to the power transformer.
2._3 Power Trassformer: 'he step- down transforI4r.
2.4 Circuit B- eake:: That portion of the switchgear which

carries tho commercial 1 -r to the main bus.
2.5 Diesel Engine Starting Contactor: This block consists of

the diesel engine starting contactor and the wiring connec-
ting it from the low side of step down transformer.
4.3.2 Lo~ic Diagramn: Having the -eliabJ2ity funct,:)nal block

diagram and the description of the RFB's, we are able to con-
struct the mathematicai model for the system under study. The
modql consists of a lsjic diagram anu e11uations giving the re-
ilabilitv 3n terms of failure rate ý and operating time t of
each functional block (RFB)
4.3.j Rfliability Equation; This prcb'em is a case of stand-

by rpdundancy with repair. Therefore the reliaoility for time
t may be stated:
)
S--
-1
--
2.s
-+
ii -
ý2. 2.ý t -T
1.+ 1.2 )fi
+ 1'r e
4 V
where T is th, ' ,n time tc, repair for blocks 2.1-2.3.
5-37
4.3.4• Fail're Rates: It is assumed that the following data
fr• failure rates have been collected from tests and previous
ccase histories of component failure.
4.08830 failures/1000 hours

"= 0.1000 failures/i000 cycles
, :0.11415 failures/1000 hours
0.22831 failures/1000 hcurs
P. 4 0.10M00 failures/1000 cycles
"0.66667 failures/1000 cycles
2.000 hours
4.3.5 Operatinq Times: Definition of the operating conditions

for each R1B is generally required.
1.1 Diesel Engine I: This unit is operating during the inter-

val when it is started until it is stopped.
1.2 480 VAC, 60 CPS Generator I: This unit is considered oper-

ating whenever' RFB 1.1 is operating.
1.3 Circuit 3reaker I: This unit operates whenever there is a

failure ot the commercial power or when it is manually
operated. A complete cycle is defined as the movement of
the breaker to OFF and back to ON position.
2.1 Tncominc Commercial Power: This function is considered

operating whenever there :s commercial power available
for use at the site.
2.2 High Voltage Cabling: This function is considered operating

whenever RFB 2.1 is operating.
2.1 Power Transformer: This functi-n is considered operating

whenever PF9 2.2 is operating.
2.4 Circuit Breaker: This unit operates simultaneously with

RFB 1.3.
2.5 Diesel Engine Starting Contactor! This unit is considered

operating w:nene'er RFB 1.3 operates. it is also a cyclic
function.
i
5-38
4.3.6 Time Bar Graph: From the definitions above, we can now
construct the time har graph (Figure 5-29). Note that blocks
1.3, 2.4 and 2.5 operate only at fault in the prim-1ary (commercial
power) system and at its reco,:ery. In this case, there is no
IS
function wbich is turned "~off" or "on". H-owever, this is not
--
the usual occurrence and in cases where switching takes place, it
ek
ML is less confusing and easier to -.-ke the model i~f a time bar
graph is used.
4.3.7 System Reliabily: Substituting the fail-ure rate values

and operating times in the pertinent equations, the system re-
liabi~lity for an operating period of 30 days is:
3.,0L l.02739[0.720-0.0O2(i-l)]} -I..02739[0.720-0.002(i-l)]

sR i ie
F-e
. 0 7 6 6 67 i
-07667 (1-e-4.49713 x 0.0002i~
0.9928
For the sake of illustration, let us compare the reliability of

system 2.0 above, that is without the standby redundancy, to that
just computed. The raliability without standby redundancy is
R(s) es cOn n + 2.3 t

)e =e-(0.68494 + 0.11415 + 0.22831h)0.72
e-0.73972 = .47
Thus the reliability has increased from 47.72% to 99.28% by using

standby redundancy with repair.
4.4 summARY
The purpose of re'kiability predictions is to arrive at a numerical

evaluation (quantitative) of the reliability potential of a
system, equipment, etc., and/or to determine whether or not a
specific system, equipment, etc., will meet its predetermined or
required reliability goal. It is necessary to perform these
reliability predictions during the design stage. This enables
the design to be evaluated in terms of reliability and allows
design changes which may be needed to improve reliability to be
made at this early stage where it is most economical as well as
convenient.
5-39
Z
00
- *;,
< <
X
H
0 Z)Z
r-. - --
i zI K
H H
.1
F
-4 Cl Cl C *1 L
U - - - Cl Cl > Cl Cl
0
5-40
It should be remembered that reliability predictions can be made

at various complexity levels. The selection of method to be
used is determined by such factors as required accuracy, time
available, cost, etc. However, no matter which method is used in
calculating a reliability prediction, it must be based on design
details and on reliability or fjilure rate data of equipments
or parts of similar design and under similar operating conditions
of stress, time, and environment.
5. RELIABILITY GROWTH APPROACH
The reliability prediction as made is called inherent., This

refers to some future time when the design is matured -- has all
the weaknesses and defects due to manufacturing cleared out.
We are bound to be concerned with the reliability achieved during
the development. We are particularly concerned that we obtain
visibility of reliability growth toward the deliverable require-
ment. Recognizing that the growth process is the process of
isolating and eliminating weaknesses, there is a real need to
evaluate progress toward the goal. In dealing with contractors
we can expect some to develop growth predictions as a basis for
further development or continuation of a project.
The promise of improvement can be validated. In evaluating such

promise we must look at the physical basis on which it is
founded. The basic philosophy and foundation of growth models
is provided to give a basic understanding of the concepts.
5.1 RELIABILITY GROWTH MODELS
One approach to construction of a reliability growth model is to

postulate the form of the function relating reliability and time,
say R = f(t). The argument t coul, represent any index of relia-
bility growth such as the number of reliability tests conducted
on the device, the time since t"e development of the device
began, the amount of money invested in tC development, etc.
Having assumed such a relationship, one proceeds to estimate the
parameters of the function by some curve fitting technique,
analogous to the procedure- utilized in linear regression. When
this approach is taken, a function having the following properties
is usually selected.
f(t) is nondeýzreasing in t (reliability growth)
f(t) approaches R as t approach w where R is the maximum

attainable reliability. A function meeting this criterion is,
5-41
for example, R(-:) = R, - C'e . This particular form of

the equation states that the reliability at time t, R(t) is
limited by the iriherent (predicted) reliability and will approach
that value - tests are conducted at a rate proportional to the
gap between the actual and predicted reliabilities.
In development prc• -ams it is generally supposed that, given a

basic design, reliability can be improved through a "test and
fix" procedure. That is, as causes of failure are detected by
tests, action can be taken tc correct the cause of the failures -
action which is not always effective. The causes of the greater
numbers of failures will probably be detected early in the pro-
gram, and consequently, have the greater chance of being correc-
ted early. This tends to justify the general form of the relia-
bility growth curve in which reliability increases rapidly in
the early stages with the rate of increase diminishing with
time. The nation of inherent design reliability, i.e., the
limit 'which the gr-wth furnction approaches in time, can be jus-
tified in a similar manner. Desiqns which inherently contain
many causes of failure, most of which will cause only a small
number of failures, would have a low desiqn reliability. After
the principal causes of failure are eliminated early in the pro-
gram, each "test and fix" cycle will only improve reliability a
very small amount. Eventually, the reliability curve will tend
to level out. This level approaches the inherent design relia-
bility.
Another approach to a growth model is given in reference (1). A

fixed, but unspecified, number of failure modes are allowed to
exist. Whenever a failure mode is discovered by test, an attimpt
is made to correct the cause. The probability that the correc-
tive action is successful for the ith failure made is a known
quantity aj. That is, the probability of correcting the ith
failure mode, given that such a failure has occurred on test, is
a,. In this model, N tests are coa'ducted prior to taking any
corrective action. The reliability of the system after N tests
have been made and corrective action has been taken for all
detected failure modes is
R R + ) yq,
yq
N 0
whe-re
0 ifN, 0
a, if N, > 0
Ii
5-42
K
No = total number of failures observed N, in N tests =
i=1
N, = number of failures of the ith mode observed during test
K = number of failure modes
q, = probability of a failure of the ith mode
Ro = initial reliability of system.
It is assumed that a given test can result in suiccess with

unknown probability Ro, or in failure uy only one of the K failure
modes and
K
Ro + q .
i= 1
The parameters of this model are R,, and the K q, 's. The a, are
assumed known. The random variables res•,lting from tests are No,
N1, N,, ... , NM. It is assumed in the analysis that the tests
are independent. It is easily seen that this model is, iht
sense, a generalization of the Lloyd and Lipow model (2) in that
reliability growth is obtained by taking credit for having cor-
rected some of the oriqinal causes of failure.
FrcN:i a practical point of view, this model has some real value.
It appears to be a reasonable representation of some real world
sit.-tions, and its use requires input data which in many cases
will oe available. It is not too hard to envision situations
where an engineer can, based on his previous experience, estimate
fairly accurately the probability (a,) that a corrective action
will be effective. It should be noted that t'iis estimate is
required only when a cor-ective actýon is actually taken. It is
significant that both of .hese decisions (selection of the a,
and the likelihood that a corrective action will introduce other
modes of failure) can be framed in physical terms as engineerinq
questions.
5.2 APPLICATION OF GROWTH APPROACH
The use of reliability qrowth approaches promises the gradual

elimination of quality defects. They are effective insofar as
the trend toward higher reliability improves. They should be
used with caution unless solid engineering or test data conwirm
that t',e growth is real.
5-43
6. PURPOSES FOR RELIABILITY PREDICTION
A primary meŽans of establishing the reliability feasibility of a

design concept is the comparison of pre-design predictions with
reqiiirements. The consideration of the direction, magnitude, and
causes of discrepancies between predictions and requirements
plays an important role in determining pr:oper courses of action.
A basic problem in reliability prediction 7an bc.' generally des-
cribed as follows: Given a complex device or system, such as a
communication set, fire control, sonar or computer, at some staqe
of design and development, we are interested in whether or not it
will function in a given environment, in a prescribed manner, and
for a given period of time. Whether the system operates success-
fully or not depends on a very large number of factors. When
predicting the reliability of a given complex equipment, if
possible, one should evaluate the interactions present since these
may have a preponderant effect on the over-all system reliability.
Reliability predictions aid in the identification and solution of

problems that are broad in scope and general in nature. This is
"accomplished by the tabulcition and grouping of predicted relia-
bilities, or unreliabilities, for soecific Dart tvPes. part
classes, and equipment types, and for operation in various modes
or during different phases of a mission. The knowledge of the
relative contribution of various items of equipment and modes of
operation to the systems unreliability constitutes a sound basis
for determining the need for, and the expected benefits of, pwt
improvement programs, circuit and equipment redesign efforts,
inclusion of redundancy, reallocation of requirements, and other
similar courses ol action.
Another valuable use of reliability predicticns is to focus

attention on items for ,Oiich adequate design data are not avail-
able. It will frequently be found that necessary failure inform-
ation is rot available. This is especially trne for new parts
and parts peculiar to a specific application. The process of
reliability prediction uncovers these data deficiencies and
permits early planning tor corrective action. i.e., revision of
specification, selection of a different part, starting a data
collection program, or performing special tests.
An obvious purpose of reliability predictions is to serve as a

means to measure progress in achieving a reliability goal, i.e.,
comparison of predictions with previous predictions to see whether
a program is progressing satisfactorily or not. If the program
is progressing satisfactorily, it ma, be decided that the activ-
ities should continue as planned. However, if progress is not
5-44
satisfactory, the predictions may be used to determine what

action should be taken ab well as where the re-emphasis should
be.
7. REFERENCES
(1) "Modeling and Simulation As - Rezearch Tool", W. Joslyn,

CORS-ORSA Conference, May 1964, Montreal, Canada.
(2) "Reliability, Management, Methods and Mathematics,"

Lavid K. Lloyd and Myron Lipow, Prentice-Hall, Tnc.,
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1952.
(3) "An Analysis of Some Failure Data," D. J. Davis, Journal

American Statistical Association, 47, 1952.
(4) "A Preliminary Study of Equipment Reliability,"

Aeronautical Radio, Inc., Interbase Report No. I,
March, 1955.
(5) "Reliability of the AN/APS-20 E Radar System," ARINC

Research Company, Pub. No. 101-11-139, May, i49 0 .
(6) "Maintainability and Reliability of the AN/APS-WE Radar

System," ARINC Research Corporation Report No. 101-33-180.
(7) "Weibull Distribution in Life Testing of Electronic Tubes,"
J. H. K. Kao, Paeer presented at the 1955 meeting of the
American Statistical Association, New York, December 1955.
(8) "The Life Distribution and Reliability cf Electromechani-

cal Parts of An Inertial Guidance System," M. P. Smith
and L. A. Weaver, Proceedings of the 8th National
Reliability and Quality Control Symposi'im, Jaruary 1962.
(9) "A Study on Methods f'r the Development of Reliability,

Maintainability and Availability of Shipboard Machinery,"
N. R. MacFarlane and J. W. Michel, United Control Corpora-
tion, Second Report, Contract NONR-3740(00)FBM.
(10) "Probability Mips," R. B. Hurley, IEEE Transactions on

Reliability, Vol. R-12, September, 1963.
6-1
Chapter 6
APPORTIONMO..T
Page
1. APPORTIONMENT OF It"TERENT RELIABILiTY 6- 3
1.1 Basic Theory 6- 3
1.2 Sulection Criteria 6- 4
2. TECHNIQUES OF APPORTIONMENT 6- 5
2.1 Equal Apportionment 6- 5
2.2 Considerations of Importarce and Complexity 6- 6
2.3 Further Extension to Mechanical-Electrical
Systems 6- 7
2.4 Extended Method for Electronics Systems 6- 9
2.4.1 Elereats Considered in the Apportionment 6- 9
2.4.2 Procedure for Reliability Apport4.onment 6-10
2.5 Alternate Boeing Method 6-14
2.6 Use of Cost of Achievement 6-16
3. VOTING TECHNIQUES 6-19

3.1 Framing the Questions 6-19
3.2 Selecting the judges 6-21
3.3 Method of Paired Comparisons 6-22
3.3.1 Conducting the Survey 6-22
3.3.2 Analyqis of Results 6-22
4. USE OF APPORTIONMENT TECHNIQUES 6-29

4.1 Conceptual r'hase 6-29
4.2 Preliminary Design Phase 6-29
4.3 Evaluation of Contractors Apportionment 6-29
4. Summary 6-29
RE ZRENCES 6-30
6-2
Chapter 6
APPORT IONVENT
System design engineers must translate overall system character-

istics, including reliability, into detailed specifications for
the numerous units that make up the system. The process of
assigning reliability requirements to individual units to attain
the desired system reliability is known as "reliability appor-
tionrnment" or sometimes termed reliability allocation. More is
involved, however, than a simple mathematical equality. The
reliability of an ind;,vidual unit varies with the type of func-
tion to be performed, the complexity of th.' unit, and the method
of accomplishing the function, to name a few of the more impcr-
tant factors. The role a unit plays in a particular system also
enters into consideration.
Apportionment of system reliability is the inverse process to a

reliability prediction. In a prediction we estimated failure
rates of parts and subsystems (or numbers of failures per unit
of time) and computed a sy:vtem failure rate (total number of
failures estimated per unit of time). In an apportionment we
start with a requirement, which is converted to total failures
to be permitted per unit of time. we then allocate, to the
various subsystems a share of the failures to be permitttd. The
apportionment in no sense indicates that the particular level of
reliability required can be achieved. It merely says that if
the apportioned values ar-, achieved, the \.,.•- !I ,tt •ts
requirements.
To make the apportion-i values of reliability realistic, con-

siderition must be paid to the factors mikin. reliability dif-
ficul:t or expensive tc ach eve. The develotxient of hi ih re I a-
" "i1itv
s costlv. Establishiri- reluuirements hi iher than neces-
sary is uneconcmi cal. Apportionmtnt te(chniqu•,s sho2,:Id be based
on the factors that letfinv the relativtye evfort and . cost of
achieviym the r,"( u'r ol reliability for the system.
The ai -)rti.onmnt of system reliability innvolve's soivinq the

basi!- eiuility
f(R'. , R ., ... R,,ý R( -1
wh eree
R, is the av'tortlond relirb Iitv .arameter f,-r t'he ith
un it
. is fw, system reliability requirement parameter, and
6-3
f is the functional relationship between unit and system

reliability.
For a simple series system in which the R. (tls repcesent pro-

bability of suivival for t hours, Equation 6-1 becomes
R• (t) • R- (t) ... R•(t) = R(t) (6-2)
Theore*4½ally, Equation p3-2 has an infinite number of solutions,

assuming no restrictions on the apportior.aent. The problem is
to establish a procedure that yields a unique or limited number
of solutions, bý which consistent and reasonable reliabilities
may be allocated.
The program and meth ds prestnted in this chapter can apply to

Lhe sub-allocation o* reliabiiity within the various units. The
apportionmenL proqr-c, is necessarily one of continuil refinement.
Original requirements determincd at the design stage should be
critically examined and revised as more experience, knowledge,
and test data become available during the .+kiance ot the system
life-cycle through the design, development, and production
phases.
1. APPORTIONMENT OF INHERENT RELIABILITY
1.1 RASIC THEORY
In Chapter foul we developed the statement of reliability in

terms of probability of success based on a failure density
function. A failure density function can be determined for any
set of equipmient.
It has been sniown that the probability of success (the reliabil-

ity) of i system is the probability that no failure occurs during
the time in question. In tht qeneral case the reliability may
be stated
R, exp F, (x)dx (6-3)
where the F, (x) is the instantaneous hazard function. Where the

distribution function is exponential, this hazard functionI is
the "ccnstent" failure rate •. In the normal case, it is the
ordinate of the normal curve_1 (a-)
1 2 '
n(a) - - e
~,
6-4
IrL conducting an apportionment, wt start with defining our system

as a series of units so trat equation 6-2 applies. Where equip-
ments are duplirated in parallel, it is necesary to treat the
combination as a single unit. Applying equation 6.3
t t _t
R = exp F F 1 (x)dx - 0o F2(x)dx ..... - F,(x)dx '
w t
= ex L - F, (x) dxn
L= 1
If we set R, = Ral and solve for the a,
-• F( x)dx
a,
=- t (6-4)
S- FI (X)dx
i=l1
the a, factors have the following characteristics:
(a) L a, : 1
(b) Each alis the fraction that represents that portion of

the total probability of failure in the system attributable to
the ith unit.
We can apportion the reliability by selecting factors for each

unit (the a,) such that (a) the sum of the factors add to 1 and
(b) each factor is the fraction of the failures aiiowed for the
sybtem to be permitted to the unit.
1.2 SELECTION CRITERIA
The ideal apportionment would be that allocation of requirements

resulting in the most economical use of resources, including
time and cost. Among others, the following considerations should
be considered.
(a) The complexity of the system will have an effecL on the

achievable reliability. The more complex the system is, the
greater the number of subassemblies and modules, the more dif-
ficult and costly it is to achieve a high reliability. Imposing
an unrealistically high reliability on the more complex systems
increases the cost disproportionately when compared with the
II • , --
6-5
effect of increasing the reliability requirement for simpler

Sys •.erfs,
kb) The amount of development and research required to pro

duce the systefn will greatly influence the time and cost of de-
velopment. Imposition of a high reliability requirement on a
system under development will increase the development time,
numbers of tests required to obtain the reliability and the cost.
Equipments considered present "State of the Art" are penalized
less by high reliability requirements.
(c) The intended operational environment will have an effect

,n the achievable reliability. A system to be used in a "rugged"
environment will terd to cost more to develop to an equal relia--
bility than a similar one to be used under less severe conditions.
(d) The length of time the equipment is required to perform

will influence the achievable reliaoility. It will require more
development effort and cost to produce a syEem capable of
operating for a long period of time without failurc than to
develop one for a shorter period of use.
(e) The need for high reliability in a system is based on the

importance of its operation. A system whose failure would not
jeapordize the accomplishment of the mission need not be highly
reliable. To the extent that failures can be tolerated, lower
reliability requiremt its should be imposed.
Apportionment of reliability is a trade-off between the relia-

bilities of units to achieve a specified system reliability.
By imposing high reliability requirenents on those units in which
high reliability is easier to attain, and lower requirements on
those in which high reliability is more difficult and more
costly, the overal.. cost of the system development may be
reduced.
Numerous methods have been used to select the factors for the
opportionment to achieve this cost (and time) improvement.
2. TECHNIQUES OF APPORTIONMENT
2.1 EQUAL APPORTIONMENT
In the absence of any definitive information on the system,

other than the fact that a subsystems w'ill be used, the only
rational basis to use woull be equality. If each aI is set at
11N, the two requirements are met. Each subsystem is then
I 6-13
•equired to have a reliibiIt'y of (R) /or R. The product of

N N
the N system reliabiiities is th"n (R.
2.4 CONSIDERATIONS Of IMPORTANCE AND COMPLEXITY
Task groap 2 of the AGREE Study (1) recommends an apportionment

for electronics systems based on the importance of the unit and
its complexity. The exponential distribution of times to
failure is assumed to apply. Let a system consist of k units.
For i- 1, 2 .. k let
m= MTBF (mean life) of the ith unit.
Operating time during the mission required of the ith

unit.
W= Probability that the system will fail, given that the

ith unit fails (importance factor).
n, : nuimiber of modules (e.g., tubes) in the ith unit.
N= Total number of modules in the system = n

i~l
it is desired to apportion the reliability between the units in

such a manner that each module make an equal contribution to
miss..on success. The mean life to be required for each equip-
ment is computed from the formula
mt w (6-5)
(N) (-In R)
N
Examplo: For a system reliability requirement of R=.90(-TLnR=.l03)
n w t m
RCVR 20 .7 4 hrs 402

XMTR 30 .5 4 hrs 218
RADAR 200 .8 4 hrs 52
IFF 50 .2 4 hrs 52
N 300
The equation for the reliability of the ith unit is:
- tI/mI
6-7
We can rewrite 6-5 to show:
t /m, ((L ) ( I ) (-In Pý

N \,"
n. 1
so, e t (R)
f', iseuuati on shows that the basis of the factors a. in equation

6-4 are made up of the product of numbers representing the re-
lative complexity of the equipment and numbers representing the
importance of the unit to mission success.
2.3 R•,TRriER EXTENSION TO MECHAYTCAL-ELECTRICAL SYSTF24S
The Be:ýinc Company, in its Reliability Manual (2) proposes an

aite-nate method of selecting the factors of apportionment. The
parar'eters to be considered are:
(a) SyNstem Complexity: Complexity is evaluated by consider-

Ln the probable quntity of parts or components making up the
system, and is also judged by tlhe assembled intricacy of these
parts or components. The least complex system is rated at 1.
The system considered highly complex is rated at 10.
(b) State of the Art: The state of present enoineering pro-

O{ress in all fields is considered. The system least developed
is assiclned a value of 10 and the system most highly developed
is assiqnel a value of 1. All other systems are evaluated be-
tween 10 and 1.
(c) Performance Time: The system that operates for the

entire mission time is rated 10, and the system that operates
at minimai_ time during the miission is rated at 1. All other
systems are evaluated between these two extremes.
(d)' h-.ironmental Conditions: Environmental conditions can

alsoc be rated from i throu•h 1. Systems expected to experience
harsn and extreme conditions during performance will be classi-
tied as 10 and systems expecting to encounter the least severe
conditions will be classified as I. All other systems shall lie
b,-tween tihose two extremes.
P typical computation is shown in Figure u ie sclection of

the factors is done by engineering judgment based on the engineers
CD 0 m~ LOI
0) 00 0 0
t-0i -2-D
-.
LO
1f i 0 On O
~~04
on 04 0
1-4-4
zz
6-9
predictions of the relative effect of various factors on the

reliability of performance of the system. Using a philosophy
that there are no new componer. q, new systems are rearrangements
of known components. The engineer would judge what types of
parts and components would be used in a new system and what
effect the expected use of these parts would have on the relia-
bility of the parts. Where particular components had, in his
experience, been unreliable in a particular environment, he
would reflect this in his choice of factors. Factors may be
selected by individual engineers or through some form of voting
technique as describer in paragraph 3.
2.4 EXTENDED METHOD FOR ELECTRONICS SYSTEMS
A further development of the AGREE system (2.2) has been made by

Arinc Corporation (3).
2.4.1 Elements Considered in the Apportionment:
(a) Unit Essentiality: The concept of essentiality, used to

describe the -ffect of unit failure on mission success, is con-
sidered unity if a failed unit does not have a functional dup-
licate. It is defined as follows:
The essentiality of a unit is the probability that

the system will fail to accomplish its mission if
the unit fails while all other units perform satis-
factorily.
At the design stage of system 6evelopment, the likelihood is

that the essentiality of various units within the system will
have to be assigned intuitively, on the basis of experience
gained with similar systems. If appropriate system failure data
is available, essentiality can oe estimated by the ratio,
Number of mission failures due only to ith unit failure
Number of ith unit failures
(b) Basic Failure Data: The allocation procedure is based

on the relative reliabil;+-ies to be expecteýd of various units of
a system, as determined trom past experience. The electronic
functional levels to which this procedure is applicable corres-
pond to the functions performed by individual element groups
(AEG's). An active eleme.nt group is defined as consisting of an
active element (o0e part, such as a tube, capable of performing
valving or controlling action) plus the associated passive parts;
examples of active element groups include amplifiers, oscillators,
mixers, and rectifiers. Equivalents ar' provided for non-elec-
6-110
tronic components.
2.4.2 Procedure for Reliability Apportionment: The worksheet

used for conducting an apportionment is given in Figure 6-11.
Steps in completing the worksheet are:
(a) Identify the units, U,
(b) Estimate the essentiality index (paragraph 2.4.1b), E,
(c) Record or estimate that portion of the system operating

time the unit will be required to oterate, tj
(d) Develop unit failure indices, K2 , based on class of

equipment, relative failure rates for the class and
number of modules of the class in the unit (refer to
reference 3).
Compute the fa'lure index ratio w, K

(e)
/ K
Ii
(f) Compute the allocated unit reliabilities fron the

equation
A
R, = I - 1-- - (R)wl-
Ej
where R~is the desired reliability apportioned to the

ith unit,
R is the system required reliability.
Figure 6-12 shows a typical computation of the unit failure

indices. The system is a bc-nbsight consisting uf three units,
power supply, navigation computer and optical equipment. The
unit: are considered in modified series, since both the power
supply and optical equipment must work. In the event the navi-
gation computer should fail the optical equipment can be con-
trolled manually. The essentiality of the power supply and
optical equipment are unity. On the basis of performance of
similar systems, estimates were made that for every 100 missions
in which the navigation computer failed, 57 mission failures
resulted. So the essentiality of the navigation computer was 4
estimated at 57/100 .57.
SLI
6-11
%1
I
0 I - -- '- -
*1 -
,--
o-...
S- _
Y ., ,I
"I I.
6-12
L - 0N
CdN Lf)
-C-O
- 0
- e.~ In -
N
V: Rr ac I- N
H ~04
.7.~~ l^ N
CVD N
N
IC C Lo C' C c ZV
V -14
o4 t4 U - aD 17 C ý I-I
v dno.9D q drboz
•! 6-li
Proceeding,
Step 1: The functional c!ategry column is divided into

electronic and non-electronic groups.
Step 2: The r~lative failure rates (K, or K,) for each

funct ional category is entered in the apprcpriat.e
column.
Step 3: The number of es imated AEG's of each category within

each unit is entered in the column headed f. (j=1,2,3)
and the electronic category rows are summed to obtain
"the entries in the column headed f,.
Step 4: The average electronic failure index is computed in

the following manner:
(a) Form the total unadjusted electronic failure

index
K = 40(4.3) + 10(3.0) + 230(3.0) = 892
(b) Determine the number of electronic AEG's in

group (a).
F 40 10 + 230 = 280.
1
(c) Form the average electronic failure index:
Ke 892/280 - 3.186.
Step 5: Convert each k," to a failure rate relative to the

electronics group by multiplying the relative failare
rates by K 3.186. Enter in the k, coluimn.
Step 6: Ad)asted relative failure rates, k,
(a' Transfer the k 's to the appropriate unit column;
(b) k, and ka rt-vnain unaltered for Group (a), but

since k, in Unit 2 has a transistor active
element., using an adjustment factor of 0.3,
cnpute k.1 (0.3)• 0.9.
Step 7: Unit failure indices

sl
Usinq the formula K. = " • k, for the
i.il
6--14
failure index of the jth unit, compute k. , k. and k.
Step 8: The values fgr the unit failure indices arE entered
in the allocation worksheet, Figure 6-1'
Step 9: Entering the allocation worksheet with the failure

indices, compute the failure index ratio
k,
W. - A
k,
i~l
Step 10: The reliability apportionment R, is computed for
each unit using the formula R, = I - lR
E.
2.5 ALTERNATE BOEING METHOD
For an alternate method of selectinq the apportionmert, the

following approach (4) is proposed by F. E. Marsh, th. B<,cini
Company. Given a reliability goal, R, for an item conprisino• n
units in series and assuming an exponential distribution of
times to failure, the reliability goal, R. , apportioned to unit
i is:
R, : (R)"
a.
where.: w, and
a.
i~ 1
' u K + If + '
where I = Index of state of the art, ccrT.puted usin.;

L engineering data on system reliabiLitv
growth rates;
IX = Index of complexity, computed to accou'nt

for relative corplexity and -dundancy ot
the unit;
i= Index of environment, cm~puted frxn esti-

mates of unit stress levels due to envir-n-
mental co.Jitions, and
I Index of operating time, cx ,puted Lrcm the

operating time cf the unit ani! the opera-
ting time for the system.
6-15
bCC
zr E
z IN
0 9L
F 094 ~ ,
6-16
2.6 USE OF COST OF ACHIEVE14ENT
It is reasonabl. to assume that if a contract for a system is let

with no reliability requirement, a system built in accordance
with standard design practices will resu't. If a reliability
requirement is imposed, the system will cost more by virtue of
the fact that additional effort is required by the contractor.
How much more the system will cost will depend upon two basi'
factors.
(a) By what degree the reliability requirement exceeds that

expected (that experienced using standard design).
,b) The complexity of the system contracted for.
Bird Engineering Research Associates, Inc. (8) found in past pro-

curements a relationsiiip between the cost and reliability of
equipments and their relative complexity.
-1.39
m = 187,000 N (
/J (6-6)
8
C = (.891 (29698)N
Where m was the achieved MTBF, c the contract cost and N the
number of active elempnt groups as defined by MTL STD 756. The
constants appiy to shipboard equipment.
For an improved product, experience (Chapter 26) indicates a

,eiationship between. cost and reliability of the form
C' - C = C in (:)O.• (6-7)
Where the prime is used to distinguish between an equipment pro-

duced under a aifferent level oat eliability effort. If we
assiint.: a particular equirement, R, for the reliability of the
complete system, this is achievable by any combination of sub-
system reiiabilities, R, that satisfy the relationship.
k
R = l R,
i=l
For a system consisting of three serial subsystems R = Rix R. x R4,
where the subscripts refer to the subsystems
-(t 1 /m' + t,/m= + t,/m )

6-17
assuming an exponential distribution of timoes to failure. The

exponent must satisfy the relationship 3
- in R= t,/mI + t2 /N" + t"//m'

3 t ,/Mrn1 (6-8)
i=l1
As may be seen from Figure 6-!8, the selection of a particular

set of requirements for reliability imposes a particular cost on
the development program. A higher reliability requirement for
any system tends to increase the cost for that system. Lowering
the requirement should reduce the cost. Those in which the in-
cremental cost of Improvement is greatest should be given lesser
requirements, increasing the requirements correspondingly for
those with lesser incremental costs. This can be done as
fc -lows -
The total cost of the program would be the sum of costs of

developing the individual systems "with the conventional program
costs plus the additional cost for each system necessary to
improve the reliability to achieve the system reliability, R.
We can define this additional cost,
/r.21 ' .-2 02
C= c11n( ) CIn( + ' (6-9)
To obtain the minimum cost that will achieve the required aystem
reliability, we can differentiate the equation below and set it
equal to zero.
ACR = Cc, (MI) - X(In R -Z (
i 1 m, i_ m
where the last term is the constraint imposed by equation 6-8
=• 2C,
R, +
?_CR _74r
t for
== 0 frah each i
iM, (MI,)
4 2C
that is
M, X
This says that the ratios of the tL should be proportional to

the CI. mI
Since the C, are related to the complexity by the ratio N.88

(Equation 6-6) the optimumn solutioa to the apportiomment of
reliability would be achieved by sel,-cting as complexity factors
the AEGs raised to the .88 power.
4
ic
n
mH
H _ _!8
lo
iU
H _ _ _ _ _
-4•
$
6-19
Reference (8) provides a different correlation between initial

cost and complexity to be used in case of developments in which
performance involves design beyond the conventional state of the
art, that is, for such cases
88
C = 1.464 (29698)N'
In an apportionment, to account for the additional effort to

achieve major advances in the state of the art in the design
the complexity factor N-88 should be multiplied by a factor of
1.464 = 1.644.
.891
Figure 6-20 gives an exzmple of the application of this method.
Subsystems C and E are assumed to require major advances beyond
the present state of the art in development. Subsystems A, B
and D are conventional design with minimum acceptable reliability
requirements established somewhat beyond present normal achieve-
ments.
3. VOTING TECHNIQUES
In the early stages of development of a system, very little may

be known about the hardware. Each of the techniques in para-
graph 3 requires the application of more or less judgment in
selecting some of the factors. If, as in the method covered in
paragraph 2.3, the indices assigned are not representative of
the ultimate equipment, the apportionment eill create more pro-
blems than it will solve. Recognizing this, recent methods of
apportionment attempt to limit the amount of judgment that must
be applied. But no method can eliminate the - 4uirement entirely.
In conducting an apportionmert, then, the task is to (a) select
the method apparently most appropriate to the problem considering
the details known, the nature of the equipment and the availt-
bility of pertinent data; (b) Identify the area which judg-
h',t
ment is required, and (c) Arrange to obtain Lhe best possible
responses from qualified individuals.
3.1 FRAMING THE QUESTIONS
As was developed in paragraph 2, the apportionment depends on

the selection of factors that are proportional to the number of
failure to be "permitted" to the unit. These factors should be
so selected as to minimize the difficulty of system development.
That is a comparison must be made on (a) amount of development
required for the unit; (b) complexity of the unit; (c) expected
effect of the planned operational use on the difficulty in dev- f
6-20
p4,
0 0 0
.~44
~~L ~44
oj L
00
112
C;4 11:
2
z LOI - L)
~- ý
cc C 4 co
11 Ud-2 >1
D cc goJ go2 $4 0
0 "4 t
0o a
- AC
u 4-
6-21
elopment; (d) the need for high unit reliability to achieve high
system reliabIlity.
Any general question pczed to the judges such aE "list these

equipments in the ascending order of expected failure rates (or
descending order of MTBF)' will not yield much valid information.
Consider a more detailed set of questions, such as
What is the level of vibration you expect this equipment

to be subjecte& to?
What level of vibration does equipment of this type

normally withstand?
Do you think this difference will cause you to have
(a) fewer failures?

(b) more failures?
(c) no difference in the number of failures?
These latter questions forces the judge to concrontrate upon one

effect and provide his best judgment in an area in which he
might feel confident.
The questions then, should be frazed in a way to relate to the

experience of the jud4e and should provide a suggestion as to
how to go about arriving at a decision.
With a large number of interrelated factors, each factor must

be given an appropriate weight. The difficulty of making a
judgment involving many factors tends to make such: judgments
somewhat erratic and ineffective. In framing the questions,
they should then be limited in the factors that are to be con-
sidered, and the factors should be within an area in which the
judge feels competent.
3.2 SELECTING THE JUDGES
The less there is known about the unit, the greater is the
importance of utilizing knowledge of engineers competent in the
field. When a designer designs a new system he doesn't reinvent
the components or the circuits. A bearing in a motor is the same
as bearings in other motors. The new assembly has some innova-
tions, but also it has many parts used in well known ways.
4 Before the equipment is designed, a well qualified designer can
NO
tell you the characteristics of the parts he would use. He
would know a great deal about the reliability of those parts.
6-22
In attempting to obtain an estimate or judgment on a particular

factor, there is a real need to assure that the source is com-
petent in the area of interest.
3.3 METHOD OF PAIRED COMPARISONS
3.3.1 Conducting the Survey: If the question to be resolved

is very complex, such as the relative amount of development test-
ing for the various units required to develop the system, it may
not be possible for an engineer or a committee to set relative
values. However, it should be possible for the engineer to
make judgments of less complexity, say between two of them. A
method due to Thurstone & Mosteller (5) has been devised to use
such comparison of pairs to evolve a relative ranking of the
item of interest.
Example: A new ship class is being developed, the major systems

required for the "special" mission are:
A. "Star Tracker" Navigation.

B. "Ship to Space' UHF wide channel communications.
C. "Lock-On" tracking system.
D. Data acquisition and storage system.
E. Computer analyzer.
F. Data display system.
The item of interest is the relative cost of development of the

subsystems. It was decided to obtain the judgments of eight
engineers who had been working on radar, communi-ations and com-
puter complexes. The parameters of performance of each sub-
system could be defined. The question was framed. "In the de-
velopment of these two subsystems, E&Fsay, which do you believe
will require the most developmental testing to provide an oper-
ational system?"
Eight identical sets of cards were made, each set containing the
comparison between each of the pairs of systems (AB, AC, BC etc.).
Each engineer selected completed and returned his set.
3.3.2 Analysis of results:
(a) The individual cards were scored as follows. If the box

marked "moderate" was checked, the card scored 1 "consider-
ably more" was similarly counted 2. If the system first in
alphabetical sequence was checked, the card was scored +,
otherwise -. A sample card is shown in Figure 6-23.
I . . .. . ..
G-23
z
0 -C
~ E >E
E E
P-4z
0(
0 E
0 *
ob
C 0 C
cl0
-ci
6;-24
(b) The analysis was conducted in two Ways. The averages of

the car' were recorded in a matrix, Figure 6-23. It was
4noted that a definite order was indicated. C was felt to
require more developmcnt than any other system, A next and
Sthe
remainder following in the order B, E, F, D. These
were replotted in matrix form, Figure 6-26.
Reasoning that the comparisons would be more meaningful between

those considered close together the "strong' diagonal (C to A,
A to B, B to E, etc.) was selected as the best relative compar-
ison. Setting the one requiring the least development testing
as the Standard, D=l. The relative scale of test requirements
came out as follows:
System Relative test requirements
D 1.00
F 1.125
E 2.000
B 2.250
A 3.000
C 3.125
An attempt was made to improve the analysis, using more of the

information obtained, followino the analysis described by
reference 7.
Having the preference matrix the preferences were normalizec,

I X*2
using the equation X. = 4 (Figure 6-27).
The deviates were computed from the relationship

1 •r. -X2 2
(X ).) 2 , e dx
The deviate matrix is sho'-rn in fiqure 6-28. The deviates con-

tained in the elements correspond to areas under the normal
curve. The average of each row was computed and tabulated in
the column r. . The difference between the average deviates in
each row were c<xnputed, using the relationship
1 ,T
e dix
The values T then are used as proportional to the level of

testing required in a program to develop the systems to an
operational condition.
6-25
N
c' MN
+ ,+ C+ + i +
Cý+ N t--N Lf N 4
uj, +
+ .-
+ + t. I + N - + •Q ,D ! . + t-
00
+ + 47 0 + IN +
cIC4"4 N > -4* -4 >

+ + 0 + +
+ -4 + + 1
+
c'J +C + < ' <ir
+4 + cl 0
+ J +0
0 + + +
+U +- 0
S.+ + + +
C1 ++
+ C) N *i N
+ ++
4 +90 -l 4* +< i0- + t
+ +.
- •4 > >
r•. • l + c"+ +
CN
I oI
+ + -
*VA -~
c' +
N
*.....,, +• , • I I 4
6-26
C- 4
Ln
Ll C
Ni
H4L
6-27
*1 I
U -•
. r
- -- "2 " A1 2 i •
Q
i -
zL=~="!
I -- I
Q ?~ ,-'
-
~!
6-28
I--I
'o ao
O m0 00 00
00 (D 00
00 OD to)
6-29
4. USE OF APPORTIONIMENT TECHNI&:UES
4.1 CONCEPTUAL PHASE
Apportionment in the conceptual phase Js primarilv for determin-

ation of feasibility. The question that must be decided is the
element of risk involved in undertaking the development. The
apportio.otent assists in this determination by setting reliabil-
ity goals against which to mt'asure the capability of the indus-
try. The AGREE method (paragraph 2.2) for electronics systems
and the Boeing method (paragraph 2.3) for mechanical systems
are appropriate. For electronics systems, the cost evaluation
corrective factors may be applied (paragraph 2.5) to evaluate
cost consequences.
4.2 PRELIMINARY DESIGN PHASE
in the ear-ly phases of design, the purposes for an apportionment

are to provide requirements for supplier and contractor furn-
ished systems, and tc set targets (requirements) to be achieved
in the design performed by the prime contractor -- or internally
within the Bureau. The apportionment, to be comparable with
design predictions, must be formulated on the same basis as the
predictions will later be. It should include a comparable
statement of environment and operating time. For electronics
systets, the more detailed considerations of the Arinc method
(paragraph 2.4" should be used. For mechanical systems, the
Boeing method (paragraph 2.3) is the only useful method known.
In attempting to use this system, the selection of weighting
factors must be developed in such a way that they reflect the
effect of the particular factor on the failure rate that will
be achieved when the eqaipment becomses operational.
4.3 EVALUATION OF CONTRACTORS APPORTIONMENT
When contractors perform an apportionment to allocate a system

requirements to units, the Bureau engineer responsible must
evaluate his apportionment process to assure that the unit re-
quirements are based on a sound appraisal of cost and effective-.
hezSS. The techniques in paragraph 2.0 demonstrate the methods
most likely to be used. Where some other method is used, the
basis of the method should be evaluated against the criteria
(equation 6-4 and paragraph 1.2).
•
p 4.4 SUMMARY
In summary, reliability apportionments are made:

-30
(a) To set reliability requirements for units of a system

to establish procurement and/or design objectives.
(b) To provide a means of measuring progress toward achieve-

ment of the system reliability objective.
The value of the apportionment in achieving these objectives

depends on the care and judgment used in making the apportion-
iment.
Since the apportio.nent is used primarily as a guide to the

achievement of the system objective it should be continuously
updated as the design progresses and used to modify the require-
ments imposed on the c nrTponent suppliers and subsystem designers
as more information becomes available. Apportionment should be
continuously used as a tool to achieve the system objective.
5. RE FERENCES
(1) Reliability of Military Electronic Equipment, AGREE Report,

4 June 19'7.
(2) Reliability Manual, Boeing Aircraft Company, Report No.

D2-3246, Revised iI/24460.
(3) The Allocation of System Reliability, Tech. Documentary

Report No. ASD-TDR-62-20, June 1962 (AD282272).
(4) Reliability Control in Aerospace Equipment Development,

Society of Automotive Engineers, Technical Progress Series,
Vol. 4.
(5) Remarks on the Method of Paired Comparisons, Psychometrica,

Vol. 16, #1, March 1951.
(6) Advanced Theory of Statistics, M. G. Kendall, Vol. 1, p. 421.
(7) Saturn Stage S.-1, Reliability Apportiotunent Report, North

?,nerican Aviation, Report SID62-1225, 17 October 1962.
(8) Cost and Time Factors Relatinq to Reliability in Develop-

ment Planning, Bird Engineering Research Corporation, Final
Report under Contract NOW-62-0990-C.
(9) A Procedure for Estimating Cost, .iime and Reliability in

Development Planning, Bird Engineering Research Associates,
Inc., Report on Contract NOW-62-0990C.
7-1
Chapter 7
STRESS-STRENGTH ANALYS iS
1. THE PRINCIPLE OF SAFETY MARGINS 7- 2

1.1 How to Judge and Increase Safety Margins 7- 4
1.2 How Many Standard Deviations 7- 8
1.3 Overdesign and Reliability 7- 9
2. STRESS AND STRENGTH DISTRIBUIFIONS 7-12

2.1 Joint Distributions 7-12
2.2 Stress-Strength Analysis for the Normal
Distribution 7-15
2.2.1 Analytical Basis 7-15
2.2.2 Application 7-17
2.2.3 Other Distribution 7-25
2.2.4 Stress/Strength Testing 7-25
3, APPLICATIONS 7-26
4. E
.E.F.S 7-28
I
I
CHAPTER 7
STRESS-STRENGTH ANALYSIS
S~The
Concept of safety margins (1) has been developed from the
traditional safety factor of the structural design disciplines.
Safety factors in design have long been used with a high degree
of success based on knowledge evaluated from successful appli-
cations, simple testing, or proofing. They are predominately
empirical in nature and are usually intuitive, based on engineer-
ing judgment. Safety factors are traditionally generous and may
often cause weight and cost penalties which cannot be tolerated.
Safety margins are essentially modified safety factors and are
derived from comparing a distribution of possible loads to a
distribution of possible resistive strengths.
No two things can be identical; they are inherentl, variable to

some degree. The variation in material from lot to lot and from
producer to producer is well known. The variation in loads from
experiment to experiment and between periods or cycles of use can
equally be established. As discussed in Chapter 9, stresses and
loads can be described by distribution functions in which the
frequency of occurrence of stresses or strengths is compared to
the stresses or strengths occurring.
The concept is not limited to the structural field. The general-

ization of the stress-strength analysis to electric, hydraulic
or mechanical equipment is obvious wherever a (generalized) stress
exceeds the strength of the material to resist a failure result.
If the stresses and strengths vary in an identifiable fashion,,
the frequency with which failures can be expected to occur can
be computed by the stress-strength technique.
1. THE PRINCIPLE OF SAFETY MARGINS
It would be ideal to have specifications which would increase

both reliability and performance. We may come closer to achieving
this goal by replacing the principle of rigidly specified safety
factors by the more effective principle of safety margins to take
account of the fact that unreliability is caused not only by low
averages but also by large variations of strength.
Vaiations may be large or small, as illustrated in Figure 7-3. I

Although components A and B have the same average strength,
component B evidently is less consistent than couponent A. It -
is, therefore, imperative that the characteristic variation of

stresses and strengths be determined also, by testing sufficient
7-3
x
x
w x
x xx
:01 x
xx
zz
o Oz0
7-4
samples to failure. -he result of such a test-to-failure program

is illustrated in Figure 7-5.
The reader will note that on test number 7 the component is weaker
than the stress to which it will be subjected, and therefore will
fail.
Obviously, scatterbands of stresses and strengths must be separated

by safety margins. Here the question arises how large the safety
margins should be to achieve the required degree of component
reliability.
Before we may discuss this vital question, we must dwell for the
moment on the widespread misconception that reliability may be
judged on the basis of a single failure test.
Figure 7-5 indicates that safety factors fluctuate even more

violently than the stresses and strengths upon which they are
based (compare tests No. 5 and 6). Therefore, relying on the
test-to-failure data of just one unit is shortsighted and
irresponsible. This is illustrated in Figure 7-6 where the
scatterband of stress data has been replaced by the maximum
stress level, called the "Reliability Boundary".
If only one test were conducted and relied upon, and if the
result complied with the specified minimum safety factor of 1.5,
as illustrated by the dot, (T), the ccmponent type might be
accepted for mass production and~employment in complex military
equipment. If, however, more units were tested to failure, a
shocking degree of variation, hence unreliability, would be
revealed.
1.1 HOW TO JUDGE AND INCREASE SAFETY MARGINS
The principle of safety margins is illustrated by the examplei;

shown in Figure 7-7.
Let us assume that between the average strength and the Relia-
bility Boundary a minimum safety margin of five standard devia-
tions were specified. After having tested a sampl •, say 12 units,
to failure we compute the standard deviation and find that the
safety margin is only 2.7 standard deviations (Figure A). Thus,
the safety margin must be incieased. We may first try to lower
the severity of the environmental condition, for example by
providing a shock absorber or by intensifying the cooling of the
component. If neither is practical, the component must be re-
designed. In most instances, this is made easier by the fact that
7-5
z~z
x 0
x 0
X 00
xO0
0 1 0
z 0
z 1 x 0- 0 -0
H 00
C, 00
X 0
Hx
X 0
0 0
S~x 0
X 0 -
×~ 0 -o
00
m x 0-
HIONUIS Mavis
7-6
00
*<
>oV)
*n
7-7
>4 1 >4
0 I04
H IO3S
7-8
the failure tests will have revealed the prevailing modes, or

mechanisms, of failures. Either the average strength may be in-
creased, as shown in Figure B, or the inherent variation reduced,
as in Figure C, whichever api ars most suitable to save weight,
time, or expense.
Components having very large safety margins may be considered

"absolutely` reliable. They may be placed in the "'good' basket",
th-reby freeing us to concentrate on those component types which
still suffer from low safety margins.
When saving of weight is of prime importance, as in the desigrn of

structural comporn-nts, the concept of safety margins permits
saving weight by keeping the safety margin down to the specified
minimum of, say five standard deviations. in the desicgn of simpL,-
structural parts having very small inherent variations of strength.
such as machined pins, the designer may reduce dimensions and
weight to a bare minimum if ht, can prove, tnrough tests to failure,
that the specified minimum safety margin of, say five standard
deviations, is still available.
Tt thus becomes evident that the principle ot saretv maroTins not

only helps to achieve and ,•ntro] the required: "absoiute," Jeo-ce
of component reliabilit, , bur also helps t" improve performance
by indicatinq where dead weijht may be saved. Thus the crucial
antagonism between per trmance •nd reliability :-ay be ireat ly
alleviated.
_____ HOW MANY S TANDP' LAL:` ATIoNS?
The question arises: Ho-w many s arJard deviat ,ns shall h>'
specified? Actually. there is no tfixed number t-, be soeoifid
for all tyvos
of ccmp ,.ents, relati t. all env' -. , lnta con-
ditions and "•es icir c'rt -r .ta for the [1) 1 . rcas!)Tn' assure
that a cvxponent type will never cause thle Loss x
mi litarv equipment, every conceivable r'sk f Actors, such as un-
certainties of measuremnents, -kills, and of warcondri.ns, must
be consI' ered. i:pecfviinq and attainini tre min•rnum continotonoy
margin is the rtsponsItility of tht- engineer.
Once a sat istactor\v degree of lesi,4n reliabilitty is estabisY.. a,

arA proved to exist boy tests to failure, th q:ali ty control
enqineer will take over. He has the responsioilit,: of assurino,
by ippro).ed methods of statistical jaility controi, that <,,n
ur i
the manufacturing pro,.cess neither the averaqe strenu;th decreases
nor the standard deviation increases. He must prve this con-
7-9
tinuously by testing to faJilure sm ill but adequate production

samples with regard to those environmental conditions ,:hich,
Jduring the prototype tests, have shown the need of permanent
control. In this manner, the quality control engineer may main-
tamn, and even increase, the safety margins established in the
prototype stage.A
Considering only thi variations in strength (Figure 7-l0)com-

pared to a reliability boundary. A limit may be determined,
from the frequency distribution, below which the strength will
be found any given fraction of trials. (The 3 si~gma rule. T-hen
the normal distrib-'tion applies, is an example of this. The
actual value will be found below 3 standard dc-vations below the
mean only .00135 of the time) . As the figure shows, a contin-
genicy margin should be provided, in addition to the computed
scatter margin to provide for unverified assumptions. F'igure
7-11 provides the complete picture. Stress is controlled to
keep a safety margin between the design min~mum (pr.obable)
strenoith and th-1e ý-esiqn maximum (probable) stress.
-1.3 OVERDESIGN A.ND RFELIABILITY
It ".s ften argued that generou,,s 6afety margins unavoidably lead

to cue.?trdes ig-n,
that is, to-- excess ive v- iqht, reduceci! per formance,
hiý,h co.st, and d-~Laved sc'nedu ~es. Is this true?
There ~s the uer formance fanatic wh:., by ar fcn reli~ablitI

econo.my and schedules. tries to- -sq-uee-e out o ,'.I7 des iun thle
~ut
u t o~ieeorprt mance,
eu th.t -Ip117
-x7u ut Tere i's
.
t-he l~nrc-sourceful. apprehens ive desiqner who clinois to) his

desi,:n, unable to finis~h and rroelese it for production. In
eit~ner case, w.Arnings aqai ist overdes~qn are well -ýuýtifled.
Buit there is also the htsu~per ficial deui-,er who,, pretendirn:3

to ficiht gantoverdesiin, tries t-- push a new des ign into
pr oduct ion, be it mr.ature c).- immnature, lig:ht or, heav , inexpensive
or expensive, reliable or unreliablet-.
Sl,,n ficintly, ad~ocates of haste and` suo)erficialitv are the

onl ho assert that relialbtirty 7.a,-' be imrvdlater, d!,.r:ng
1,-,-t ion and serv ice use, by qual ity c. ntrol anic *:ailure ricý-
")ort In,.,. Silnce this is mpsbPthey just bring about the
C1'V c-ons eqjurices oýf overdes,ýon they pret end to battlec, nane lv
exs s i%-e w e 1qh t , r ed uced pecr tor,.a n ce , nCost andA -- (is
resuilt oýf necessary desion chanoes -- bad iv- delayed,, scheiules.
Wo~t ofall, they 1bring bu 'q rlai~v
co
LO0 -~
q-1
z
wH
H [AO
zo
H --
~I2 I
7-12
Wqhile warnings against overdesign are oftentimes justified, they

must never be misconstrued as an invitation to neglect the prin-
ciple of safety margins. Whenever this is the case, the engineer
must take immediate action, education or otherwise, before a low
reliability barrier becomes chronic and incurable.
2. STRESS AND STRENGTH DISTRIBUTIONS
For the purpose of discussing the concepts of stress-strength

analysis, we have used a normal distritution in our examples.
The assumption that stresses and strengths are normally distri-
buted is not necessarily valid. In using the stress-strength
approach, this assumption is dangerous (much more than in estim-
ating mean time between failures, for example) because the com-
parison is being made well out on t':*e tail, in the extreme value
regicn. Other possible distributionp, approximating the normal,
suctt as Poisson, Gamma, Weibull, or distributions like the log-
normal, ar-e also eligible candidates. The identification and
testing of distributions is covered in chapter 10. We will
discuss a generalized distributign here to guide the use of
probability theory to the establishment of safety margins.
2.1 JOINT DISTRIBUTIONS
If you assume a large number of tests of the strength of a given

manufactured part, each test being run to failure, some relation-
ship between the number failing at any particular value of
strength (or band of values) and the value can be determined.
This is called a frequency distribution or density function
(Figure 7-13). If the exact relationship were known, you could
predict the probability of a randomly selected specimen failing
at a particular value of stress F'. It would be that fraction
of the population, whose strength was equal to or. less than a
stress F'. Similarly, if you conducted an experiment a large
number of times, recording the stress on each experiment, a
relationship between the relative frequency (or density) of
stresses and the stress could be established. If the exact re-
lationship were known, you could predict the probability that
on any randomly selected trial (Figure 7-14) the stress would
exceed a strength S'. This would be the fraction of the popul-i-
tion (of possible trials) in which the stress exceeded the
strength S'. These fractions are, of course, the ratio of the
areas under the curve to the left of FV or right of S' to the
total area under each respective curve. If the two curves are
"normalized", that is if the ordinates on the curve are divided
by a common factor such that the total area under the curve is
z
Cy
S-A 0HA4fN
z
C
H
U -- I)
Z 12
c.v H
ci)
rI
H
C12 I
p 1
SJ.NANU!AdXA AO UlV4flN
t . t: t ah
ta rr tt: hnV
- rh IL-iS
r, 1r' 1
f. f I,i ,
.. .n at Fi are 7.. , th7- pro)bab

lity that the strentn t i i
be S on a paxrticular part is the area under the curve F(S)dx.
The probability thit the stress. F. is P(11-1 to or, grfoater t-an
the strength, i, 3, any particular experiment is the area under
th'e tai
I F(F)dF
s
The proba-bility that a failure will occur is the probability

that S r x and F > x. This is the product of the individual
probabilities. So the probability that a failure will occur (Q)
is
00
Q Z F(S)) r F(F)dF] dx
This equation can be solved dnalyLiily, graphically, by numer-

ical integration or by probabilistic techniques such as "Monte
Carlo" provided the form or shape of the probability distribu-
tion functions F(S) arid F(F) can be determined (chapter 10).
..2 STRESS-STRENGT-T ANALYSIS FOR THE NORMAL DISTRIBUTION
2.2.1 A~nlt.Lcal Basic: If both distributions are Normal

(gaussian) an ,scliyt cal ooluLh,,.i iias beeL, UtveiUpd. itLing
"S be the mean -"alue f the strength with standard deviation s
and F be the mean value of stress, ,ith f its standard deviation
then the piobability distii.butions of S and F are
lS- S
(2 s
F_(S)
21 s
e 2 f
F(F)
2-+f
If we designate D S - F then the reliability (the probability

that - > F) from the equation D -- S - F >0.
can be letermined
* FI'D) is cletinvo as the olitterence oistribution of F(S) and F(F).
F(D) is also normally distributed (3).
H
z
H
I2
0 -
z -V
U -
i
I
V
C12
U2 -
H
(.1)
'I-H
C
H
-4
.L4
S )N1,iyWA
b
1m
2-- d
where S - F and
kA - I :;
The reliability is giver, Ly

1 D d-
1 e d
R = P(D > 0)
e
d0
If ,'e set Z -- , then

d
z.2
R 2 dZ
2T-
d
2.2.2 Application: The method basically involves the ste-s

outlined in Figure 7-13 and discussed herewith:
A. Determine Approximate Design- Since the metbod involves

prediction of reliability from geometry of the design, a tenta-
tive confi.•uration must be established. As the analysis pro-
gresses, the design is corrected and refined to satisfy the
criteria.
B. Determine Critical Stresses. Sinr, all itresses in a design

do not leac to failure, wo must fi.st select and quantify those
stresses that will cause failure if xhev exceed achievable
strength. The word "critical" is used to denote these. The
following steps are involved:
1. Determine the nom~inal stresses, eŽach as A function of

loads (normal and shear), temperiture, geocetry, physicP!
properties (Poisson's ratio, Young's modulus, shear
I
z -n
U H- -
--
-
- -
-z
$- zK -
-
- -
- z - :i
ZI
V
- --
-
-I z}
-,
E crIZ
- 2
T - -- -
ci L, 2:
- - -- , -
H' -) 2
0 &I
H .. , - -,
f
cJ2
'.2
U
7-19
modulus, thermal expansicn, thermal conductivity) and

time (stress cyclec vs. life).
2. Determine factors affecting maximum stress such as (5)3

(:.) stress concentration factors (b) load factors such
as static, dynamic, impact, shock, and energy, (c) tem-
perature stress factors around critical points, (d) manu-
facturing stress factors such as for machining, grinding,
extruding, and drawing, (e) surface treatment stress
factors such as for shot peening, cold working, and plat-
ing, (f) heat treatment stress factors via di.stortion,
(g) assembly stress factors such as for ahrink and press
iits, (h) notch s.nsiti-Aty factors, particularly in
fatigue, (i) environmental stress factors such as siwrface
corrosion and gross temperature effects. When these are
appropriately combined with the basic nominal stress, the
effect, as shown in Figure 7-20, is to establish a higher
critical mean stress.
3. Calculate all critical stress components: First det3rmine

which of the stresses, considering the above factors, are
likely to be critical (i.e. approach strength and cause
failume if they do). Then for each calculate all three
normal and all three sheat Stresses, while the 0otiate
stress factors are appiied.
4. Calculate critical mean stresses, such as maximum tensile

stress, shear stress, or distortion energcp, or the com-
bination of mean and alternating fatigue stresses.
5. Determine critical stress distributions for useful life-
time. This can be done by listing all the principal
application situations, the environment for each, the re-
sultant critical stress for each, and the estimated per
cent of lifetime that it will encounter each situation.
Then a normal (or other) density function can be fitted
to the data by regression, and (if normal) the standard
deviation obtained.
C. Determine Material and its Unit Strength. Here much depends

upon the criterion for strength beyond which failure is defined
to have occurred:
1. Determine all critical unit strength mean valuest Select
one or more suitable materials. Then determine (a) direct
streso/atrain criteria (ultimate strength, yield strength,
or proportional limit, depending upon application)
0 0. >
o) 0
C Cd
C4--
H
zz i.i
21.
bI' shear strerth in t"-. same way, (c) distortion energy

strenqth, an" (d) fatigue strength.
2/ Deten•mune factors that affect stret, such as (a) size

and icad, (b) manufacturing pi.-cessEs, (c) heat treatment,
(d) surface treatment, (e) environnent (temperature,
humidity, corrosion, etc.), and (f) time effects (aging.
cold flow, fatigue, and corrosion) Figure 7-19 shows
the general strength reduction due to these factors.
.Determine actual unit strenoth means and distributions.

Apply the appropriate strength factors to determine the
net mean strength for the application conditions. Then
determine thp distribution for each from thc material
surppliers or testing laboratories, or conduct tests--to-
failure as necessary. Again fit a rxrmal (or other)
density function to the data by reqression, and (if
normal) obtain the standard deviation.
D. Determine the Required Strena~hs: Now that we have the

anticipated stresses and the material unit strengths, we can
proceed to determine the Lotal strengths required for adequate
reliability. But first let's examine the stress/strength re-
lationship.
If we were to conduct a series of 25 tests of a critical stress

within a given design, they might fall in a "scatterband' as
shown in Figure 7-22. If these stress points are "normally"
distributed, 68% will fall within a band of say t 2 kips each
side of the example mean 13 kits, another 27% will fall within
the next 2-kip bands on each side, another 4% in the next 2-kip
band--s, etc. This is expressed by the area under the standard
density function curve at the right. The "standard deviation"
of this normal distribution is f = 2 kips.
Now if we were to conduct a similar series of tests-to-failure

to get strength of the material, we typically would find the
same shape of curve, but some other valup of standard deviation.
For the example it is s = 0.5 kip. And we now see that the mean
values are separated by D = 5 kips.
Now the overlap of the tw6 curves tells us that if we were to

conduct enough tests, or encounte enough operational situations,
sooner or later we will get a stress point exceeding strength,
and we should have a failure. The probability that this will
not occur, for normal distributioric, as we have seen
7-22
c'J,..
N
0
t. >
- K -4
I, - U
I -4
H
r-. -
0- 0 -
0
II
H
'1
10 0) r ' Lt -4
flFT T Tr T
* *
*555 * * * S .4.)
C S
S S
8frJLS
7-23
Z•
1 [ 2
Reliability R 1 dz
- (
d
which is the area under the normal density function, available

in many books (7) to
(d) =3.5.
Extensions to
(7) = 8.4
d
can be obtained from references (8) using
x d
( ),'. 2 and R = 1- (l-area)/2,
Since R provides an unwieldy string of 9s, it is usually more

convenient to express Unreliability U = 1 - R. D is the differ-
ence between mean strength and stress, and s and f are the re-
spective standard deviations. Figure 7-23 gives the resultant
relation of U to (L). With this background we can outline the

d
procedure:
1. Translate reliability re uirement to Reliability Margint

Calculate U from the specified reliability R = 1 - U. Use
Figure 7-21 to irind the required Reliability Margin (-.

2. Calculate mean stress/strengtn variance: Use the standard
deviations s and f obtained from B5 and C2 above, to obtain
their mean d 2 + f2
3. Calculdte the re(au.red mean strn ths, by adding D (-) 'd

know what strength is neeaed d
to mean stress. Now we
to achieve the required reliability.
E. rDetermvineSize and ;hape: Now that the material and its unit
strengths have been established, and the required strengths cal-
culated, we can proceed to desi,•n for adequate size and shape to
7-24
-4
-4
-4
I ____________
-4
-4
fr; I
-4
-4
fl .TI1JUJ 3) jjqIqoJd
7-25
a<hieve the reiuired strengths:
I. Select or desigfn for the section nmodulus requircd, usinq

.;tanc6Aird iection handbooks and e-itablished design calcu-
a t icns.
2. ModiL]'_the design and/or the materivls until all Relia-
bility' Margins are met.
F. Verify the Design Reliability Nearly all design

"argin:
involves many assumiptions to avoid unjustifiable volume of
analysis or test cost. The above approach permits design to
predictable reliability, but does not insure against design
err'rs of ass-amption, analysis, omission, etc. Verification
is covered in chapter 13.
2.2.3 Other Distribution: The preceding approach assumed that

both stress and strength distributions were normally distributed,
that is, could be described by the normal (t,•a-li•n) distribution.
:s mentioncd earlier, this is a very dangerous assumption. Where
a distribution can be established, analytical solutions can be.
derived. Reference (5) provides a very useful listing of
roferences ior special distributions.
The computation of the difference functions and the determina-

tions of reliabiLity have been analytically established for the
log normal (4), Gamma (5) and Weibull (6) distributions. Refer-
ence 5 also suggests alternatives such as conformal mapping or
numerical or graphical integration for obtaining solutions in
special cases.
2.2.4 Stress/i.trength testing: When distribution data is not

obtainable for the above analytical approach, yet the design
reL.iability is a critical matter, it may be necessary to conduct
experimental tests. Tests to determine stress diptributinn in a
prototype are fairly straighttorward and non-destructive, using
ijastrumentation such as strain ga.~s, plastic models ane polar-
ized light, etc. To the extent that such tests can simulate the
manuofactuiing variances, operational environment, external
stresses, and time effects, the results can be quite dependable.
BuL tests of _Lrength distribution are much more difficult, ex-

pensive, and time con5,uming. If the design engineer can identify
specific local areas of critical doubt, a series of comparatively
sirple tests can be designed, wherein stress is repeatedly in-
creased until failure occurs, providing a rough strength distri-
buticn curve for the local are1. On the other hand it may be
7 -26
SiI
more not mor-

rio economical to test an entire proto-
if:onvincinn,
typer the same maincr, so that all interactions are accounted
tor repairing failuteý.esach time they occur. Of course as i
stren,4t.h inadequacies are thus br-ught t-: liqht, the design is
chanqed to get required str ngth.
Such stress/strength testing should not be confused with simnpl.e

"overstress" testing, which deteL-mines only that the design does
not fail at some specified stress above the operational level.
Over-stress testing does not generally determine strength.
3. APPLICATIONS
The use of the "safety margin" approach is an improvement over

the "safety factors" approach in that it providas an analytical
metihod of evaluating the risk that an overstress or understrength
condition will exist. Instead of a pyramid of safety factors
imposed by each area providing the "worst case" value, the pro-
babilitv rf failure is evaluated on the distribu-ion of values.
Figure 7-26 illustrates the comparison. The strength of material
is quoted at the -3c value, the computation of stresses is made
at the mean vaic, tie safety factor used is 5. By evaluation
of the distributions -he safety factor could very rf-alistically
have been set at 3.
The analysis attempts to evaluate the probability of finding a

value of stress much larger than (or strength much less than) the
•"
nominal value. Vhere this probability is high, the safety margin
must be great, where the probabilLty is low, a small margin will
suffice. Wbere this probability is not capable of estimation,
approximations must be used and a contingency factor based on the
objective knowledge obtained from testing or analysis applir •.
The purposes - --afrty marg in analysis is to improve the com-

petitive positi-n of the design; that is, to find the optimum
compariscen ot stress and strength that. will (a) have an accep-
table prob biittv of success and (b) Lomp e favor3bly with
tthor cn)r 4 i ;:nt, suc.h as weight, cost, a'.-ilability of material.
My favk-ite example is the assumption made years •go that brick
and inemrtar c-,li]i stand a tensile load. Tests confirmed this and
usinj a ten.;7iLv stress loading in the dj'sigjn of large furnace
chimneys of one pound per square foot, the industry was revolu-
tionized by the appearance of tall, skinny (to them) chimneys.
4
Recognizing that. while in most shipbuildino material the standard
deviat ions of strength, with the luslial manufacturing cc:n,; ol and
7-27
zz
00
LO CH
HkNfNH
7-28
inspection, is neqliq;ib1•' in compdrison to the yield and ultimate

strengths, the stresi;es imposed by dynamic loading may be highly
probabilistic in nature. There were a numbor o$ Jeen aircraft
carrier that suffered damage to their flight decks during the
war due to heading into seas during hurricane force storms.
Consideration was given to greatly strengthening the structural
support. A decision was made (in the CNO as recommended by the
Bureau) that the probability that the situation would need to
occur, that carriers would need to recover aircraft in a
hurricane, was small enough to make the (then) present design
acceptable. Fleet and Task Group commanders were infored of
the limitation on the ships capability and told to avoid the
situation.
The selection of the ippropriate working stress, for com-

petitive aebign, snouid consiuer tie nominal maximum loading
anticipated but should also consider the distribution of loadings
which may cause stresses in excess of this value (as probability
that a ship must proceed on a particular course -.. ith relation to
a hurricane). The strength computation should be based on an
acceptable value of risk, as opposed to a nominal stress value
hoping the sifety i:actor is adeqcuate t,) prevent failure when
the extreme occurs.
Use of tbe stress-strength approac., provides the engineer with

one more analytical tool to assist in reaching decisions in the
process of design and developent of systems.
4. R EF'R ENCES
1. Reliability tvrovi-h Safety Marq ins, Robert busser, October

1958, (Astia - PD212-476).
2. Stud%, of Maintenance Cost optimization and Reliability of

Shipboard Equipmrent, by I. 5azovsky, N. MacFarlane, and R.
Wunderman, Report ,,n C*ntract NONR 37400(00)(FPaM) (Astia
AD283-429).
3. Statistical Theory wtth, !'Tng0necrinq Applications, by A. 11,ld;

John Wiley tand So.ns, New York
4. Introduction to Statistical Tnference, by E. S. Keeping,

D. r
Van N,,strind Cozmpany,
< Princeton, New Jersey.
5. Designinq a Specified Reiiibil Iy Dircctly into a Componernt,

by D. Kc-.-eciuglu and D. Cormier, June 1-464, SAE-ASME-AIAA,
7 -2 c
A<r•opace Reliability and Mai ntainability Cn itrence Pro-

ceedings, Society of Automcýti.'e Engineers, 485 Lexinqton
Avenue, New York, New York.
6. Engineering Applications of Reliability by C. Kipson,

J. Kerawalla, and L. Mitchell; Universi y of Michigan,
Engineering Sinmer Conferences, Ann AxtLor, Michigan, 1963.
7. Reliability Principles and Practices, by S. P. Calabro;

McGraw Hill Book Co., 1962.
8. Biometrika Tables for statisticians, Vololme I, bv E. S.

?arQn and i7. 0. lHartl•-w°, TTniversity Press, Cambridge,
Great Britain, 1956.
8-1
Chapter 8
MAINTAINABILITY
Page
1. AVAILABILITY Z- 4
1.1 Inherent Availability 8- 4
1.2 Operational Availability 8- 7
2. REQUIREMENTS 8- 8
2.1 Basic Approaches 8- 8
2.2 Specifications 8-10
3. QUANTIFICATION OF MAINTAINA13ILITY 8-11

3.1 Reliability-Maintainabil:ity Trade-offs 8-11
3.2 Achievement of Maintainability 8-18
3.3 Prediction for Mechanical Systems 8-28
3.4 Application of Prediction. 9-31
3.5 Maintainability Program Considerations 8..3"3
4. MAINTENANCE ANALYSIS 8-33

4.1 Integrated Maintenance Management 8-33
4.2 Maintenance Concept 8-35
4.3 Maintainability ý.ask Analysis 8-36
5. MAINTATNABILITY DEMONSTRATION 8-39

5.1 Electronic Systems 8-39
5.2 Mechanical Systems 8-41
6. APPLICATIONS TO CURRENT WORK 8-41.

6.1 Definition of Requirements -8-41
6.2 Contracting for Maintainabi.lity 8-'42
7. REFERENCES 8-43
No
1-2
Chapter 8
MAINTAINABILITY
Maintainability concepts are being emphasized in all services of

the Department of Defense because of the high costs associated
1wih maintaininr. euijmeent operational. Three cl,•e"v assoc-
iated rrroblems have increased maintenance costs within the Navy.
Following World War TI came a tremendous increase in complexity
of ships equipment. And ships became er•c specialized. This was
accompanied by an increase in the turnover of personnel. As the
equipnent became more difficult to maintain, the capabilities of
the maintenance personnel fell behind; they were less able to
cone w-ic- the problems. The approach being taken by the services
is to increase the mai.ntaina,. lity of systems.
Maintainability is the speed or economy with which - system or

component can be kept in, and/or restored to, full performance
capability. A principally-used measure is the average number of
failures restored per hour of Corrective Maintenance time, which
is the reciprocal of MqTwR. enoti r is the fraction of attempts
wherein restoi- .tion is completed in a specified time, or the pro- i•
bability that i, will be compl'eted in that time. Another is the
operational time per dollar cost ot preventive and corrective
maintenance.
The ebjectives of a maintainability program include the perfecti•

•
of the design to assure that maintenance act-4-ns can be accomplish-
ed in minimum time, with minimum effort but with maximum safety.
By the above definition, we find ourselves concerned with four

ar 'sf enquiry:
(a) The capabilities and characteristics (both mental arid

physical) of the people who maintain and operate the
system,
(b) The design of equiFrent suited to the characteristics of

such people,
(c) The quariiification of requirements, prediction, and

"vc- ý fi, ation to control the achievement of maintain-
ability and assure ourselves that the system meets our
needs, and
(I) The management control of maintenance resources.

Maintainability is often confused with maintenance. The achieve-

ment of maintainability is a design function, but maintenance is
a consequence of design and use. There are two other similar
terms that can be confusing; maintainability analysis and main-
tenance analysis. The design function that analyzes equipnmcnt
and systems to determine what operation and maintenance actions
are required to keep equipment or systems operating does main-
tainability analysis. Analysis of maintenance tasks to determine
the resources required to do the work is maintenance analysis.
Resources again mean men, moneýy, material, facilities, time and
mror ale.
One military specification (5) has the following requirements for

maintainalility analysis and maintenance analysis.
"Maintainability Analysis. A maintainability engineering

analysis of the system shall be accomplished concurrently
with the design effort. This analysis shall provide a
definition of maintainabilit'y desion features to be in-
corporated in the hardware. This analysis shall e used
to evaluate the degree of achievement of the maintainability
design goals, includinq inherent mean and maximum doý%n time,
the logistic and personnel subsystems decisions related to
support cost of the system versus design and support alter-
natives. The primary inputs into the maintainability analy-
siS will be data obtained from design engineering reports,
data and studies prepared by the contractor, and the require-
ments furnished by the procuring agency."
"Maintenance Analysis. The antractor shall conduct a detail-

ed determination of hardware maintenance tasks, tools and test
equiipment, and spares line item identification. This is a
portion of the over-all system analysis and provides feedback
to the maintainability analysis."
Tt is obvious that the two types of analysis cover the same

ground. The designer mus3t, in his desiqn foresee the maintenance
tasks that will be required to maintain and operate the equipment
if he is to incorporate features into tie design to improve the
ease and econorny of repair or maintenance. For optimization of
the maintainability et the design includes deiign for minimum
support requirements as well as access and simplicity of required
operations. To achieve this will r2quire a rather detailed task
analysis which will be partially duplicated by the subsequent.
maintenance analysis. Reasonable efficiency requires that the
twc c forts be married fron the concept of the desiqn not only
i ~8-4
to reduce duplication of efIfort, but to prevent different main-

tenance concepts from being developed, as will usually occur
unless th? two are coordirated.
Accepting that the perfect machine - one designed to perform its

function whenever called upon and never to have a failure - h's
yet to be desiqned, we realize we must accept something not quite
perfect. But how much less than perfect? The answer must be
based on the function the system is recuired to perform.
There are two primary roads we can follow. We can spend every
dollar we can afford to make the system reliable - to reduce the
the incidence of failures so that it almost never needs to be
repaired. Or we can permit the system to fail, as often as it
Tneeds to, spending our money in the design to make it almost
instantly restorable. This second approach is called mainfain-
ability. As might be expected, the best and most ecoTnomical
approach is usually somewhere between these extremes.
Lets take an example. The functional requircments in terms of

consistency of performance are different for the refrigerators
on a freighter than for the steering engines of the same ship.
The consequences of failure in the steering engines are immediate
- lack of control, usually with the rudder hard over. Collision
or grounding are predictable consequences,. The refrigerator, on
the other hand, can maintain a low temperature for a considerable
time. Ultimately spoilage and logistic problems may result if not
repaired soon enough, but immediate consequences are not foreseen.
In the case of the steering engine, we demand high reliability,

a very low failure rate. To achieve this we provide duplicate
systems so that, should one fail, the other can be used. For the
refrigerator, nc such instantaneous replacement is required. We
rather require that the equipment be operable a high petcentage
of the time, with no extemely long down times. This latter
characteristic we define ab utaiutainability,,
1. AVAILABILITY
1.1 INHERENT AVAILABILITY
The point of comparison between reliability and maintainability

as a design approach is called Availability. Availability is
the *,action of the total desired operating time that the system
,r component is operable (chapter 27). For prediction
purposes it is also the probabiliLy that a system or equipment
is operating satisfactorily at any point in time when used under
Sstated conditions (.). We might consider a system such as the
8 -5
evaporators on board ship. The requirement for operation depends

on the storage capacity and usage of fresh water. At any point
in time the evaporators may be operating. If they are not,
several possible reasons may account for their shutdown:
(a) Wa4 .er tanks are full;
(b) Inadequate auxiliary exhaust steam makes their use un-

economical;
(c) Polluted harbor water makes operation undesirable;
(d) Evaporators are down for maintenance;
(e) Evaporators are down for repair.
Considering only the last reason, Figure 6-6 provides a pictorial

explanation of Inherent Availability, Ai.
Inherent Availability (4) is the fraction of total time that a

system or equipment, when usei under stated conditions in an ideal
supply environment, is capable of operation. Inherent Avail-
ability excludes time down except for the time necessary to diag-
nose the trouble, repair the fault, test out and restart the
equipment.
The two components of Inherent Availability are Reliability and

Maintainability. Reliability can be measured in terms of Mean
Time Between Failures (MTBF). Maintainability is measured in
terms of Mean Time to Restore (MTTR). Restoration is used in
preference to repair since restoration 4 used in the sense cf
returning the system to operation by using replacements or possi-
bly by switching on redundant elements, where repair may include
welding a crack, or depot or factory repair of replaced modules
subsequlent to their removal. The measure, MTTR, is defined as
the statistical mean of the distribution of times to restore. The
summation of active restoration times during a given period of time
divided by the total number of failures during the same time interval.
On the average, the equipmeiut will operate a time equal to the

MTBF before failure. On the average thc nquipment will be restored
to operatirg condition in a time equal to the MWTR. The average
time during which the equipment may be considered available is
the fraction of the total time represented by the equation:
MTBF
MTBF + MTRiR
8-6
04l
Hm
E-4-
HW
0-4
4 --
H• II
z H"
CdC
A-L
8-7
1.2 OPERATiONAL AVAILAB ILITY
As pointed out earlier, it.may not be possible to operate the

equipment this fraction of the time. Most cquipments reqtdire
some down time for routine (scheduled) maintenance. Lack of
spare parts or lack of manpower may delay the restoration action.
Or administrative reasons may require the equipment to be shut
down. The following terms are applied to non-operating time (4):
(a) Downtime: That. portion of calendar time during

which the item is not in condition to perform
its intended function.
(b) Preventive Maintenance Time: The maintenance time to

retain an item in satisfactory operational condition by
providing systematic inspection, detection, and preven-
tion of incipient failure. It is made up of perform-
ance measurement, care of mechanical wearout items,
front panel adjustment, calibration and alignment,
cleaning, etc.
(c) Corrective Maintenance Time: The time that begins with

the observance of a malfunction of an item and ends when
the item is restored to a satisfactory operating con-
dition. It may be subdivided into Active Maintenance
Time and Non-Active Maintenance Time.
(d) Active Restoration Time: The Corrective Maintenance

Time during which work is actually being done. It in-
cludes detection, diagnosis, preparation, replacement
or repair, adjustment, checkout, and reload time to the
extent each is necessary.
(e) Active Maintenance Time: The time during which preven-

tive and corrective maintenance work is actually being
done on the item.
[f) Non-Active Maintenance Downtime: The time during which

no maintenance is bcing accom~plished on the item
because of either supply or administrative reasons.
8-8
(g) Administrative Time: That portion of Non-active Main-

tenance Time that is not included in Supply Time.
(h) Supply Time: That portion of Non-Active Maintenance

Time during which maintenance is delayed solely because
a needed item is not immediately available.
(i) Inactive Time: The period of time when the item is

available, but is neither needed nor operating for its
intended use.
The term, Operational Availability (A,), is used to describe that

fraction of the total time that the system, when used under stated
conditions in an actual supply environment, will operate satis-
factorily when required. Supply time and Administrative time
are included.
2. PEQUIREMENTS
2.1 BASIC APPROACHES
OPNAVINST 19l0.4A outlines how thc Navy piepares Technical Devel-

opmnent Plan Summaries. Enclosure 1 to the instruction defines the
information to be included in sections of the summary. Sections
10 through 13 require information pertaining to maintainability.
The four sections are titled:
Section 10 Dependability Plan

Section 11 Operability and Supportability Plan
Section 12 Test and Evaluation Plan
Section 13 Personnel and Training
The Dependability Plan of Section 10 sets up Availability and

Operational Readiness Goals. Quantitative Reliability and Main-
tainability goals (MTBF and MTTR) can be set up from the avail-.-
ability and readiness goal-;. At the start of a project or in the
project Definition Phase, only gross statements can be made for
maintainability. Like system analysis, maintainability analysis
is an iterative process which gets progressively refined is a
project progresses.
I
8-9
A, the end of a Project Definition Phase the following should be

established for Maintainability Assurance:
(a) A maintenance philoc>ýrýhy is describeu for the system to

provide essential data for the Supportability liria and the Person-
nel Training Plan. The maintenance philosophy will develop:
(1) Echelons or levels of maintenance, including maintenance

tasks and skills for eac'h level.
(2) Planned use of built-in maintenaice aids such as self-

test features, malfunction indicators, specialized or standara
test equipment, etc.
(3) Planned use of job aids such as troubleshooting logic

charts, system technical manuals, audio-visual presentation
of maintenance tasks, etc.
(4) Other design features which may affect snare parts and
repairs such as use of standard circuits from specific hand-
books, disposable modules, etc.
(5) Unique knowledge of skills required by the system.
(6) Equipment utilization or operational cycle.
(7) Maintenance envirnmrnent.
(8W Maintenance faci.-ities.
(b) Applicable MIL specifications are defined.
(c) Quantification of Maintainability, i.e., development and

application of numerical measures of maintainability.
(I) Mean Time to Restore (MrTR)
(2) Maximum Time to Restore (MAXTR)
(3) Other
(d) Maintainability apportionment and prediction. This involves

the allocation of over-all system measures of maintainability to
a'1 major lower-order el1Nnents of the zystem, with special regard
for maintenance tisks, times and test equipment required at the
various echelons involved. It also inciudes data concerning the
extent, schedule, design, influence, etc. of prediction in the
over-all plan for Maintainability assurance.
8-10
(e) Maintenance tasks and skill analysis.
(f) Maintainability design reviews.
(g) Test and demonstration.
(h) Maintenance data collection, feedback and analysis.
The maintainability assurance plan will vary in complexity with

the size of the project and careful evaluation has tc be made cf
the )enelts to be received from the expenditures to be made.
A proposed DOD instruction titled "Development of the Weapon

System or Equipment Inteqrate& Support Package," defines the role
of the material manager in and the minimum requirements for the
uystemitic and orderly development of the weapon system or equip-
ment integrated support package."
The elements of an Integrated Support Package are:
1. Planned Maintenance
2. Logistics Personnel Subsystem
3. Logistics Data
4. Support Equipment
5. Spares and Repair Parts
6. Facilities
7. Contractor Support
It can be seen that the elements of an Integrated Support Packaqe

are closely aligned to the Maintainability Assurance portion of
the Dependability Plan outlined in OPNAVINST 3910.4A.
2.2 SPECiFTCATIONS
All of the services are implemtenting the DOD directive and ins-
tructions with specifications and handbooks on maintainability.
MIL M 23313 (SHIPS) (2) out lines a coýmprehensive program for
maintainability of electronic >;,.ipment. For maintainability
design quides, it refers to Navy Publication NAVSHIPS 94324.
The specification covers maintainability durin., desiin and ýro-
duction. It covers maintainaoility prediction during the pre-
liminary design stage. Maintainability requirements are noted
for tht final desian stage, preproduction stage and during pro-
duction. Equipnent Repair Time (ERT) is used as the measure of
maintain-bilitv.
The Appendix to specificztion MIL M 23313(SHIiS) covers "Main-

tainahility Design Evaluation lProcedures- in detail. It is speci-

ficaliv slanted at elect-onic equipment ind excludes mechanical
hardware from the evaluation prcocedures. Althouqh the title of
the Append~ix does not indicu:te it, maintainability prediction
techniques are given for the early arid late development stages of
des ign.
3. ýýUANTIFICATION OF MAINTAINABILITY
3. 1 RELIABILITY-MAINTAINABILITY TRADE-OFFS
The selecti(on of the design approach, whether to) use reliab~lity

or maintainability approaches to achieve the required availabil-
ity, is based on the functional requirements for the system.
Reference (6) provides usefull techniques in the development of
reliability-m&-..ntainibi-litV trade-offs. Iii making the choice,
thne following factors should be kept in mind.
( a) Even highly reliable systeii-s will hafsm ailures.

When high reliability during short time intervals in required,
as in the steering engines, high availability a-hievý,ed throughl
reducing the NITTR may not be pertinent, unless the restorati~on
is practically instani~aneous.
(b) An improvemecnt in reliability by quality improvement

(simpler des :gn, Fart~s and manufacturing pr-ocess congrol. etc.)
will reduce the costs attributable to repairs. An improverient
in reliability through use of duplicate eq~uipments, each of
lower rcliability will increase the costs of maintenance and
repair.
(c) Equipilents -ith lo..w MTTR achieved bzy modular de-4ign, have
a teoidency to increase the cost of repair. When the low MTTR
is achievtd by planning for main_-nance and repair in the
desigin phase, costs of repair tend to go. dolwn.
Re-liab~ility ind Maintainability in design must be traded-oft to

achieve a system or equipment. design which will:
(a.) ;atisf%, a spŽecified availabiýlity goal.
(b Satisfv d*'sixcn an' mission constraints.
(c) Result in des iti ;.ptimniza.tion wi*th respect to co:3t, per-

forriance ino! schedule.
8-12
Satisfaction of the mission goal -- achievement of a given level

of avail3bility -- is determined by thp system/ecquipment MTTR and
MTBF. 1TIT&R is generally determined to a large degree by (a) the
prime equipment and associated test equipment designs as they re-
-ate to the "on-line test approach', arnd (b) the packaging4 design
as :t relates to the time required to find, remove and replace a
failed element -- principally correlated with the "Functional
level" of the replaceable element and thus with the extent of the
troubleshooting task leading to correction. MTBF is primar-ily
determined by the approach taken toward improving the reliability
of the total population of parts in satisfying the mission per-
for-mance requirement.
In order to proceed deeper into thes-2 trade-offs it is necessary

to define the various levels of performance or op.-rational mo-des
for the system. For a surface ship, one of those might be the
search' mode for which we ' ave a specified operatis-nal availabil-
ity of 0.90. Next, we must describe all the equipnient, personnel,
and facilities required to support the search mode. Essentially
it means going through the system logic for each concept under
study and using the system modelI (discussed in Chapter 3) to die-
velop a failuie effects analysis at the functional level. S ince
functions relate to hardware, the fol_ýlowing maintainability char-
icteristics can be determir-'d: al feasibility o§ performinq
maintenance, b) necessity for "d-es ignino in'' east, )f maintenance,
c) supporting hardware such as tcols, test equi, 'ment , chneckout
qear required, and d) t-Trsonnel required for maintenance and t~heir
skill levels. The abovre analysis must be perfrý'rmei in parallel
with reliability analysis in order to alllocat.0 a~ai labi 1itv. to
the end item. F-.en hiohly Leliable systems may lhavc a~n un.a.ccec-
table level of Avai lability if a faillure requir -s an excess,.ve
amount of time to return to satisfactory operation.
Trhe top level avai lability requiremtvnt can be apportij.nvd arron~i

the end items requi red fo-r the search mode usint- st-an..ard re Iia-
bility apporti.o:nmenttiechniques discussed in Chaptcr 6. The FIi-
lure Effects Anallysis IS an aid in per fcom--ini t~hi3 A 1y t"et ica 1
.
apporticon~ment iF shown in F iqure H-1 3. Furtlher dliscuss ion o)f t'oe

example will concentr ate on, the SONAR~ and r7LECTP;qN1CS-, tnd itern
for which the assessc'd Ava-ilab; lity -ioal is ~ eare noý
faced with the task -f optimizing the balance betwoen the Relia-
bility paramTeter (MTBF') and the Maintainability prarramtter (MTTRP.
obviously there are, a nunmbei' cf trade-offs as slhown in Kor
B-14, which car, ichiove the A-ai lab,.lity requirecw'nt with an M-lTTR
constraý'Int of .12 days downtime tai lure (2.88 hirs.).
Now that, certain coýnstraints have been placled on the hiypothet :,cal
8-+13
0 " -
I >!
o I
~h4 ~1!
3)|
3n
-.
8-14
0
H
I 0
C4
Tv
8-15
V subsystem, a Maintenance Policy Study is conducted in order to

determine what values of MTBF and MTTR seem to be reasonable.
Concurrently, reliability analysis determines what particular
values of MTBF seem reasonable in light of prcjected state-of-
the-art, development tost requirements, costs, etc.
Items which are included in the maintenance policy study are:
(a) Maintenance Policy Study
1. Appropriate echelon for repair

2. Module size determination
3. Repair versus discard decisions
4. Test and checkout philosophy
Degree of outomation
Inspection interval
Special test equipment
5. Preventive mainten-anc8 schedule
6. Rold of man in system
Classi fication/ functions
Task definitions
7. Safety Requirements
8. Appropriate Provisioning Policy
(b) Technician Requirements
1. Selection
Education
Experience
Aj_ •itudes
Motivation
2. Training
Task analysis
Procedures
Equuipment
Program•ed learning
3. Validation of Proficiency
Experimentat iorn
S'Man/system compatibility
Capabilities analysis
(c) Time Requirement. for Corrective Maintenance
1. Localization time
2.. Tolation time
3. Disassembly time
4. Interchange time
• _mml!_.r14
8-16
5. Reassembly time
6. Alignment time
7. Ch-. ekout time
8. De 0--t•aton fa•ix-. :o operational use.
The interrelationship of these items for Maintainability is such

that a change in one will affect another in terms of.- a) the
duration of s3stem failure, b) the duzatior of component failure,
and c) the y cost initially and over its lifetime of use.
The elements are compared in a systems evaluation model to deter-
mine the effect of the downtime of a system on availability rela-
tive to costs. Costs can be taken into account by determining
manhours required, additional facilities and trade-offs between
costs of items in the supply pipeline versus item downtime.
With the establishment of the Maintenance policy, large scale

decision-making and trade-offs are essentially ccvplete. Avail-
ability, maximum and mean allowable downtime, and minimum accep-
table reliability ha.-e been assessed to the and item level and
quantified for insertion into the systemit specir-Aticrnz. Should
a decision be made to procepe with pure hardware developmeihc,
these will become design requirements. Note that there is still
some latitutde remaining for design in that increased reliability
can be substituted for decreased maintainability at the black
box level.
In dealing with the derivatian of Maintainability requirements the

man/machine interface m~ust continually be evaluated. In shipboard
practice, th'e operator is seldom the maintenance technician and in
this section the difference should be distinguished. First, we
ar'e concerned with the operator and his role in system availabil-
ity. His role, that of failure detection and partial diagnosis,
is like that of a computer with many feedback loops. His motor
response (see Figure 8-17) is a result of how well the machine
can tell him its status during normal operation and its troubles
when failure occurs.
Figure 8-17 also applies to the maintenance technician. That is,

there are many alternate modes in which he receives information
during the process of system restoration (i.e., correction and
verification). However, no matter how well a design is optimized
for man's sensing and cognitive process, the total job of main-
tenance cannot be performed until the physical constraints such
as space, and weight have been overcome for him to produce this
"motor response."
8-17
I z 0
oz
I0 Z
uI
ZI 0 Hz~ 0
I
I Un
z u
8-18
3.2 ACHIEVEMENT OF MArNTAINABILITY
All we have done so far is to dcfine th6 system, its operation

anj its design requirements. The process of detail design now
gets underway and it becomes Management's job to assure that
specific maintainability rcquirements are being met. The road-
block to maintainability assurrance lies in getting the designer
to work with the tools of Maintainability. He must bc infor..ed
as to what items he must consider when designing equipment. it
is at this point that manuals (7 and 8) become a great help.
Achievement of maiiitainability requires an integration of the

maintain-bility tasks into the design cycle. Iii each step, the
maintainability engineer is supporting the designer in his effort.
The phasing of this support and its integration into the program
art Indicated in Figure 8-19. Design toward required maintain-
ability requires most of the program aspects already discussed
for reliability. Certainly training and indoctrination of those
who will ultimately influence the final product (designers, pro-
duction, etc.) is as important here as in reliability achievement.
Day to day liaison with the designer will provide the same rewards,
understanding and acceptance of the discipline. Participation in
Design reviews from concept to final drawing release provides a
medium for training and development of understanding in the design
areas. As with reliability, unless the designer has a comprehen-
sible (to him) goal and understands (or can be taught) the prin-
ciples that will enable him to achieve it, the effort of trying
to make the equipment meet a maintainability requirement is
fruitless. A maintainability program commences during the pro-
posal/precontract study phase and continues through design, de-
velopment, fabrication, testing, and delivery of equipment to the
customer. Major program tasks include the accomplishment of:
Design Analysis (Liaison) -- the systematic approach whereby

maintainability requirements are achieved effectively and
economically in the initial equipment design.
Maintainability Analysis -- A continuing review of the de-

sign to determine the degree of maintainability requirements
incorporated in equipment design.
Maintainability Demonstration -- a final hardware verification

of the actual degree of maintainability requirements incor-
porated in equipment design.
One facet of achievement of maintainability is the establishrrmnts

of these requirements and their use as a design control tool as
8-19
4gaO
-4 4A
8-
s-I- W --
41 c
41)
4) 4. 4
Cd 00 r.4 r. r.
m a) a) I'"° I
$4 x
II 1 I41
8 ...,,-I
go ~
- NNil
CC
N~~c 'IU)
8-20
presently specified in MIL M 23313(2).
In the design to achieve a specif 4 ed maintainability requirement,

Appendix to reference (2) describes maintainability prediction by
the task analysis approach specified for electronic systems. The
requirement is specified as an equipment repair time (ERT). The
specification requirement is derived from the equation:
ERT (specified) = 0.37 ERT max
ERTmax is the maximum value of ERT that should be accepted no

more than 10% of the time. The factor 0.37 results from the dis-
tribution assumed and assures a consumers risk of 10% when applied
as specified.
Maintainability prediction can be initiated in the early develop-

ment stage, when at least the following have been established:
(a) The planned packaging arrangement to the extent that a

functional level breakdown into the various equipments, groups,
assemblies, and subassemblies can be determined.
(b) The planned diagnostic procedure tn the extent that the

general levels of localization and isolation can be determined.
(c) The planned replacement method to the extent that the

general method nf failure correction can be determined; that
is, whether individual parts, subassemblies, assemblies, or
units will be replaced in making repairs.
(d) The approximate quantity of various categories of high

failure parts such as tubes and relays to be included at each
equipment subdivision.
ke) The level at which normal equipment operation will be

confirmed foli)wing a repair.
The first step in the procedure is to determine the functional

level breakdown of the equipnent or system. This is done by
dividing the equipment or system into its various physical subdiv-
isions beginning with the hiqhest subdivision and continuing do.,n
to the items such as parts, subassemblies, assemblies or units
that will be replaced in corrective maintenance. The functional
level breakdown is most easily established and certain determina-
tions required during the prediction are more easily made if a
functioaal level diar'ram similar to that shwon in Figure 8-21 is
prepared. Here, a hypothetical electronic equipment is subdivided
i
A-21
I I
SI I I I I I
. I I 1 I 1
z I I I -.
I I [1I
" I -
'••i -- ! qi I I I I <-
zI 0 l II
-N
6 .
8-22
into its various groups units, assemblies, etc., down to the

item that will be replaced during corrective maintenance. Fach
block within the diagram indicates all items having the same main-
maintainability features. For exanwple units repaired by replacing
individual parts with localization to the unit level, isolation
to the stage level, and t'-st at the group level have been combined
and represented by the "Units" block labeled (a) in the left hand
branch of Figure 8-21. Each branch of the diagram is terminated
with a circle which indicates the type of item that will be re-
placed to correct malfunctions existing in that branch. The con-
necting lines indicate maintainability relitions and not eletctrical
or operational connections. In preparing such a diagram care
must be exercised in establishing the appropriate functional
levels for the various subdivisions, especially where an item may
have a nomenclature that includes the name of one -. f the functional
levels (for example, "Power Amplifier Assembly"). In some instances,
the functional level location of an item may not be the same as
its nomenclature indicates.
After C-he functional level breakdown has been established and the
functional level diagram prepared, the functional levels at which
localization, isolation, access, and test features are applicable
should be determined based on +he overall characteristic's of the
design. The functional levels at which features for localization,
isolation, and test are effective for each replaceable ihem can
be indicated on the functional level diagram is shown by the
symbols. The access functional level can be determined directly
from the functional level diagram as indicated in (c) below, there-
fore, a symbol identifying it is not required. TVi0 firictional
level at which each of these features is effective is dettrmined
and shown in the functional level diagram as follows:
(a) Localization. - The functional level tt7 which a failure

can be located without using accessory test equipment is
indicated by L.
(b) Isolation. - The functional level to which a failure can

be located using accesso:y test equip.1-tent at diesigned test
points is indicated by I.
(c) Access. - The access functional level for a replaceable

item- is that level to which disassembly must be accomilished
in order to gain access to the item that is to be re-
placed, and from which reassembly must be accomýplished
after replacement of the item. This can be determined
directly from the functional level diagram as the funic-
tional level of the first rectAngular block above the
replaceable item. For example, to replace a part in thc
8-23
left hand "Units" block, access must be gained to the

unit 'evol, and to replace a subassembly, access must be
gaincno to the assembly level.
(d) Test. - The highest functional level at which restoration

to normal service can be verified usinq st If-test features
or other testing facilities is indicated by T.
The actual prediction is performed in accordance with the follow-

ing instructions.
(a) Calculating Repair Times (PRp. - The repair t-me (R ) is

calculated for each category of replaceable item indicated
by a circle in the functional level diagram. It is the
sum of the maintenance task time intervals determined
from Fiqure P-24 in the following manner.
1. Localization. - The localization time interval is

determined by entering the chart using the column
headed by the type of item that will be replaced
(indicated by a circle in the functim,!, I level dia-
gram) and continuinq down this column -o the row
with the "Localization" column is the value to be
used. It the replacement items under consideration
are individually replaced paits use the value under
"W" since wired. in parts normally out number <-luq-i.n
subassemblies, assemblies :-r units, use the value
u nder
e
2. Isolation. - The isoiation time interval is detormir-d

in the same manner as thn i,,calizatior ti:ne
TIt ,rval
except that the row f',r enterin the isolation
columIn is determined by the furct onal level to which
isoljttion feat ore.s are effect.ive. This would be the
v I marked,. with, T in the a.propr, ate br.n..h o.
thie ',unctional level diaoram. The %,.1,lue indicated at
the intersecti:on of this r ,w with the "isolation'
c:.lumn is the value to be used.
cc-
Access The "
- acc s time jnt crva.i i ; Ite tr- i nod by
ert r( i7 the kch? 'mn
' sirt c'i I (hePi "Part')
and con- inuinuno :%,-n
1, to th..d r-,,- r a.e."... t e
functi. nal level1 tt40 ' -h :C ess
0 .must be0 ,1 in
otJer t,ý vt-r form the replac-.rent tasks, Te access
tfunct iona I level f•,r a yenil i . e" -an be
determined frcm the funet j"v-na I leve I ara t m cs the
functional level of the first rvctanuu bar Iock above
8-24
2
I) .. -,
-l
- - -
f
I i
LII *- . -
I
I-.--
If
i.JIz.I
Ii.
I I I.
'I .- . - -I
H - Ii
.4- t
Cl) I
H -±--- -I- -*
1 --r-----.--- xj
z
4.1::
'I
I
_______ - ------- - -1**
H I __-t---t-- 4 - * ---2-
4.1:: .
, I * --
S it .1 -+
H
U .-. -
1£ '' I 14
I- f?
U
2'. -
f ,
L . >2'
8-25
the replact'abl,_ itom. Pit value indicated in Figure

8-24 at th,• irt rsecltin ... this r-w with the "access"
column i-; the ,-alut. to be 'ised
4. Test. - The test time intorval is determined by

entering the chart usi ng c Jlumn I and continuing
down to the row desnr.atei by the funct-ioijal level
at which restorat ion tL, n)rmal service i- verified.
This would be the functional level indicated by T
o;n the functional level diagram. The valup indicated
at the intersection of this row with the "Test"
coluýmn is the value to be used.
5. Interchang. - The interchange time interval is

either (.1 or 0.2 hours as shown in the right hand
column ot Figure 8-24. The time indicated [h•r sub-
assem1blies, assemblies, and units hurs) apply
h.1
to these items only. The time indicated icr parts
(.2 hours) is applicable to all individually re-
placed parts. The values iiven for interchange
times are aveiaie times for these class.-s or- items,
and include handling an averale amount of hardware
such as nuts, ),,Its, and other retainina devices.
"The repair timu (P.) is the sum of the time intervals
for each tist5.
(b) CalculatinL ATTR. - At-:er an R, for each circle of the

funct ional level diaora, has been calculated, the MTTR
should be claculatcd using the tollowing express ion:
ATTR K, KR ... Kj1,
PP , .. . ,n t.,, rto: . toe t-

R; Rr t' h•.
r1acabl it ems , ,_in tht samIM emaintainabil- .tvt

•eature~s ( to'' wi'thin .nch cinch <'u t.' func-
tional level iagra.n).
K,, K2 K, ,are n-ob'.rs -hich ire appr 'xi'atelv

pro p tior'al t,, the' .:uant it e'ts zn i re at i . .
Ure rate w.t st-,cted high-tfail-r•r,, cts oroL u.,
within a circle -onta nn, replaceable itemsr ha-n,
inq the same mamintainability f,,-atvres. The hi h-
failure parts considered are th,n s" that w' C n-
tribut" tnt' ma~oritnA of the e,;'.ij:wnt failure.
The weightino factors (W) are determined from the

express ion:
I' RTP'4 j'T1) 4~- N--(T r (NRel) - 3(Nlges) + 6ý-fn1aq)

3 ~93
+ 3(NCRT) + 5T1T) (.)
wOere •
NRT is the number of ree&-ving tubes 4n the group of

items within a circle ctntaining replaceable items
having the same maintainability features.
ND is tha numzber ,0 r semiconductor diodes in the gcroup.
NTr is the number of tranoistors in the group.
NRel is the number of relays in the group.
NRC3 is the number of resolvers in the group.
NMag is the number of magnetrons in the group.
NCRT is the number of cat-hrioe ray tubes -in th 7ur-
NTT is the number of transmitting and special purpose

tubes in the gr-up.
Tha proportionality constants in expres-ion (8.1), such

1 1
as and 1 are approximately equ'i to the average part
-
3 9
category failure rates normalized relative to the average
failure rate for receiving tubes.
In the later stages of design, the prediction of maintainability

follows, the s:{me ajproach with the exceptions:
(a) Th, functional levels are defined in paragraph 4,

Sect',n 3 ot Reference (8).
(b) Average part failure rates are selected from Reference

(7).
(c) usinq a form similar to Figure 8-27,record number,

filure rates and maintenance task times for individually
roplaced parts, replaceable modular assemblies or units as
appl icable.
8-27
I.- - ________---I-~ -~*
4.- _ __ _ _ _ _ _
H- 1
H 0-
z•b
jo
Pj-4
-------
CC jj _ ___ _ _
__m_ _
__ _ __ _ _ _
--- i - ii_ _ _ _
Lz
The product N\ is the total numrber cf failures per million hours

expected to be attributable to all parts in the respective cate-
gory. The sum of all the "NV' values represents the total number
,o)f failures per million hours attributable to the item covered by
%hc worksheet.
Estimated times for the maintenance task are taken from the tables
in Reference (2). The calculated repair time (Rp) is the sum of
times for individual tasks. The product (NXRp) is the total re-
pair time per million hours for the category. The sum of the
NIR 0 column represents the total repair time per million hours
expected to be required by the item identified at the top of the
worksheet.
After all worksheets are completed, the data should b• consolid-

ated on a summary sheet such as that shown in Figure 8-29. Entry
of data on the summary sheet and calculation of MTTR is as
follows:
(a) List the designation of the item covered by each work-

sheet in the "Item Designation" column of the summary sheet.
(b) List the sum of the NX's from each worksheet in the "NX
Sums" column of the sumary sheet opposite the respective item
designation.
(c) List the sum of the NUR's from each worksheet in the
"NXRp Sums" column of the summrary sheet opposite the res-
pective item designation.
(d) Record the totals for the "NX Sums" column and the
"N\Rp Sums" column at the bottom of the respective columns.
Calculate the predicted MTTR as indicated at the bottom of

the summary sheet.
3.3 PREDICTION FOR MECHANICAL SYSTEMS
The approach to prediction of mechanical systems is essentially

identical. Prediction of repair times can be initiated %hen:
(a) The design has progressed to the point that the major
parts are determinAd.
(b) The planned replacement method can be determined; that

is, whether parts, components, assemblies or units will be
replaced in making repairs.
8-29
I I -
t I
I'! H
z I
I I I, I
H
H
I
I I
- I
i I
I --,-+--..- -
H
- 0
H
z
H
z
H H
Ci2
-
C
H H
z -
- H
H
a
iI
•i 8-.30
[I
(c) The maintenance schedule is established.
The prediction begins with the determination of the functional

level breakdown of the system. A functional level diagram should
be used for cconpleteness. Parts t+hat would be replaced simul-
taneously should be treated as a sincle assembly. Where different
modes of failure (see Chiapter 12) will cause a difference in the
repair or restoration task, they should be treated as separate
parts.
Using a worksheet similar to Figure 8-29,record the replaceable

units (part, assembly or component level). Determine the ex-
pected failure rate of the part (by failure modes if applicable),
assuming replacement of parts as prescribed in the maintenance
schedule.
Compute the products N\ as before, add and record in the space

provided.
For each listed unit, Pstimate (as if you weLt planning the
repair job) the length of time necessary to perform each step
of the task. The normal steps in many mechanical repairs
follow a prttern, such as:
(a) Diagnosis of trouble (localization)
(b) Isolation and cool down (isolation)
(c) Removal of obstructions (access)
(d) Disassembly (access)
(e) Repair or replace parts, including fittina, alignment,

balance, etc. (replace)
(f) Reassembly (access)
(g) Replacement of obstructions (access)
(h) Restore normal conditions (purify, flush, etc.) (align)
(i) Test (test.
Compute the repair time R by summing the time for the individual
steps. Where steps would normally be performed concurrently, the
time for the combined operation should be estimated and recorded.
8-31
° Compute and sum the NXRr terms. The MTTR (inherent) is determined
as before from the equation:
SN11 Rr
MTTR =-. SNý--
3.4 APPLICATION OF PREDICTION
The prediction of maintainability is used as a diagnostic tool.

The MTTR just computed provides only part of the answer, the
average restoration time. Where this time is excessive, the
design, planned replaceable unit level, access or other factors
must be improved. When an ERTmax has becn required, an estimate
of compliance can be obtained by summing all of the part entries
for NýRp that exceed the prescribed value, dividing this sum by
the total sum of N\R. 's if the fraction exceeds 0.10, the equip-
ment fails to comply.
The prediction is a useful tool i,, determining where best to

apply the techniques for improving maintainability. Like relia-
bility, maintainability can only be derived through sound, inher-
ent design. The designer can only do this by an awareness of
what the problems are and what tools exist to solve the problems.
True, he should be aware of the quantitative downtime requ-irements
which his system or equipment must meet, but he also needs the
knowledge of 1) experienced specialists in maintenance anaiysis,
and 2) human factors types and those who deal with the life
sciences. In addition, handbooks such as NAVSHIPS 94324 should
be made available to each design group. Much of the knowledge
in these areas eliminates guesswork and gives the designer a
firm basis for which to package the subsystem (end item) within
the ship, the components within the s-,bsystem and the parts
within the components.
One of the more widely used techniques in industry is the Design

Checklist, in conjunction with design reviews. Design checklists
can be used to convert quantitative human engineering require-
ments into a qualitatively good design.
During the design, the designer should have before him contin-
uously, the objective of making the equipment easy to maintain.
Reference (8, 9 and 10) givc comprchensive coveraqe of the design
for maintainability of electronic equipment. Far less exhaustive
are thko details provided for, designers of mechanical systems..
Since mechanics are about the same size, build and strength as
electronics technicians, many of the same rules, given in refer-
ence (8), apply. Reference (11) provides additional descriptions
.;t
8-32
of the capability of operating and maintenance personnel.
Decisions as to the division of requirements among the seven

major elements of downtime requires detailed cost studies. If
we assume that meeting system downtime requirements means that
we in fact do meet specified mission requirements, then the alloca-
tion problem becomes strictly an economic one -- i.e., attaining
the specified downtime capability at minimum cost.
As an example, one of the primary means for reducing system down-

time is to substitute automatic checkout and diagnostic equipment
for the slowetr human operator and to use modularized, plug in
components. Decisions to automate are gener'illy made on a systems
basis, the level to which automation would be carried (e.g.,
automatic fault isolation to a replaceable module level) would
be determined by cost tradeoff studies. Results would establish
consistent guide lines for allocating downtime requirements below
system level to the subsystem and the component level.
The most time-consuming element of downtime is generally diagnosis.

However, substitution of automatic diagnostic equipment and proper
selection of the module size to which the failure will be isolated
can reduce this time almost to zero. The same holds true for
detection and verification, depending on the extent of automation
desired. This leaves the "correction" element as the one which
ultimately becomes the most limiting factor in this example.
Cost tradeoffs might indicate that it would be cheaper to go to

redundant switch-in spares, thus reducing corrective time and
eliminating some of the automatic checkout features. This is
b~t one example of the many tradeoffs necessary to determine the
least cost configuration and to define support items necessary.
The following characteristics (among ethers) affect the ease and

rapidity of repair:
(a) Accessibility, includinc, room to operate tools required.

(b) Clarity of instructions and diagrams.
(c) Marking and identification
(d) Displays, gauges, and controls.
(e) Weight, including provision of handling gear & lifting pads.
(f) Interchangeability.
(g) Proper tools.
(h) Visibility.
The cost studies involved in tradeoffs should include, but not

be limited to:
8-.313
t
(a) Cost of parts or modules.
(b) Cost or value of salaries of repair personnel.
(c) Cost of training or repair personnel.
(d) Cost of rework of modules at the factory, or repair
activity (tender or shipyard).
(e) Administrative costs of procurement, storage and shipping.
(f) Costs of diagnostic, test and repair tooling.
3.5 MAINTAINABILITY PROGRAM CONSIDERATIONS
But prediction of maintainability is only one of the phases of

the total program. Maintainability achievement requires the
same comprehensive, across the board consideration as reliability.
Figure 8-34 indicates the areas of program application, showing
the interplay with design, reliability, logistic planning, train-
ing, software and support requirements.
4. MAINTENANCE ANALYSIS
Like rystem analysis, maintenance analysis is an iterative pro-

cess that appears to be gigantic. It is a tedious process but
it is controllable. In the Conceptual Phase of a project, gross
statements based on experience have to be made for performance,
maintainability, availability, etc. This is so because the con-
ceptual phase of a project is a wish lo develop something novel
based on past experience. The past experience is the life saver
that makes it possible to make gross statements with a fair degree
of accuracy. Past experience also gives industry the incentive
to propose novel projects or bid on them. Through continuous
iterative analysis, the original gross statements evolve into
workable hardware systems that meet performance requirements.
4.1 INTEGRATED MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT
The integrated maintenance management concept (3) includes docu-

mentation in the form of Maintenance Engineering Analysis Records
(MEARS) to control the data needed f,'r maintenance analysis. See
chapter 17.
The maintainability of the design is documented as follows:
1. The maintenance concept has beer. reviewed and confirmed.
- 46 2. The contractor's q-alitative maintainability design

features of the product have been verified.
8-34
F-4 w C
co 0
0
ca,
p44
--
4cco
I-. boz
cis ;_
c
r.Iz
o -- 0 C
- ,04
8-3 5
3. The maintenance requirements and tasks establics>-d for

the article have been demonstrated.
4.2. MAINTENANCE CONCEPT
Analysis of a Shipboard Diesel Generator is used to shot< 3a

maintenance anaiysis is done. We have picked a 300C brake hcrse-
power diesel which has a fuel consumption of 0.42 poundl. per r
horsepower hour. Two power plants are used to assure a contin'uoas
supply of power. If we assume the ship will have a thre-nMonth
mission, then approximately 419,000 gallons of diesel tuel will
be consumed on the mission. It is not practical to carr, svch a
quantity of fuel on board ship so arrangements have to b; niade
for resupply from tenders. This means piping has to be installed
for taking the fuel from the tendor to the diesel fuel tanks in
the ship.
Various kinds of maintenance and operations will be required t,

keep at least one diesel generator operating at all times. A
90-day mission amounts to 2160 hours of running time which can
be evenly distributed to each diesel for 1080 hours e'arh. If the
diesel generators are good for 3000 hours of operation between
overhaul, the overhaul plans have to be made to do this after
every third mission.
Instructions have to be provided to tell the technicians how to

switch over from one generator to the other periodically. There
will be light maintenance work required to keep the diesels run-
ning efficiently. Air and fuel filters will have to be cleaned
periodically to remove accumulated carbon deposits. The crank-
case oil has to be checked and replenished.
The operating generator has to be monitored to assure that the

electrical output is consistent with requirements of t-he slhip-
board equipment. This information has to be provided as in-
structions for the technicians that do the work. Brubhes on the
generators have to be inspected periodically to assure they are
not worn out. Since the brushes can wear out, provisiio.ns have
to be made to stock spare brushes on the ship.
A detail analysis has to be made of the diesel and generator to

determine which parts will have to be replaced at the 30O0-hour
overhaul period. This analysis will be based on experience with
existing diesel generucors or if it is a new desion, experience
with similar designs will be used. The detail analysis will
develop data for use in overhaul manuals, provide a list of
repair parts for an overhaul operation, uevelop a list of tools
8-36
needed for an overhaul and an estimate of the manhours needed to

do an overhaul.
A decision has to be made about where the overhaul work is to be

done. A 3000 horsepower diesel engine weighs appro,.imately 207,000
pounds so it will ,.- '?oqical to do the overhaul on board ship.
Maintenance analysis will determine who -1l do the overhaul work;
the ship's crew or repair specialists from shore installations.
If shore specialists are to be used, then missions have to be
scheduled so the ship will be at the right loca+'ion when overhaul
work is done.
While analyzing the diesel generator for overhaul maintenance, the

personnel relation to the equipment will be analyzed. Most likely,
hoisting systems will be installed over the diesels to assist in
disassembly of the heavy parts such as the cylinder head and the
pistons. If the analysis is done early in the ship design it will
be possible to include qualitative maintainability characteristics
in tVe total design like the Design Work Study Proqram does.
A plan has Lo be made for phasing the operation of the diesels so

chat both diesels do not have to be o.-erhauled at the same time.
It would be logical to run one diesel a thousand hours before
starting the other. Then diesel operation could be switched
every week or after 168 hours of operation. One thousand hours
of operation would .,ccur after 42 Clays in a mission.
Maintenance plans of diesel ocnerators have to consider all the

ships of the same design using tne equirpiment to assure thot all
repair parts arc ordored at the sa>e timo. Appreciable savings
in unit costs can be made by ordering te maximum nuumber of
repair parts ýt one time.
The maintenance analysis has to be done to assure that mainten-

ance can be done, that repair parts will be available, that
technical information ig available for the technicians and that
tools and test e,;uipment will be available
4.3 MATNTAINAELiTY TASK ANALYSIS
A completed maintainabil ty task analysis is sawown to demonstrate

the analysis of the steps in repairinq a faulty control and in-
dicator panel in a Test Station. The sequence starts with dis-
assembly to gain access and isolating the defective part (Fioure
8-3"). 7hen in figure '-38 the steps in making the rc¢"ir -Are
defined. This type of analysis provides the basic planning in-
formation necrssary to provide the proper personn( 1, tools,
8-37
ki
t
t _ __
a+
+ 4-
m A
Pit
' 14
QT
T -G4
-
- -
-
- -
AI . 7~:.
I~~
B-38
I If
~1v1
V)V
477~EILILI
1{t +t t 4ý- -
---
L Al +
- - ~~4--
4 - 4
at. f 1 1-4- +-a
-I + t
-4-4 -t-
~~-4-
-T
t- f±
O4-- 4--4--4-
I 44
oa-: g J &
isU
__ I!IT
8-39
suuol": suF-oort and uerd:nnei c-Itrr

trc-,ininq rrcir"-ure, ent
ents to ae
for later s
u]se
of the eu i pmtt aboard sh.iu
MA INTATNAB IL ITY DEMONSTRAT ION
5.1 ELECTRONNIC SYSTEMS
As w,<ith reliability or performance, a requirement for maintain-

ability ;s unenforceable unless some means of verification is
provided. For electronics equir-ent MIL M 23313A(21 provides a
maintainability demonstration plan to be applied to a preproduc-
tion model before the start of production. The test consists of
inducing failures in the equipment, requiring a technician to
identify and repair the failure without prior knowledge of the
failed item. For the test plan of Reference (2), twenty failures
are selected in rough proportion to their probability of occur-
rence. The failed component is selected usinq random numbers or
other unbiased techniques. The time for each step of the repair
is measured and recorded. The time is adjusted for the experience
level of the technician by a factor based on his years of experi-
ence.
When the twenty repairs have been completed, the evaluation is

conducted as follows:
The acceptance criterion, log MTTRG ! log ERT + 0.397(S), assures

a probability of .95 of accepting an equipment or systems as a
result of one test when thk true geometric mean-time-to-repair is
equal to the specified equipment repair time (that is, a probabil-
ity of 0.05 of rejecting an equir~ntent cr system having a true
"MTTRG equal to the specified ERT). This was derived by using
conventional methods for establishing acceptance criteria (Chap-
ter 11). The conventional methods for determining acceptance
based on the measured mean of a small sample, that is, sample
size less than 30), arl when the true standard deviation (a) of
the population can only be estimated, is to compare the measured
imean with the desired mean using the expression:
t = s( ci) fX"-- 8.2
where: S N or the standard deviation of the samplej

iN
8-40
x = the sample or monasured mean

x. = the specified or desired mean
N = the sample size
x = the value of one measurement of the sample.
the decision to accept the product will be made when the test
results give a value of t, as calculated from expression 8.2
numerically less than or equal to a value of t obtained from
"Student's t" •istribut-on tables at the established level (that
is, 0.99, 0.95, 0.90, and so forth) of acceptance and the appro-
priate sample size. The "Student's t" distribution tables (for
a single tailed area) give a value of t m 1.729 at the 0.95 ac-
ceptance level when the sample size is 20 (that is, 19 degrees
of freedom.) The t_?ble for single tailed area is used since
only values of MTTRG greater than the specified ERT are critical.
An equipment with any value of MTTRG lower than the specified
ERT is acceptable. To apply expression 8.2 to the maintainabil-
ity test, let x, = log ERT (specified),R = log MTTRG (measured),
S = the measured standard deviation of the loaarithms of t,:
sample of measured repair t'ne, and N = the sample size of 20.
The measured MTTRG is then compared with the desired ERT by cal-
culating the value of t using the expression below:
I9 M__RG - log ERT) 19 8.3

S
The equipment under test can be accepted if the value of t cal-

culated from expression 8.3 is equal to or less than +1.729 (the
value of t frof" the "Student's t" distribution tables at an
acceptance level of .95 When the sample size is 20). Therefore,
the equipment should be accepted when:
r-- (log MTTRG - log ERT)

ý19 ! +1.729 8.4
S
Upon rearranging and simplifying this expression, the acceptance

criterion is obtained as shown below:
log MTTRG - log ERT & 1.729(S)
'19
log MTTRG S log ERT + .397(S)

8-41
In the event the criterion is not met, the test shall be repeated.
If, for the second test, the criterion is met, the maintainabil-
ity requirement for the preproduction model will be considered to
have been met. If, for the second test, the criterion is still
not rnt, the equipment will be considered to have failed the
maintainability requirements for the preproduction model.
Therefore, the combined probability of acceptance of an equipmen*

or system with a true MTTRG equal to the specified ERT is 0.95
+ 0.05 (0.95) or 0.9975. Thus, equipment of specification qual-
ity (that is, MTTRG = ERT) or better will almost certainly pass
the combined test.
The test procedure is designed for producers risk of .0025 and

consumers risk of .0975 based on the assumption of log normal
distribution of times to repair and the specified ERT.
5.2 MECHANICAL SYSTM4S
Agairn t demeoanstration of compliance is necessary if assurance

of the achievement of the requirement is to be obtained. While
there is less evidence in mechanical repairs than in electronic
.oystems to indicate that repair times are distributed log-nor-
mally, the underlying distribution can be estimated from the
maintainability prediction data. The design of a test procedure
for acceptance testing will be done in the manner discussed in
Chapter 11. Again, where a test proposed by a contractor is
being reviewed, or a test being propc!:!d to a contractor, obtain
the assistance of a qualified statistician.
6. APPLICATIONS TO CURRENT WORK
6.1 DEFINITION OF REQUIRE4ENTS
We have just run through a multitude of pages in an attempt to

show you the basic ingredients of Maintainability, how it gets
into the systems development process and how it relates to other
design parameters. Most of you are doing engineering work on new
or modified subsystems which eventually will be installed in
existing ships. You are probably aware of the present operational
support problems which now exist in similar equipment and are
desirous to get maintainability built-in to new specifications
on an equal level.
There are two items which have to be answered: how much Main-
tainability is neede.1, and how sure do you want to be that your
iI
8-42
requirement is htet? To answer the former, it is necessary first

to know the mission of the equipment, i.e., how often is it
demanded for operation, who will operate it and -what is its en-
vironment. Second, the amount of Maintainability needed depends
on cost of achieving various levels of Maintainability versus cost
savings through reduced down time. The only reason for this re-
latively new discipline is reduced costs with an attending in-
crease in system effcctiveness.
Next, what confidence is wanted that the MTTR will be met? This
again relates to cost. It also relates to the sensitivity of
Maintainability of individual elements to the overall system
availability. Defining requirements becomes of question of how
much it costs to produce versus how much it costs to use for
various levels of availability.
6.2 CONTRACTING FOR MAINTAINABILITY
In order that the contractor understands fully the BUSHIPS nced

for Maintainability it must be clearly and explicitly defined in
contracts for new equipment or in follow-on conatracts for modi-
fications of existing equipment. Specifically, the following
items should be considered for inclusion in a hardware contract:
a. Quantified MTTR or availability goals for consideration

by the contractor: The word "consideration" is used since
it is desirable to give the contractor some latitude in
order that he may analyze -ntative goals and perhaps
submit a recommendation to BUSHIPS as to how goals could
be changed for reduced costs. (But do specify a maximum
allowable down time or ERT where appropriate).
b. Tell the contractor how much you expect Maintainability

to be weighted in his total design effort against other
technical disciplines such as the various aspects of
performance, reliability, etc.
c. If contract is of the CPIF type, specify how incentive

fees will be paid on the basis of the contractors perform-
ance in the maintainability portion of the Dependability
Plan.
d. Tell the contractor what special maintainability problem

areas, if any, to invpstigate.
e. Supply in the contract specification, other applicable

docewiients such as the general specificat'- i MIL M 23313.
8-43
Tell the contractor which portions of the specifications

are applicable to your particular subsystem. o.lineate
the maintenance analysis forms he must use and the fre-
quency of reporting results.
7. RE FERENCES
I. Definitions for Maintainability Engineering, Military Standard

MIL STD '778.
2. Maintainability Requirements for Shipboard and Shore Electron-

ics Equipment and Systems, Military Specification MIL M 23313
(SHIPS)
3. A Maintainability Prediction Procedure for Designers of Ship-

board Electronic Equipment and Systems, Federal Electric
Corporation report under Contract NOBsr 75376 (AD 431269).
4. Think System, Don't Think Hazdware, Jerome E. Levy, SAE, ASME,

AIAA Conference Proceedings Third Annual Conference on Aero-
space Reliability and Ma4 ntainability, Washington, D. C.,
June 29, 1964, Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.
5. Maintainability Requirements for Aerospace Systems and Equip-

ment, MIL M 26512(C) (USAF).
6. A Reliability-Maintainability Trade-off Procedure for Navy

Electronic Equipment, Dunlap and Associates, Inc. report on
Contract NOBsr 8758A (AD 426501).
7. Handbook for the Prediction of Shipboard and Shore Electronic

Equipment Reliability, NAVSHIPS 93820.
8. Maintainability Design Criteria Handbook for Designers of

Shipboard Electronic Equipment, NAVSHIPS 94324.
9. Reliability Design Handbook, (NEL), PB 121839.
10. Suggestions for Designers of Electronic Equipment (Booklet

prepared Dy USNEL).
11. Human Engineering Criteria for Aircraft, Missile and Spac-

Systems, Ground Support Equipment, MIL STD 803.
12. A Study on Methods for the Development of Reliability, Main-

tainability, and Avwilability of Shipboard Machinery,
mom
8-44
SN. MacFarlane, J. Mickel, United Control Corporation report

on Contract NOnr 3740(00) (FBM).
13. Integrated Maintenance Management, WR-30, Bureau of Naval

Weapons.
14. Concepts in Operational Support Research Report No. RM 60

TMP-70, November 21, 1960, Technical Military Planning Opera-
tion, General Electric Company, Santa Barbara, California.
15. Derivation of Maintainability Requirements for Military

Weapons Systems SP-216 (Contributed Paper for joint IAS-SAE-
ASME Aerospace Reliability Conference, Washington, D. C.,
May 1963.
16. Technical Memo #9, Maintainability Assurance, Maintainability

Demonstration Plans and Procedures, Rigby and Cunningham,
Philco Western Development Laboratories.
I4
9-1
Chlapt• r 9
DATA ACQUISITION
Page
1 THE POPULATION 9- 2
1.1 Binomial Distribution 9- 3
1.2 Exponential Distribution 9- 5
1.3 Poisson Distribution 9.- 7
1.4 Nr rmal Distribution 9-10
1.5 Ligarthmic Normal Distribution 9-12
1.6 Gamuma Distribution 9-14
1.7 Weibull Distribution 9-16
2 ACQTiSITION OF DATA 9-18

2,1 Nature of Failure 9-18
2.2 Uses of Reliability Data 9-20
2.3 Validity of Data 9-20
2.1 Factors of Importance in Reporting 9-21
2.5 Gathering Reliability Data -- Field Data 9-22
2.6 ouShips Data Systems 9-23
2.6.. Electronic Failure Reporting System 9-23
2.6.2 Maintenance Data Collection System 9-23
2.6.3 Operitions Reporting System 9-26
3 PROBLEMS WITH EXPERIENCE DATA 9-27

3.1 Traditional Concepts 9-28
3.2 Marshalling your Data Sources 9-29
3.3 Experience Data Integration 9-29
3.3.1 Engineering Information 9-29
3.3.2 Equ-'tion to Relate Elements 9-30
3.3.3 Integration of the Data 9-32
4 ESTEMTING PARAMETERS FROM THE DATA 9-33

4.1 Graphical Solution 9,-33
4.2 Chi Square Goodness of Fit Test 9-33
4.3 Testing Data Against Other Distributions 9-36
5 PEFERENCES 9-36
i
9-2
Chapter 9
DATA ACQUISITION
In the development of a system or equipment a ? :rgo amount o.

data is collected and used. The data adds to t'ie objective evid-
ence used by the designer in making decisions about the desik,,-,
by the inspector in making decisions about acceptance ,nd the
program manager in making decisions concerning the program. In
this chapter we will attempt to develop two areas:
(1) The interpretation of data; that is, the recognition

that a particular group of data ýs a sample drawn from a lar, |
population, and that inferences can be made about the c~a ct
istics of that pop- lation from the sample.
(2) The generation or cliec ion of data, useful sources.

limitations on their valid0t\ and practical value of use data
In the design, procurement, te. irg and operational use of -in

equipment there is an infinite va iation in characteristics. N,
two equipments are ever the same. If you put two identical"
equipments on test they won't fail at the same time. The differ-
ences are each, ir, most cases, minor - a half a thousandtb here
in clearance, a tenth of an inch-pound in balance, an almo t un-
detectable difference in roughness of surface funish. aiid so
forth. Within crude limits, the equipments are identical. With
more exact measurements, a difference can be found.
Because of this variability from sample to sample, the interpret-

ation of the data depends on the branch of scientific method
called statistics.
The real utility of sample data from tests of individual -:nits

lies in the capability of making statements about the populatic-i
from which the sample was taken. Mistakes can be made when y .u
try to infer a general rule (make a statement about the populat-
ion parameters) from a specific case (the sample data). Statis-
tical theory is the only meLhod now known t-.at permits some degree
of control to prevent such mistakes.
1o THE POPULATION
Before any specific functions are discussed, it :q important to

state the usual nature of the statistical problem in order to
explain how one should view the formulas and curves to be present-
ed. Collected data received from any testing or surveillance
9-1
program should be viewed as information to be used in guessing

what will happen in the future -- that is, in prediction. Of
course, there is an element of historical intcrest in knowing
what did happen just for the sake of knowledge itself. The real
payoff, however, lies in using the data as a sample from some
population, and the job at hand is one of describing this pop-
ulation from some of the characteristics of the sample data.
For example, one would like to be able to take field data on
failures in a specific weapons system and write the formula for
the failure density of all future failure experience which will
be met with this same system and even with improved versions of
the system, using adjustment for the system modifications.
The moral of this view is that field data constitutes a sample,

that random sampling peculiarities must be smoothed out, that
population density parameters must be estimatc-d, that the esti-
mation errors must themselves be estimated, and -- what is even
more difficult -- that the very nature of the population density
must be estimated. To achieve these ends, it is necessary to
learn as much as possible about the possible population density
functions, and especially what kind of results we can expect
when samples are drawn, the data are studied, and we attempt to
go from data backward to the population itself. It is also
important to know what types of population densities are produced
from any given set of engineering conditions. This implies the
necessity for developing probability models, or going from a set
of assumed engineering characteristics to a population density.
it is customary, even necessary, in statistical analysis to

develop from the physical engineering principles the nature of
the underlying distribution. The sample of data is then tested
ýgainst the assumed distribution.
Tle usual parameter of interest in reliability is the distribution

ot times to failure, called the probability distribution function
or failure density function. The failure density function may be
discrete, that is, only certain (integral) values may occur, as
in tests of an explosive squib. Success or failure will occur
on any trial, time not being considered. Or it may be continuous,
any vogue of time to faiture being possible.
In the analysis of paramcters of populations the folloiii dis-

tributions have been found to be useful.
1.1 BI~tO-,,AL DISTRIBUTION
The Binomial distribution arises from a series of Bernoulli trials.

9-4
A Bernoulli sequence of trials _s definerd as sequence of experi-

ments satisfying the following conditiong:
1. For each experiment, the result is either success or

failure;
2. The probability of success is the same for every experi-
ment;
3. Each trial is independent of all others.
The binomial failure density function is

n
(') pn-r r n! n-r r
Lr) =r q (n-r)' r. P q
where
n is the number of trials
r is the number of failures
p is the probability or success
q-(l-p) is the probability of failure.
Hence f(r) is the probability of exactly r failures out of n

when the probability of a success is p.
The probability of r or more failures out of n Bernoulli trials

is given by:
n
F (n n-i i
i=r
F(r) is the cumulative distribution function, and may be intei-

preted as the probbhility of r or more failures out of n .rials.
Since the equipment must either succeed or fail, the sum of the
probabilities equals unity.
The probability of success, I(r), where success is defined as

less than r failures, is the complement of F(r), that is:
n
R(r) - I1- F(r) -1irip r n n-i q i
ur !
9-5
We can diefine the expected niurber of successes, E(s; as the

averaqe or mean value of the distribution. This value is the
product of the number of trials and the probabilit- of success
on each individual trial. That is:
E(s) =np
and the variance of s (number of successes) is:
var (S) = s
=2 npq
Hence, the standard deviation Tis:
Tih2 independent p-rmee ofteBn al is p, the probability

of success. The properties of the distribution are shown in
Figure 9-6.
Basically, the Binomial distribution -isutilized in cases where

the equitmnent oeerates in definite cycles such as an on-off
switch, or in cases w!. 're the cy.cle is some minutes in length but
involves varyini; stresses and o-Derat ion and; hence, varyinq pro-
babilitv of ,Failure `7rom. minute to m.~nute, providtd each trial is
independent, success or fai lirc on any individual trial no,-t
af` 'ctinq~ the re~ul~ts of prior or subsequent trials, andc' each
overall trial has tho same probability of success. An example
,would be Lamissile fliqht. Such fliquhts are programmed so that
each fliqht is a duulicate of the others. 'The same stress-tiýme
cycle is imposed.
1.2 !ýXPON;ENTTALDISTRTBrPTION
The Exponent A 1 fa i ure. de(,ns ityl funcotion,
k mea n fai lure rate
t time under consideration
is Widely used. The distribution is a special case of both the

weibull and tt-e GamLma jistribo.tions.
The equatio~n above is the :.-ne most usually th'ou~qht of when the
Exponential distribution is spoken of. This is, of course, the
cir
C) C
CC
0 M c t D o I
Hdflii .ioýkN~qlbl<
9-7
Expon•-ntial distribution cf failuresover time. Since R(t) is the

probability of no failure prior to time t, then:
F(t) = 1 -. R(t)
is the probability of one or more failures in time t,
where: R(t) = e
is the probability of operating successfully for a time, t.
The Exponential distribution is characterized by a constant

failure rate and MTBF (= l/%).
The distribution is valuable if properly used. It has the advan-

tage of:
1. Single easily estimated parameter.
2. Mathematically easy to work with.
3. Applicable fairly widely.
4. Is additive - that is, the sum of a number of independent

exponentially distributed variables is exponentially distrib-
uted.
Care must be taken to insure its limitations are not e:rceeded.

It arises from a Poisson process and is applicable only where
such a process exists. Its parameter is the mean failure rate,
The reciprocal is the mean time between failures (MTBF) and is
often used as a reliability goal. Care must be taken in inter-
pretation if this is done. If a certain model of equipment has
an exponential distribution of life lengths and achieves a MTBF
of 500 hours, this does not mean that most equipments of this
model will run about 500 hours before failing. in fact, 63 per-
cent will fail prior to this time. since the probability of success
is defined as R = e-t where Xt equals 1 (that is t - MTBF and
Xt = rTAF = 1). The value of e- 1 is 0.368, or the reliability
of the unit to time = MTBF is about 37%. Figure 9-8 displays
the Exponential Functitns.
1.3 POISSON DISTRIBUTION
The Poisson distribution arises from a very large number of trials

each with a very small probability of occurrence. The distrib-
ution is discrete, referring to failures per numbers of trials
ii I
z
0
H -
CI) KLH iavI'1
H
z
z
/1
0
L
________
___________I
4I
3UfUIIVA AO K)NTflIUJ
9-9
rather than time to failure. As in the case of the binomial, the

sum of probabilitieo equals unity. The Poisson failure density
function:
-np r
f(r) =
where
r = number of failures
n = number of trials
p = probability of failure on any one trial.
We use p as the probability of failure in the Poisson distrib-

ution (instead of probability of success a3 in the binomial)
because we wish to use tho distribution in reliability areas in
which the probability of failure in a small number. The product
np should be relatively constant.
.ehe probability of r or less failures in n trials
F(r) - (zi enp

imu
The reliability R = 1 - F(r) - i n

i-r
We can think of a test period of 10 hours being broken up :into

milli-seconds. Each milli-second is an independent trial (2assum-
ing instantaneous repair to any failures that occur). There are
r = 36 x 106 trials, each with a small probabili'yof failure.
If the failure rate of the equipment is X - .001 failures per
hour, the probability of failure on one (milli-second) trial
p = .001 X3 The product np - .01
The distribution is also useful in the consideration of a large

population of parts, each with a sitall probability of failure.
If the product np is constant and is the expected ntaber of
failures on a single trial (which in the case of the, exponential
distribution is •t) then the function F(r) giv:s the p*obability
of having r or more failures on the trial. The probability of
having one or more failures on a given trial is the exponential
distribution function
9-10
F(t) = Xt e
and the probability of success on the trial is

= e -xt
R(t)
Aigure 9-11 displays the Poisson function.
1.4 NORMAL DISTRIBUTION
The normal failure density function is
= e1- n(t/,6
where e? is the variance, t is the MTBF and x is the observed
time to failure.
The cumulative distr,'.bution function is:
F(x) . 1 fJ e- dx 1 - R(x)
The reliability distribution is, of course:
R(x) = 1 - F(x)
The Normal is useful in reliability mathematics for two reasonst:
1. Wide applicability due to the central limit theorem..
2. Provides a direct description of the distribution of

times to failure under certain conditions.
The distribution is continuous and is a two parameter distrib-

ution. The mean and variance are particularly meaningful, since
it is a symm.atric distribution. The major direct area of relia-
bility application is in describing the distribution of wearout
failuises. Considerable empirical evidence has shown that in
purely mechanical assemblies that this is a good approximation.
The distribution is, however, easy to work with and has several
valuable properties. The simple transformation,
z
H
U
z
z ________________
0
AII7 IUWLOHd
0
rz
II
LLL I LL. L...

0 0 0 0 0 0 Z 0 0 0
0
A3N3f1O111A
II
9-12
Z=
transforms ay¥ Normal variable x to the so called standardized

Normal variable z which has a zero mean and unit variance.
The frequency and the cumulative distributions of the standard
Normal variable are tabled in nearly every statistical text.
The Normal distribution also has the additive property. Figure
9-13 summarizes the characteristics of the Normal distribution.
1.5 LOGARITHMIC NORMAL DISTRIBUTION
The three parameter log normal frequency function is:
f(t) = -(tw) exp 2e u
t >w
W 2o 2t
where 4 is the mean of log t
ff is the variance of log t
w is the location (threshold) parameter
The cumulative function is then
I d
i ~R(t) = -F(t)
The log-normal distribution is a transformation of the Normal

distribution in which logarithm of the time is used as the
variable, instead of the time. A log normal distribution plotted
on semi-logarithmic paper would appear a normal curve.
It may be shown that the Log Normal distribution applies to

situations in which neveral independent factors all exert an
influence on the final outcome of a given event not in a simple
additive fashion but rather according to (1) the magnitude of the
fadtor and (2) the importance of the event at the time in which
the particular factor I's applied. The distribution has been
1-13
I
b
z
I I Jb
U
z I
,0
- (
z
_____________________________
k
L!lIilVI'i3 'ci I
H
Ci2 'N
o
z
- - __ -
- H
-4
I
3 I.V1 IV.! .I() .k)N3ih:PI 1
fou nd t o b~e rn ,n5t at ivL- 0fFlany c ases of d i str I but 1 )ns f

t imeý-s to r e pai--r. It is used in orodjet ion and demo-.nstrat'Ion of
rotan t Pro s to ,emait in MlIL-M-2' 33 i3 for exabmrlol. (F i"urc 9-45
i -aw.: th is; dis3t rbut i n)
1. IGMM A DTIST RI BUTL '-N'l
The Gamma failure density funet iv n can I-- expressed as

t
f (t) Ia t
a.P >
-Y > -
w'oere t is- t iMe to fla iluare
a iS t ý ,'e shamICaraIme
11,Ct Cr
e Is the scale marr~etor
The fai lure rate is constant , irr reais i n andý decreas i rl a(:co,-rd-
infly a's
> ,K <
Thle cuvlo;* esivf(net 1ion not ixrs~jl

noetn r
Sa th1tT--t I c'A I teOrms t'xcp
Xhe a,.
q ispot
Snrý Pk e bu ay
be i u nd t abui I o ced in tbe: cpltoZma:n:to>
It ha,; t )
re-ft
[Ft) -71 X C Ax
4
t r
Tneit t;cru1,-i lt~i:m ly dstr

.f just isafeibe
1ons t.-riae
familly of3s ~Kti ~IICnans thy'Epnetm dsrb
Gama
Hot> the' and
U F sso, istr ibit V lsr eth hon
menai ar isi, U'lsn r ee;s. I,-11r
arPisson itriu is
tha,ýt If t1he dAiscreteý runbcr of' events (x) o a ý.uivtc typte f'romr-
ttriaIs. The G--amma- Ai st r ihu t i on is that of tim-es to, hli l
and ishn, cant inuous erthe t Line axis.
I
b
z
H
.. ___
H I A i. - -
rJ)
- Ii hi I
/
U
/
z -
o /
L. il I liIrn i L
AI[VI lvi *-1) K'4J'IMIA

9-16
The Gamma distribution will describe varying failure modes or

combinations thereof. The distribution will become Exponential
when heterogeneity exists among the failure modes. As hetero-
geneity decreases, the distribution approaches the Normal.
Figure 9-17 displays the variation in the frequency for varying
parameter values.
1.7 WEIBULL DISTRIBUTION
The Weibull distribution is characterized by the failure density

function.
fVx) = (x-w) exp Exw)

e-1
f01
for
w'•x < e
->0
and f(x) 0 for x < w
This yields the survival (or reliability) function
R(x) = exp [- (x;'LJ
where the cumulative distribution:

-(x-w)
F(x) = 1-e
The Exponential case oc urs when = 1;

1 then is the MTBF. The
Normal distribution is approximated when 0 .P., in which case
1/p 1
= W + (0) + -and
The effect of the three parameters iA as follows:
P is the shape parameter, and determines the basic configuration

I
2I
411
0 C- 0 C
CQ ul
a~mllLJ1A
9-18
of the frequency function.
w is the location parameter, and determines the point of origin

of the curve,
et is the scale parameter. The real positive Oth root of (Ydeter-

mines the dispersion of the frequency function about the mean.
The frequency function of several contributing failure modes can

be represented as a composite Weibull frequency function such as:
i I 8 0,-l r_( _,0".=8 -

F(x) = • ' (x - WI) exp[, IXWl) + 2, (X-wa)
exp[- ax2=, 8
This can be approximated by the function
= 2 ex[:•--]for 0 x <a
f8---(X) = 2a.,-1 expF-. for
0
=2 2l (x-w) exp •(xw)3for a 9 x .
As can be seen, the Weibull is essentially a three parameter

although w, the location parameter (more appropriately, the delay
parameter in reliability studies) is sometimes set equal to zero,
and, thus, only two parameters remain to be'estimated. This is
not generally advisable, however, and the real flexibility of the
Weibull distribution arises from the judicious use of all three
parameters. The 0 parameter is the most powerful of the three,
in a sense, since it controls the general shape of the curve and,
thus, is the variable which permits that such a wide variety of
curve types are included within the Weibull family. The a is a
scale parameter which plays essentially the same role as ff in the
Normal Distribution. The characteristics of Weibull distribution
are described in Figure 9-19. Special paper developed for graphi-
cal solution to the Weibull parameters is available.
2. ACQUISITION OF DATA
2.1 NATURE OF FAILURES
The prediction or assessment of reliability is actually an eval-

9-19
Ij]
saull,1VAA:
9-20
uation of unreliabilitv,t It is the rate at which failures occur

that we use for the measure of unreliability. )
The nature and
underlying cause of failures must be identified and corected to
improve reliability. Reliability data consist of reports of
failures and reports of duration of successful operation of t-h-,
ionitored equipment.
2.2 USES OF RELIABILITY DATA
Reliability data is used for three main purposes:
(a) To verify that the equipment is meeting its reliability

requiroments.
(b) To discover deficiencies in the '-.p..pment to provide

b&:-ies for corrective action.
(c) To establish failure hi.stori- for comparison and for use

in prediction.
Reliability data can also be useful in providing information

ab-at logistics, maintenance, and operations. The data can provide
a good estimate of spare parts requirements. With respect to
maintenance, reliability data make it possible to estimate the
degradation and wear-out characteristics of parts and components.
From this information, not only can effective preventive mainten-
ance routines to control frequent trouble areas be developed..' bt
also an estimate can be obtained of the number of maintenance man-
hours required to assure a desired level of reliability.
2.3 VALIDITY OF DATA
It is important that the data bc factual so that a high degree of

creCdence may be placed in the conclusions derived from it. In--
complete and inaccurate reporting will inevitably lead to either
complete loss of confidence in the data or to incorrect conclus-
ions and hence incorrect decisions and actions based on the con-
clus ions.
To assure that the information is valid requires that the methods

and procedures applicable to the collection of the data be clearly
defined. The personnel responsible for the Cata collection should
be careful]y selected and adequately trained not only in the
methods and procedutes of reporting, but also in the analysis of
the data and the uses to which it will be put to enable intelli-
gent and responsive reporting.
9-21
2- 4, p"C~kI.ý OFv IMPORTANCE IN PTI OP" TN-;
f i 1iuir s s h c)u I c (n ta- a si

ý a :ný L!7
.a) T. ar a
dJa I- fill 1u r "o 'cC11r 1-e.
bo) Lo.eratlo! (Sh ip or Station)
!den~t i -L.i-n of fa ~art

). or assemblv by name7io stock
numtx..: and number' vwere :iporcprilate.
(d) lhlenti filcation of hi(ýher level o)f asebyIn w-hijch part.

or a-sembly failed 1-1 nameo, stlock numoer orce~ a AS
AN./ SPR-13- andl seri-al number.
(e) Syotos r nati.r e of the failure.
(f) Caus;e -;E fail!ure, incloiding causes such s operator. error,

result o-f anothzer part failure (secoondary faiwi~re) , use beyond
normal life #.->Decta-ncy, ext renai env,1irc.n-m-en' (temperature, shock,
etc.).
(g) -Duration of opti.oratinq t1ime since last failure (computed

f rm oper at n(A log,)
(h) i rcumstanc1o1s surround inc, the f i luire, wthpairt icular

ve ferý-nce to any a'D-orna lit ies not iced.
Entr ies in the( eq.jU1pmt.nt opor atincl lo~j will, be used to establish
or v'eri fy mean life (mean beten,rr failures) of the (-uiiifent
repTorted on. It should also be. uised to verifyý the 'use o.f the
i-3tr ibution of times to fai lure assumed in predict io.-ns or assess-
ment of reliabi~lIty parameters. As was discusseo6 in Chapter 5,
the exp-one'nt a I distr'Cibution o)f tim-es to) fai lure is normally
assumned, 'ý-ata indircatinq that cetii.parts or assemblies follow
a Weibu1 1 or normal (.2 ;tr ibut ian with a t ypical wear-out or end
of life characteristic will pý,rnit the e- ahihmn of realistic
replaccm.ent schedules , with consequent improvement of rel i ability.
Equilinent. op,?rat-ing '(,qs should include, in add it ion to the
i dent ificat ion data (shd4 or station, per io~d covcred , e.LuiIpent
designator, manufacture-r. etc.) :
( -l) Recorded operating time prior to the start of the period

(e.g., readiieg of insta',lled time recordinq device).
(b) IM.urat ion of easoporat jof of thf equipment durinq the

per i d, with purpose far! which operated, abnorimal enVIronments
9-22
and reason for discontinuing operation (such as failure, &-nc:

of exercise, test completed, etc.)
(c) Length of time and uianhoutz expended in maintenance

(preventive or corrective), incliuding reasons for maintenance,
if no. otherwise cJ.early indicated.
Field or use data acquired through failure reports and operating

logs, while useful, cannot be termed conclusive. The data
collected is usually incomplete, inconsistent, and inaccurate.
The influ-ncc of >itangibles, such as the variation in capability
of operating personnel, or procedures used in maintenance and
trouble-shooting, and the hesitancy of some personnel to admit
errors when they can be hidden, cnnfuse the data and make intelli-
gent interpretation of the data difficult.
2.5 METHODS OF GATHERING RELIABILITY DATA -- FIELD DATA
There are two usual metho-ýds of gathering data: (a) at random

from various installations or (b) on the basis of controlled
programs usinq data from units functioning under operational
conditions in accordance with a fixed routine.
Experience has shown that it is usually more advanlage,'us to

gather data by sampling techniques, bc .ause they are mortf rapid
and less costly to the customer. How, ;er, sampling experiments
cannot always be arranged, and difficilty has been encountered
even when the government is the customer. Other methods, such
as simulating field conditions in a ],'oratory and calculating
the resultant reliability, or determining the failure rates ot,
parts or components unier simulated conditions of operation and
calculating the system reliability, ca. be used. Simulated
experiments, if performed properly, can provide an estimate of
operational reliability, but it must be borne in mind t,.at the
methods used for simulating actual field conditions are at best
a guess. Statistically designed experiments should be developo'
with the assistance of a completent statistician to improve ,Ile
efficiency of the experiment. There art no good substitutes for
the actual thing. Nevertheless, in some instances, the res-ilts
obtained by simulation methods have often been nroven to be more
realistic than those based on actual field data gathered thr.-ugh
uncontrolled programs. Field failure data obtained through a
controlled program would, however, be supecior to laboratory
data because the former reflect actual operitional conditions.
The factors to be considered in choosing the type of program are
(a) the ','gree of assurance required that the data
9- 23
obtained reflect an accurate picti•re of equipment reliability,',

(b) , e amount of data reqouired, (c' the oeriod of time over
which the data must b2 accumulated, ,-d (d) the relative costs of
var ious programs. When timo permirts, a controlled Voeld program
or a field and laboratory combination program should be used.
2.6 BUSHIIS DATA SvSTELMS
2.6.1 Ele(tronic Failure Reporting System: Since August 1961,

all active ships and shore stations furnish *he B_-eau with two
reports (1):
(a) NAVSHIPQ 19S5, Electronic Equipment Operating Log;
(b) DD787 (PROPOSED) (Report BuShirs 10550-i) Electronic

Equipment Failure/Replacement Report,
Equipment failures are due to failures of integral parts, units

or plug-in assemblies. The combined equipment/part failure re-
port conr.opt allows for the determination of accurate data
essential to reliability, maintainability and availability figures
of merit. IL should be emphasized however, that no useful part
data is sacrificed t, obtain these figures of merit. An imrnortant
feature of this program is the limiting of reports only to selct-
ed priority equipments. Reporting requirements have been ,i imin-
ated for obsolete and obsolescent equipment. This in itself im-
proves the paper workloDr as compare' to the previous requirements
of reporting on all equipments.
The two forms have been designed to pro-,ide the basic data nec-
essary for the accurate calf-ulation of reliabilitý and maintain-
ability figures of merit, s h as the following: (a) Mean-Time-
Between-Failures, (b) Mean-Time-To-Repair, (c) Down-Time, (d)
Availability, (e) Failure rates and (f) Replacement (consumption)
rates. In addition, the Failure/Replacement Report form provides
the necessary icentification data and conditions of failure in-
formation necessary for comprehensive engineerin(. analyses of
high failure rate items. The majority of Failure/Replacement
and operational time data t) be processed and analyzed in the
BUSHIPS Failure Reporting/Analysis Program will be initiated and
submitted by Navy Technicians. The success or failure of this
program will therefore, be dependent upon the extent to shich
tii technicans are motivated to provide as cc:nplete and,] accurate
data as is possible. In the development of the new reporting
forms and instructions, all aspects were considered from the h
technician's point of view to determine these factors that would
assist in motivating him to provide' the quality of reporting
essential to the program's success.
Provisions have been incorporated into the new Failure/Replacement

Report form to 3llow for:
1. Reporting plug-in assembly failures and repairs.
2. Reporting of failures or replacements in units which are

auxiliary to, but not part of, equipment.
3. Reporting failures or replacements identified by either

the unit (or block nuimbering system of reference designations,
(sept MIL-STD-16) .
4. Better identification of primary part failures (the parti-

cular part of a cluster of part faiilures, pri:i-arily responsi-
ble for an equip.nent failure, i.e., a shorted capacitor (prim-
ary) ..
'1i ,.. z 'hrned oit resistors (secondary)).
5. Determination of reason for excessive downtime, i.e.,

awaitinoi parts not locally available, repair beyond ship or
station capabilities, unfavorable weather or sea (working)
conditions, etc.
6. Segreqotinmg uperational failures, prrxventive maintenance

(POMSEE) replacements, unscheduled maintenance rep! --- ments,
stock de.fective items. and repairs 'nade to replaceable units
or plug-in assemblies.
A sound a:,,[vsis system was planned in a manner which, will point

out those parts which are failing or being replaced at a much
higher rate than others within its particular group. Since it is
not feasible to compre the failure rate of a beam po)wer klystroi
with that of a low voltage recttifier, catellorization of parts
into homogeneous groups was accotilished.
Prior to c.,nducting an enaii neerinq inalysis, various operational

pa'rmneters will be investiqated. Problems rcsultint from an in-
dividual eguijxnent, ship or even equipnents instal'ed in the saxe
class of ships may well be the result ot improper installation,
poor maintenance practices, ,tc., ind therefore, in these cases,
eno ineerink- analy'sis associated with circoitry sho-uld be avoided.
The oossib li/y )f c.)ncurrent random :-eplacemcnts on a fleet-wide
basis c,innot be overlooked. Repla,.ement cost, amount of actual
don- time, and maintenance ti.me resulting from the failure ot
reiacement wij '. likewise be considered.
9-25
Cnly ofter all these conditions have been invebtiqat(ed will a

decis irn be made as to whether or nnt to conduct an eno-ineering
analysis. The engineering analysis encompasses factors such as
investicav,±ons of circuit desian Andicatio., -
character.Istics, associated replacement, all reported trouble

information (e.g., cause and type of failure), physical and
environmental factors, rc .=&t equipment modification, etc.
The dIvelopment and implcmontat ion of a program incorporating

suitable reporting forms, systematic data preparation techniques,
sophisticated data processing programs, and sound engineering
analysis criteria is of little value without feedback of in-
formation to interested agencies. This program has been developed
so that pertinent information will be distrib'ited to the bureau
of Ships, major equipment contractors, and other agencies, as well
as to the technician originating the reports. Specific schedules
have been established for each periodic report.
A report has been designed specifically for distributior. to con-

tractors aL ion
6 of t..
-a U.u I•,11 .S The report
will provide a complete time-frame history of the contractor's
equipment. The following figures of merit will be provided,
based on failures during operation: the mean-time-between-failures,
the averaqe repair time per failure.
The contractor will also be pro)vided with individual uMmat ionns

bv Equipment Model Designation ;n operating cndition and ship or
station code for the foliowino:
I. Total a•ilurs (total number of 'operational Failure"
Reports.)
2. Total operating time.
3. Total repair time.
The association between failure or replacement of parts and part

provisioning is obviou-. Since there as a definite need for
guidance when provisioning for new equipments and establishing
reprovisioning policies for old equipmnents, the application of
fleet failure or replacement data toward this goal seemed desir-
able. Faiiure rates listed by Federal Stock Nvunber and based on
realistic population and operating time figures should provide
firm guidelines for establishing spare part requirements. The
combination of fLilure rates and average equipment operating time
form a basis for reprovisioning.
C9- 26
The ?,ftectiveness c:., an es tab1L iSht-d S oare CPa7rts I-(IS I ('n~ n, ~

for ro-.% oi me cain be doAt erm i ned i f d it a ift~c! back ra l
steps can be taken to provi!de adtionlspares tor :crsfa I i-n
ait a h iqher rate than prýd icted . Resu~pp ly rat(us) tr n,
l
parts of a new,, ek,, 1 umert can aliso be based oýn failuore dlat at
Plans have been developed to prov:ide BUSHIPS and tht- Elect,rvnicc-

Supply -)ffi-e with thei folio7wino info~rmaition:
1. Fa~ilure rites byF-deral St(-r'k Nurmber.
2. Averaqe monthly hours ,f Operat io-n .f eq-uitme-nt >0
3. Replacements of Federal S"' k umbers in neý, e--ui uments.
4. Faillut e/Replacem~ent inftormat:ion on maior Oý'-ij ts and ele(c--

tronic assemblies of modular co~nstraction.
5. Maintenance information for malor units and electr, -,nc

assemblies of modular construct ion.
Tht mnavcor-t-v of this information is directly related t, the

Federal Stock Number since the supysystem use,(s this t.orm" of
nomnenclature. To) provide the information just, ment nv. t ".:1s
nece- ary to' evop ncI fic data orcesnotr orams aro T-r.)-
cedures w.h io.>, orientate andi Present fai i are re t i.raecn
a format suitable for part ::ro)vislonini andrprxiio
appi11cat ion.
2 .6. 2 Ma in tena ncec D ata Coll e Ct.I on Systtem: Vihe yla'ntenx:ýce at

-I
Colelyt ion (MUC Syst em is d"es iolned to pro'' ide all l.~
'ý
nanacement in the Na-vy Department with essnt jtial dat,, that can
be suiw-iiar ized by m-ans ()' datai proce(-ss ~n,. ejlu i jnent into usf fo11
manaoe-ien reports. A't theIt uresent t ime, the Navy- does not hv
a method for collect ir.ý maintenan.c intformat ion in a 1,sýable Ir--
mat. Throuoh the use oft c:ded entries, On cstandardfrm al
equi aetmaintenance ver fo'rmed in the %a.i
wIll be Cc I lootedi
Al I m-a int onanct' per for-med will1 be recorded' en the pres,-r 1.1c
forms - OPNAV Form. 4"('Q-2 and 4- ),-2-A - by the person per! rmi
the -Ai ntenance. The codes to be uised will be lI-ste~d inte
pert inent E.do ipmxent Id-ent i.ficat ion (Code ( EIC') Manual. Tricre arc
four separate rmanuals; Operations, Weapo--ns, Fne i fleerinr.,, aind Hu~ll
and Mis--cel11ane~ous . The bloc(ks on the formrs are i ent'.fie'A b"
numbers and letters. The oedentries will be punche:- into. thec
dat- cards.
9-27
The following is a recommended method of incorporating MDC within

the ship's organization. An officer, preferably in the engineer-
ing department, should be designated the Maintenance Data Collect-
ion Officer as a collateral duty. He, in turn, should have a
petty officer assistant whose primary duty will be MDC Petty
Officer. An office such as the Engineering Log Room should be
designated the MDC center for collection, review, mailing, dis-
tribution, and filing of the MDC forms and reports. The leading
petty officer of each rate or space will be the Maintenance Group
Supervisor. He will review each document submitted by his sub-
ordinates. He is responsible for ensuring that all MDC forms
are complete and accurate. Incomplete or inaccurate maintenance
data will result in erroneous manning, equipment budgeting; or
work requirements action at higher levels of command.
The following data is entered on the standard form:
(a) Ship's name and hull number.
(b) Equipment identification code from EIC Manual for part

repaired.
(c) Classification of the group that performed the maintenance

by code number from EIC Manual.
(d) Type of mainitenance action, (failure mode, frequency of

routine maintenance, alteration or manufacture of new item).
(e) Manhours expended.
(f) Date action taken
(g) Serial number of equipment.
(h) Written description of malfunction or reason for main-

tenance action.
(i) Written description of corrective or maintenance action.
(j) List of spare parts used (CID, APL, or AN Numbers).
2.5.3 Operations Reporting System: The OR information such as

obtained in FBM programs indicates the types and distributions
of problems being experienced, the corrective action, the process
by which it is applied and the effectiveness of the corrections.
9-28
3 PROBLEMS WITH EXPERIENCE DATA
Some of the reasons traditionally given for the limited use nf

field and operational data are:
1. Problems, in Data Retrieval (what data, can't find it,

too cumbersome, takes too long, costs too much, etc.).
2. Problems with Data Accuracy (can't believe what its say-

ing, technicans do not record properly, most failures result
from outside of its control and therefore should not get
blamed, it never really tells me why it failed, etc.).
3. Problea, in Understanding (low to use it, what does it

mean, hou does one relate the problem on hand, et2.).
3.1 TRADI±2IONAL CONCEPTS
Possibly the most common and certainly the most destructive con-
cept concerning the retrieval of experience data is that it can
be retireved in the exact orientation and form required by the
"user". The probability that this can be done is at least as
low as that of obtaining computer solutions to probiems in res-
ponse to interrogations exprcsse dii -ctly in the form of applied
engineering equation. The analogy is hignly appropriate. One
cainnot retrieve information from tVe computer without first con-
verting the engineering language to computer language, and then
programmming it in a manner dictated 'y both the type of in-
formation stored and the craputation capaoility of the compuler.
The sý'me is true for the stored experience data. The researcher
must understana the type of data stored and how to retrieve it.
All too frecquently the reliability engineer has rejected much of

the current existing scurce of knowledge in his search for data
which explicitly displays the parameters of his favorite equation,
R = e-t/MTBF. Thus, he be]ieves that he must find a single data
format which directly produws values for MTBF. The impact of
this can be estimated by noting that the regularity with which he
insists that clocks be designed into hundreds of components
labeled "Criti-al". At the same time it has led hiim to reject
m, of the existing experience data as practically worthless.
rUntil li-has been helped to understard that it is not necessary
for time to be recorded and explicitly displayed against each
event, he will make little proqress in recognizing what infor-
ration is ot pr-tenvcial vadle to him. As soon as he completely
understand thit esse,'tially all sionificant event- i- the "real"
world are performed in time oriented sequences his hor ions will
9-29
be enormously expanded. It is then that he realizes that almost

any component can be related to the time/sequences in which it was
operated. For instance, we have two hydraulic systems in whic41
there are two p'umnps each (four identical pimps). Any one pump
can handle both hydraulic systems, if necessary. However, gen-
erally one pump on each system is utilized with the other pump
as a back up. The pumps are alternated daily to accumulate
approxL-m-tely the same number of operating hours. A cruise lasts
60 days. Therefore the total hours as-cumulated on this type of
pump is 2880 hours on a 60 ( ay cruise per vessel.
3.2 MARSHaJLING YOUR DATT. SOURCES
The first element to attack, and possibly most important, is the

source existing within ore's own "house". This basic ste'> is
possibly the most difficult single element of the entire task.
The marshalling task is unglamorous and down riqht tedious. The
task also requires thdt a survey be made of how people are con-
ducting their business and how .nany "road blocks" are erected in
the process. Another problem which traditionally gets in the way
of a successful study is the researcher's desire to describe the
sources either as he wants them to be or as his management would
like them to be. Describing them as they actually operate re-
quires considcrable objectivity and tact.
Each data source must be studied in detail with respect to data

content, flow, storage and retrieval. After all sources have
beer. carefully examined, it can be seen that extensive and de-
tailed study must be made of both the source and reduce"' data to
realize the importance of implied cross reference.
3.3 EXPERIENCE DATA INTEGRATION
Once the survey has been completed and the sources aralyzed, a
second phase must be undertaken, that cf developing the techni-
ques to exploit the information.
Figure 9.8 points out that experience data is only one of the
four major ingredients necessary to determine the life character-
istics (Xt,) of an equipnent item. Another necessary portion is
the "ENGINEERING :NFORMATION" block while the third is the
accurate integration by the interpreter(s) operating on the fourth
ingredient, the appropiate process (the equation).
3.3.1 "Engineering Information": As with the use of a computer

in the solution of any engineering problem, the foundation of
success is built by correctly identifying and stating the problem
9-30
indicated by Ms/If, the selected failure mode(s) defined approp-

riate to the problem. In the attempts at the solutions to the
reliability aspects of the design problems, this step is the most
consistently neglected and/or troublesome. The parameters are
the success/failure criteria and the analogous experience data
deemed appropriate to the problem. The Operations Problem
Reports may assist in the self-tion by indicating failure
mode and effect documented for the analogous item.
In addition the retriever must have the basic knowledge and under-
standing of the functions of the item as related to input/output
requirements, sequence of operation, checkout and procedures of
the system which uses this item, etc. "Exposure to failures"
are generally reported at the overall-system or major system
level. Item "exposure to failures" and environmental stress
level must therefore be estimated by the item time/sequence
functioning as applied to the system.
3.3.2 Equation to Relate Elements: The next step i5 to form

the appropriate equation(s) which correctly relates the para-
meters of the problem to the degress of detail and in the form
appropriate to the existing data.
The process by which the -,arious parameters can be arithmetically

combined is given by the equation on Figure 9-31.
The numerator of the equation represents the estimated itemn

failures in the given calendar time period, to, for the selected
failure mode(s) during the selected application activities.
Io
7(1 MS/
LA Aa
is the total re•rte_ numbers of unschedule removals for the

selected mode(s). However, the reported failure mode(s) is not
always the true failure mode(s). Km is the estimated ratio (%)
of the true mode(s) to the reported mode(s) determined from the
Failure Analysis Reports.
The denominator of the equation represents the estimated "expos-

ure to failure" from the selected application activities during
the given calendar period, t,. Activities are generally report-
ed at the system level. From the systemn level, the item "expos-
ure to failure" may be estimated by:
Ex tc N1
Et to Et x -x Ti
9-31
I 1 Fl
C ~C)
-b
H ~ I ~l
-CIS
L4
U~ ~ ~ 4 Las~-~&~
GJ - ~,, w
L lo
0E -0
o~~to - - roe
9-32
Et. is the numuber(s) of system cyclpsin the given c lendar time

period, t,, for the selected application activity.
IS is the number(s) of item cycles per system cycle.

Et
NI is the number(s) of item identified with the system.

Aa
Ti is the functioning time per item cycle.
Ic NI
Et xE x - - Total item cycles during t,.
Et Aa
Ic NT
Et xt
t,Et x - x Tx = Total item operating timeduring tu.
Aa
3.3.3 Integration of the Data: As implied in Pigure 9-31, the

interpreter is the primary integrator of the data. The first
step is the job of "programming". Programming (forming the data
retrieval requests) for experience data generally encompass
several separate sources of data as well as the careful matching
of details and format of the data stored by the various functions.
Here we must be aware that virtually no one could collect and
store data oriented to the almost inuinite variety of problems
which are asked of the data source.
Once the retrieval "program" is correctly formed and t0-• data

becomes avaiiable, it must be processed (sorted, ordered, com-
bined, etc.) for application to the equation(s) employed in
forming the value(s) for the chosen p__-amter(s).
Much information duplicaLion wili be noted on a component prob-

lem report(s); i.e., discrepancy, when dis-o,ered, part number,
etc., will be indicated by "code" and/or written description.
In addition, the same probler may be reported by many sources.
When the duplications and redundant reports are utilized with
the problem occurrance matching the T-tivity chart, the net
result cf the data will be highly accurate.
"Failure rate" or the reliability estimate is determined from the

ratio of the problem curve to the activity curve. In general,
problems are well documented, collected, sorted, and relatively
9.-33
easy to locate and retrieve; a-wever, the activities (exposure to

failure, or successes), althoucgh well documented, are not gener-
ally collected and therefore making the locating and retrieval
much more difficult.
Crude as this method may appear, its application has been extremely
helpful in clearing up the usual difficulties encountered in even
good data collection systems.
4. ESTIMATING PARAMETERS FROM THE DATA
Assuming the data sources provide a set of operating time and

failure data, properly evaluated to screen out errors and data
not pertinent to the problem the first step is the assumption of
the underlying distribution. This assumption must be based on
physical characteristics of the problem. The clues provided in
the section on failure density functions will be helpful in most
cases.
If the exponential distribution has been assumed, the next quest-

ion is "How well does the data support the assumption?" The
technique for evaluating the fit is termed the "goodness-of-fit
test".
4.1 GRAPHICAL SOLUTION
A graphical procedure is useful for the quick indication of the

validity of the exponential assumption provided that the number
of observed failures is relatively large. One procedure is to
plot the cumulative test or operating time against the cumulative
number of failures as in Figure 9-34. If as shown in the example,
the failures occur uniformly with time, the assumption of the
exponential distribution appears valid.
4.2 CHI SQUARE GOODNESS OF FIT TEST
A more sensitive test to verify the assumption of the failure

distribution can be performed analytically. From the assumed
distribution function, predict the number of failures that will
fall in each of several arbitrarily selected ".ncrements of time.
FQr each such increment the predicted or expected number of
failures will be np where n is the number of equipments
operating and p is the probability of failure during the time
in question. if k increments are selected, compute the k
values of el the expected number of failures in the ith increment.
For each increment, count the observed number of failure, ol.
The summation
I
9-34
I
It
I
t I
[0
0
z
- 0
I
0
- - - - - - -I
0
0
0
I '1*
I
0
- 00
0 E-
I4 I -
I 0
0
9H I
0
H
C#2
I
-4
I
0 0
c'J - -
'3I1LVIIVA AMLVi:Np,j
9-35
k e
7 1 0is chi-square
1= e-
distributed for reasonably large values of the e, (e, > 5). The
number of degrees of freedom for the X2 distribZution is k - 1,
except where the sample is used to establish the ex-pectrd value
of MTBF. In this case the number of degrees of freLdom is k - 2,
one degree in effect being used in the selection of the MTBF.
Example: Test data reports on an electronic system give the

following times to failure:
t1 ,hours
27.0 39.0 61.4 69.6 86.3
96.5 98.2 101.5 119.2 128.6
144.0 164.6 180.0 i80.0 183.8
198.2 206.8 229.1 259.5 272.6
286.4 312.1 319.3 339.0 415.9
419.5 609.8 729.1 898.7 1159.0
To test the sample against an MTBF of 300 hours, increments of

time will be selected so as to hav., an expected value of six
failures in each of five time increments. Selecting a uniform
probability of 20;X for each increment and the eouation
t
R = e , solving tor t.
R
R t e 0oe (e - o)'
0
e
.80 67 6 3 1.50
.60 150.3 6 8 .67
.40 275.2 6 9 1.50
•20 483.0 6 6 0
.00 - 6 4 .67
= 4.33
i
The probability from a ). tabne using four degrees of freedom

qi.v.s a value of about. 65. This means that samples drawn frcW
the assumed populat ion will give you values in excess of this
number (4.31) about one tbird of the time. This represcents a
reasonably good fit.
9-36
Using the data collected the tot al oper :t ý-nq time is 8335 hours
for 30 failures. The mean t ime bietwveen failures
278
testing the sample against an assart'ption of 278 hours MTBF.
R t e 0(e-o
e
.80 62.1 6 3 1.50

.60 1421.) 6 7 .17
.40 255.0 6 8 .67
.20 448.0 6; 8 .67
.00 6 4 .67
3.67
Prom an x(2 table using (k - 21) orthree degrees of freedom the

probability if found to be 7'01-. This is a slight imprc'rx-ment
indicating the lower MTBF su1i. be preferred.
4.3 TESTING D--ATA AGAýN.ST (ATIH7P ý-TsTR!qJ'IOrtNs
The x 2 test is applicable for te~stin.i tedata against any -is-

t-ribution, using the oirameters to.- be tested in the sarie wayv as
was done in testing the exponent jal . COotai ls can be tounci in
Chapter 10 or in any qv'ad te~xt -n ~ta~t ist ics.
5ýR YHN
(11 Techniques of Statistical .'\nlilysis, Eisenhart, C'., Hastay,

M. W., and Wallis, W. A.Hirwlll Book-, Comvany.
(2) syste.¶s Re1iabi 1 tyesrt~ andi Analysis, Landers, R .R.

Proceedinqs of the Four~th tonlSymnpos ium on Rli abi lit%
and Qua~lity Control, 1,'e5H.
(3) Data Collect'on and Fva ill ditin, 3hr ~p,V). W. , Proceed inqs
of the Fifth Nat-;nal svmrrtesiui-' or 'Reliab-ility and "ýu~tity
Control, 1951.1
(4) Mathematical Me-ýthods of SttitcCrxmer, H., Princeton

Uni'versity Press.
(5) An Introduct ion to Prob'abi 1ýty Th~ and Its Applica-'tions,

W. Feller, Jhn W"iley & ,ions,Vlm 1, Second E,'.it io-n.
10-1
Chapter 10
STATISTICAL TFCH"rIUJFS
P ag e
1. SEYUEN'% AL ANALYSIS 10- 2

1.1 Procedure of Testiný, a Hypothesis 10- 2
1.2 Normal Distribution 10-10
1.3 Binomial Distribution 10-12
1.4 Chi-Square Distribution 10-13
1.5 Poisson Distribution 10.-14
I.F Exponential Distribution 10-15
2. TEST PROCEDURES SLMMARY 10-17

2.1 Chi Sqlare (Xý ) "Goodness of Fit" Test 10-17
2.2 The "Normal" Test 10-22
3. DESIGN OF EXPERLMENTS AND ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE 10-30

3.1 Applicability of Use of Experimental Design 10-31
3.2 Analysis of Variance 10-32
3.3 The Basic Design of Experiments Model 10-33
3.4 The F Test 10-35
3.5 The Two Factor Experiment 10-38
4. BOOLEAN ALGEBRA 10-44

4.1 Techniý-ues 10-44
4.2 Classification lcxo<c 10-48
4.3 Rules ot Operation 10-51
5. REFERENCES 10-54
10-2
Chapter it
STATISTICAL TECHNIQUJES
1. SEQUENTIAL _NALYSIS
Sequential Aanalysis is a procedure that ]cads to a statistical

inference and in which the nuniber of observations to be made is
not de'ermined before the experiment is bequn. The procedure
indicates when sufficient observations have been taken in order
that a decision to accept or reject a given hypothesis can be
made with predetermined producer's a-id consumer's risks, denoted
respectively by a and ý. On the average, fewer observations will
be required by this procedure and its use will not increase t~he
value of r and ;.
1.1 PROCEDURE OF TESTING A hYPOTHESIS
Observations are taken one at a time. After every obset 'ation,

a decision is made to accept the hypothesis, 'o reject the lopo-
thesis, or continue taking observations. In order to determTIf'
-.hich of these decisions to make, the crhtical region for each
sample size must bý determined. To do this, P,-), the probability
that m observat*ons collected in the successive samplinq, ',Culd
occur if the hypothesis Ho were true, and Pi, the prooability
t iat these observations would occur if the alternative hypothesis
H, were in fact true. To compute Pom the assumpt ion is mci t ht
the hypothesis H. is actually true. In a similar manner, to -)m-
pute Plm, the hypothesis H, is assumed to be true. When Y is
much larger than elm, HR is to be accepted. When rl,, is :,,ch
larger than Pè H1 is to be ar'cepted. If Fernis apprexi:',atel1'
equal to Pim' sampling" will continue. A simple mathtmatical rc-
lationsl ip that will express these conditi ens is the ratio ,
to P•m" rh fonlowino inequalities were ,rr-ven by Wald (i) to
cha-icterize the sequential test.
-- , accept Il1
I p
if, DIM _ _ acctpt "it.

PP
eIm
___ Im 1'
It - , ccnt inut Sampij.

nem
The abo~ve inequalities are illustrated in Figure 10-3.
10-3
__Z CL
H -
i'-4
Sequcntial analysis is not restricted t.I any one type of probabil-

ity distribution, but can be applied in general. The arItnretic
necessary to der.ving tihe ecquat ions for the bounds of
the decision
interval !ill be demonstrated below usino the 8'nomial
Pro-babilitv
distribut ion.
For this case HO is P = PO; HI is P = Pl.
d
Po = POd (1 - Po)
d = d-fective
g = good
an, P d(1 - P 1 )g d
m P!d( 1 - d I gd 3
they,-- g -' -
P o
0M 1 0 0 0
Take natural logacitoIms and get,
Ln .1 I -
(- ) = d Ln(-) + g Ln
om 0 0
Using the above equality for Ln(Plm!/Pomj) and appropriately con-

verted torms of the two basic inequalities fcr the sequential
te~s, the following decision criteria may be derived:
I- Ln ].8[P1 d Ln - + Ln (-1-P1
o 0
Decision: Accept H
0
10-5
2. Ln (n - ) d Ln (P_)+ g Ln(1 P
0 0
Decision: Reject H , i.e., accept H,.

0 L
-Pc1 o PC
Decision: Continue sampling.
The above decision criteria can be expressed in a slightly differ-

ent manner if we note that values of e, a, Pi, and Po are to be
stated beforte the test procedure is tiefined.
Let Ln(--) KI, Ln _ =
a 12
_Ln ( ) = DI, Ln 1V P
p and g = m - d.
0 0
Onc can restte the decision critteria as 'Ollows:
1. K1 - C2 m
m d (C1 - C2 ) Accept H
2. K2 -C2m • d (C - C2) Reject H°
3. I -Cm < d (C-CM Continue Sampling
The decision boundary line functions,
K C K C
1 2 2__ 2_
' 2 C C m and C2 2
C1 1 2 .. 12 - 2 1 2
are graphically presented in Figure 10-6.
"1~
10-6
Q)r
oC
00
>0
z0
00
U(
SAJ3 .4( 4 0 AW'I

10-7
To illustrate the method of sequential testing, consider a test

of the honesty of a coin that is suspected of giving too many
heads. A Binomial Sequential test will b- made of the hypothesis
HO: PC 7 0.5 against an alternate hypoth,.7is Hi: P1 = 0.7. Let
the type I and type II errors be = .10 and E 0.20.
I. K1 = Ln (---_ Ln (-.2 = - 1.504

ý 0
Ily ~~.9)
2. K = Ln (-- Ln (-) 2.079

2 .1
P1
3. C1 - Ln (P-) Ln ( : `) .337
P5
0
4. C 2 = Ln (-f - -nI ( ) = 0.511

0
5. C - C2 0.337 - (-0.511) = 0.848
K C
6. 1.8 + .6m (lower boundary)
C 1 -C 2 C1 - C 2
SK2 C2
7. 2 _ C2 m = 2.4 4 .6m (upper boundary)
C I- C- C 1- C2
The lower boundary line separates the acceptance region from the
no-decision region; it is, therefore, called the accepts.ice line.
The upper boundary line separates the rejection region tom the
region of no-decision; it is, therefore, called the rejection
line.
At each toss of the coin, a decision must be made as to the

honesty of the coin. The resulfs of tossing d coin are given in
Figure 10-8. From this illustration, it is noted that the test
was finished after 13 trials since a decision was made at that
time. The hypothesis that P = 0.5 was accepted over the alterna-
tive Fl" If the alternative had been P1 - 0.65 a larger number
of trials would have been required, on the average, to arrive at
a decision with the same probabilities for the risks.
The result of a sequential. significance test anal.2 sis is a

1O.d3
if:
F-
U
C)
H
z
0
U
is
0 E
'-4 1-
0
44
0
p4 0,
I) U
-12 Cl
X4 00
0
0
I
C fl If:
S(IAH AG WIUNaN
10-9
nair of lines that will divide the sample space into three regions
such that after each test a decision can be made to either con-
tinue testing or to accept one or the other of two hypotheses.
It is then a simple process to rt-resent the results of each test
as a score and to terminate the test as soon as the cumulative
total of the score has reached either of two limits. In the
simpler cases the two lines will be straight lines as was the
case with the coin. It will then be necessary only to plot some
function of the observations on a chart where the two straight
lines indicate the limits of interest. If these lines are paral-
lel, they will have the same slope. The information needed to
plot them will be the sl' ,e and their intercepts. The informa-
tion is given below for each distribution function discussed.
The test is then to be terminated when one of the lines is reached.
In practice, hcwever, the line will generally be crossed; so the
errors involved will actually be less than that which is speci-
fied.
It is now desired to outline a sequential testing procedure for

several well-known distribution functions. The following defini-
tions are necessary:
General Terms:
O Producer's or Vendor's risk - Probability of rejecting

the reliability of the system even though the relia-
bility is satisfactory. - (The probability of a type
! error).
SConsumer's risk - Probability of accepting the relia-

bility of the system, when the actual reliability is
not as good as the specification. - (The probability
of a type II error) .
n Sample Size - number uf observations.
n The Average sample number - the expected number of

tests that must be made before a decision will be
reached.
r= Number of iterns tested.
h0 = The intercept of the line forming the lower boundary

line of decision.
h, = The intercept of the line forming the upper boundary

line of decision.
10-1l0
s The common slope of the two lines forming the boun-

daries, of the regions of decision.
Normal Test or "t" test:
1 =Mean of normal distribution.
Standard deviation of a normal distribution.

- - =The standard deviation of the arithmetic mean of the
observations.
x Mean of the observations of x.
Exponential test:
- Mean Time to Failure.
Estimate of the Mean Time to Failure.
e - Acceptance Number - A value of time to failure which

if exceeded by the sample mean time to failure will
assure the required reliability coefficient.
r = Ntunber of Failures.
Poisson test:
Parameter of the Poisson distribution.
In the4 4eneril statistical testing] situation the urror made when

a correct null hypothesis is re ected (e.g., rejectinq an item
meetinq the specification), is called a type I .Irror and the pro-
babilii .v ( 1 a type I error is called the significance level --
usuallyv lenoted by the sy-nbol .. The error made when a true
3 it ~t.nti\. h''pothcesis is reiectcd, (e.<i., acceptance of a defec-
ti,',c it -ml Is called a type II error. The probability of not
maki in-, i type II error is called the power. Thus, Power equals
one (1) mnin,,s the Consumer's risk.
1.2 NOrMAL DISTRIBUFrION
The first distribution to be considered is the normal distribu-

t 1n. A test. of the hypothesis HO: •. ,, against an alternative
:' -is developed for measurements frcm a normal population.
It is imp-•rtant to detect the difference between the two mo(ans.
Thc" t%'.c I error ,, is the risk ot asserting a differenc( when
none ,ists, and •, the type II error, is the risk of asscrtinc
no -iifofrcrice when the mean 's really different.
Tý' construct thu chart, conveniunt values are chosen for the two
scalu6. On the hor izontal axis is the number of tests or -bser-
vations, and on the vertical ixis is th-v function measured.-
The se(luential testing procedure for normal distribution (with -

known) is described in tht followin-3 manner.
I. Calculate:
Slope of boundary lines:
+
0
2
Intercepts of boundary lines:
2 2
h B - h A- where
:l .
- - A -Ln - , B Ln
Average sample number required:
S(1 - -,) h ÷ h
h0 h1
if..
S~0
o 0f
-h h, i ,0+U
n if-2-
s 2 2
2. Plot the boundary lines:
T h + ns
0 0
T1 ns
JI
10-12
3. Proceed with te;ting. A decision is reached when a

boundary is crossed.
1.3 BINOMIAL DISTRIBUTION
T•he plan for sequential testing for the binomial distribution

has already been discussed.
The sequential testing procedure for binomial distribution is

computed in the following manner.
1. Calculate:
Slope of boundary lines

qo
Ln ---
ql
S - q where 1- p
Ln P 0ql
+ Ln 1
Intercepts of boundary lines
where K Ln 1 -
ho P q 1
1
Ln - + Ln
P q1
K
h, K LnL2
P
S q
Ln P- 4 Ln 0-
Po 1q
Averaqc sampl' nutubers required
(0 - ir)h h
r if P P
P -S 0
n+s FI S if t F P1
10-13
-h h
-- oi
ns S(I S) if p S
2. Plot the boundary lines:
d = h + mS
m o
d = hI + mS
3. Proceed with testing. A decision is reache-d when a boundary

is c-ossed.
1.4 CHI-SQUARE DISTRIBUTION
When the mean-time-to-failure must be estimated, the Chi-Square

distribuition is employed. It has the following properties:
The frequency curves extend from zero to infinit-Y.
In the case n 1, the curve is merely the positive half of

1
the normal curve; as n tends to infinity, the distribution
tends to normality, but rather slowly.
When n is greater than 1 the function is zero at tUe oriqin,

rises to a mode at n - 2 and then falls off aqain to infinity.
The moments about the mean are:
m2 2n
mi 8n
Mi
4 48n + 12n 2
The distribution function is an incomplete garmma function.
The sequential testing procedure for Chi-square distribution is

computed in the following in.nner.
I. Calculate:
2.
Values of 22r
' for upper and lower boundary lines,
using values of TI, T2 , -, and F selected from
previous data.
10- 14
2. Plot the boundary lines
Upper : -T , 2r
2r
Lower T T 1 2~r-
3. Proceed with testing• . A decision is reached when a

1.5 POISSON DISTRIBU.71ON
When an event has only a very small, constant prbability of

occurring, but many trials are made so that the event does in
fact happen ,with measurable freqluency, the number of occurrences
4s given by the P*)isson distribution,. While the probabilitv ot
a gi en com•-onent failure at any time is \cry sm-11, where many
components are used in a oiven system, failures are distributec
at random, this fre iuencv will be describe•d Ly the Poisson dis-
tr ibution.
Problems where the Pisson distribution applies are met in con-

nection with countingi, foýr exmmie, in determnnirn; the nu7ber of
neutron particles reachini a counter in a Li'en time intei<.
The sequential test ing 'roc'.ur.e for P iss-n distribution Is

calculated in the rcl1o1,in; -tanner.
1. Calculate:
S Io't lines
Ln __
Ln1 -5
Ln2
Average simplit numbers r:u irck- C' en 7 ind

¶ S1' 2
o rn - S
Ih h
M -
-h h
n
S S
2. Plot the boundary 1 ines
n + I '
T, 11 ns
3 Proceed with testinki. A dcisio_-n is reached, whcn a

boundary is croqssd.
1 .6EXPONENT IAL P S'TR IB1' TON
The exponenit al di str ibut ion has r.te~en ohs ervod fnr mi-v tvpos of
compl~ex svst emý Ind 711±v be used flor tho)sc. parts and sNyste-ms which
-ire s npIcx that many Iype(s ICdet er ior at i on wi th d i f f -rentI
11t is a specijal case of the Can.ma di-t r ibut ion and is ch.AractU r-
i zed4 I-), a constant fai lure rate-.. The cýý-fidence intor% 11 for t'-'e
Mean o f an exponent --ai1 dis t ri1but io(n f r om a random Fwi~p -e -_ t imes
to- fa uecan be obtaineOi :y us in4:, the Chi-squire dstriu o
with .2r cieqrees of frvedeck where, r is thc- number _o ' ,-iiuies
observed.
10-16
The sequential testing procedure for exponential distribution is

calculated in thc 'ollowing manner.
1. Calculate:
Slope of boundary lines
Ln (-L)
T2 T•
intercepts of boundary lines
h A where, A = Ln
o _1
T2 T,
P = Ln
, 1h=1 B 1
Ta T1
A,,erage sample numbers required when T TI, T T2 , and

T = s
-=
-• (- c) B + A
( -1)+ Ln T2
T2 TI
•i T3+ (1 $ )A
(1i- Y-T-) + Ln T-2-
T, T,
-BA
n (-T,-
s [ Ln (TL) 1 2
10)- 17
2. Plot the boundar • lines:
T = h + rs
1 1
T h 4s
3. Proceed with testing. A decision is reached ',%hen a

Several di fferent distibutions are us(d t, describe the para-

meters found in the literature cf reliability. It is necessary
for the engineer to have a working knowlodge of these distribu-
tions n order to understand their applications, their limita-
tions, and the time and labor that can be saved by their proper
use.
•.hen statistical tests of significance are set up, it is the

responsibility of the engineer setting up the test to consult
with the statistician in order to determine a sequential testing
procedure that can be utilized in order to conserve time and
money and reach a conclasion that will provide the greatest
-amount of confidence in the results.
TEST PROCEDURES SU"'MARY
The foregoing discussion has considered many of the theoretical

concepts involved in testing statistical hypothesis and some of
the practical problems associated with these concepts. In thLý
forthcoming section actual testing procedures will be summarized.
2.1 CHI SQUARE (x2 ) "GOODNESS OF FIT" TEST
This procedure is used to determine whether or not a set of

observed values is consistent with a uniquely zpecified density
function. This uniquely speciFied density function is the null
hypothesis. The alternative hypothesis is that the true density
function is other than that specified. This alternative includes
both density functions of other forms and density function of the
same form as that specified but with different values for the
par amete-:.
1. All possible values that an observotion can take on are

4k. divided into N classes, each class being some "conveniently"
chosen interval of the form ra, x Ai+,", with a1+ 1 > a,.
'
-. U EUE
10-i8
2. The probability, pi, that an observation will fall into

the ith class is computed using the density function,
f'.(x), specified by the null hypothesis, i.e.,
FP, f(x) dx
a.
3. The expected number, e,, of observations falling into the

ith class (for each value of i) is computed using the
equation
e, = n • p1
where n is the number of observations. It is required

that each e, be greater than five. There may be some
regrouping of classes in order to fulfill this require-
ment. it is now assumed that all the possible values of
an observation has been divided into N classes and that
the expected number in each class is greater than 5.
4. Each of the n observations, ix,, x_, ..... , x)ý is put

into its proper class. Uiie number of observations, 0,
in each class is then computed.
5. The quantity, u, is, then computed where
(e, - 0 )2
u :
6. The quantity, u, has a density function that is Y2 with

N-1 degrees of freedom. The desired significance level,
a, is now used. Entering the _2 tables with N-1 degrees
of freedom and ry, a value, X2, such that
- x') a or - x×o = 1 -
is obtained.
7. If u X, the data is said to be consistent with the

null hypothesis at the a significance level; if u ">Y
the data is said to be inconsistent with the hypothesis
at the ,,significance level, i.e., the null hypothesis is
rejected.
Na
Ni~
10-19
The following point regarding the X2 "Goodness of Fit" tist may

be noted. Suppose that the density function, f(x), has k(k<N-1)
parameters not sp cified oy tle null hypothesis. One could use
the observations 7x, .... , xn to provide estimates, via the
maximim likel 4 hood estimator of the k parameters. These estim- __
ated values, , ;29 . ..... Ok, could then be substituted into the
density function and expected values computed as was done pre-
viously. The statistic, u, now has a density function that is
2 with N-i-k degrees of freedom.
Examples :
1. A die was cast 360 times with the following result.
Result of toss 1 2 3 4 5 6
Frequency 59 65 52 63 67 54
Are the data consistent with the null hypothesis that the die is
true at the 0.05 significance level.
Step 1: H0 :p = P2 = P= P 4 = PS =LP 6
1=
e = e1 = e2 = e, = e 4 = e6 = e• = - x 360 = 60.
Step 2: X2 (5 degrees of freedom, a' 0.05) 11.1
Step 3:
(60_59)2 (60-65)2 (60-52)2 (60-63)2 (60-67)'
U 60 + 60 + 60 + 60 60
•"(60_54)2 =1184
S+ (60 4 60 [1 + 25 + 64 + 9 + 49 + 361 1.4. 3.07

60 60
Step 4: u s X0 . Hypothesis is retained.
2. A Monte -arlo method is used to generite times-to-failure
•--- having a density function, x uhere X,= --.

36 Two
thousant such times have been generated. The class data
are presented in Table 10.1. Each class intrval repre-
sents 3 time units from 0-60 with the last interval con-
taining all observations greater than 60.
Ho:f(x)=ke X
Are the 2000 observed values consistent with
where X = 1/36 at the 0.10 significance level?
-4
JI
10-20
TABLE 10.1
SUMMARY OF MONTE CARLO SAMPLING

FROM DENSITY FUNCTION, 36 e
Class Class Observed Expected

Interval Interval Number in Nu•mbe2r in (e 1 _ 0)
Numbcr Definition Class, 0, Class, e, e_
1 ot•t-3 147 159.9 1.0407

2 3!t<6 170 147.1 3.5650
3 6"t<9 131 135.4 0.1430
4 9•t<12 117 124.5 0.4518
5 12•t<15 113 114.6 0.0223
6 15<t< 18 110 105.4 0.2008
7 18-t-21 99 97.0 0,0412
8 2!-t- 24 87 89.2 0.0543
9 24,- t-27 81 82.1 0.0147
10 27 !t- 30 81 75.5 0.4007
II 30st<33 83 69.5 2.6223
12 33st<36 73 63.9 1.2959
13 36-t<35 61 58.8 0.0823
14 39•-t<42 48 54.1 0.6878
15 42t*t:45 40 40.8 1.9285
16 45•tK-48 54 45.8 1.4681
17 48-t-51 35 42.2 1.2284
18 51lt'- 54 30 38.8 1.9959
19 54't' 57 31 35.7 0.6188
20 57"t<60 33 32.8 0.0012
21 t'-60 376 377.8 0.0086
2000 2000 17.8723
I
10-21
13
1
Ho e
Step 1.
1 1
r3 L e 36 X - 12
12
(a) P, 3- e = -
J 36
0
1
e = 2000 (1 - e 12 159.9
6 1 1 1
(b) p.J=
r1T e
36'
dx =e
12
- e
6
3
1i 1
S12 6
e 2 = 2000 (e - e )= 147.1
etc.
The values, el, are also presented in Table 10.1.
Step 2. X2 (20 degrees of freedom, a = 0.10) = 28.4
21
Step 3. u_ e 0 )2 = 17.87
i=l
Step 4. u < X2 so null hypothesis is rnot rejected.
3. If Ho:t(x) = le- ýx did not specify X, then step (1) would

have used the data to obtain an estimated value, X, for
X. The value, X, rather than X = 1/3E would then be used
to compute values for e, . The only other change would
then be determining X2 using the X2 tabular values for 19
degrees oi freedom rather than 20.
Before discussing other test procedures there are a number

of points illustrated by the above examples that should
be explicitly stated.
!In
10-22
In the second example, a A" value of 28.4 ( , = 0.10 and

20 degrees of freedom) was used. If the null hypothesis
is true then the odds are 9:1 against obtaining a value
of u greater than ×$. If a set of observations produces
value, ul, that is greater than X2 we have one of two
choices. One choice is to assume that the null hypothesis
is true despite the fact that an "unlikely" event (9:1
odds against it) has occurred. The second choice is to
reject the null hypothesis. This second choice represents
the attitude taken in the development of the concepts of
testing statistical hypothesis.
The next point concerns the observed numerical value of u

in the second example. One may remember that uQbs = 17.9.
Furthermore, H0 was not rejected since Uobs < • 28.4.
Suppose uobs were 28.0 rather than 17.9. Statistics makes
no distinction between these two values. The rejection
region, '28.4, -7, has been selected to yield a given
significance level. If one decides, after calcu'ating
28.0 as the value for u, to reject HW,, he is, in effect,
changing the significance level. He is not acting in
accordance with his pre-calculation stated desires. Thus,
while the two values indicate different degress -f con-
sistency between theory (expected values) and practice
(observed values), both degrees of consistency are within
the limit specified y the stated significance luvel.
In a similar vein remember that, in general, acceptance

or rejection of the null hypothesis is a matter of compari-
son of degree of consistency between theory (or theories)
and practice - it is not a 100% positive statement con-
cerning the truth of the null hypothesis or the alternative.
Indeed, to be extremely literal, it does not concern the
term "truth" at all; rather, it concerns degrees of con-
sistency between a set of data and two hypotheses as well
as a selection of some limiting degree of consistency to
determine which of two hypotheses is to be preferred.
2.2 THE "NOkMAL" TEST
Case I. A sample of m, observations is taken from a n(x;Lc)

population where 7 = ., is a specified number.
Test Ho: ý. ý, b (b a specified number) against H, : > b

at a significance level of o.
10-23
Step I: Determine a from cumulative Normal

tables such that N(a,1 ; 0, 1) 1 - c.
Some typical values of a, are:
0.20 0.80 0.842 0.05 0.95 1.645

0.10 0.90 1.282 0.01 0.99 2.326
Step 2: Calculate X (arithmetic average) of observatfons.
Step 3: Calculate X/ r
0 m
Step 4: If r > a reject Hc in favor of H.; otherwise

Ho is retained.
Case 2. Same as Case i, but H,,:, = b is to be tested against

H : - b at a significance level of Y.
Step I: Same as Steps 1, 2, and 3 of Case 1.
Step 4: If r a.>, reject fl, in favor of H,, otherwise Hc.

is to be retained.
!This is called a one-tailed test.]
Case 3. Same as Case 1, but H.: 4 = b is to be tested against

HI : ' b at a significance leve& of c.
Step 1. Compute a = 1 -Y
2
Step 2. Determine a, from the equation N(aw 7 0, 1) =
P(y I a,) using Cumulative Normal tables.
Typical values of aY -re:
-(2) a -(2) a
2 2
0.20 0.90 1.282 0.05 0.975 1.960
0.10 0.95 1.645 0.01 0.995 2.576
X - b
Calculate r x b
Step 3.
m
10-24
Step 4. If r '-a or r > a reject H.- in favor of

H,; otherwise H0 is retained.
[This is called a two-tailed test.]
Case 4. A sample of m, observations is taken from a n(x;,,.)

population where 1, is a specified number.
A second sample of m2 observaticns is taken from a

n(x;",c,2 ) population where (7 is a specified number.
H0 :4 = •2 is to be tested against H1
':"> I at a
significance level of a.
Step 1. Determine ao such that N(a ,; 0, i) = 1 - • as

was done in Case 1.
Compute r X2 X
Step 2.
m+ ma
where X., is the arithmetic average of the

observations in the first sample and X, is the
arithmetic average of the observations in the
second sample.
Step 3. If r > a. reiect H.; otherwise retain H•..
Case 5. Same as Case 4 but H,,:". = • is to be tested against

Hl:,,, ý .2 at a significance level of i.
Step 1: Compute cV =1-- and a such that N(a 0, 1)

as 12
was done in Case 3.
Compute r =
Step 2:
2
M,
Step 3, If r < -a.,' or r > a,, , reject H_ if

-a I r . a• accept ie-
It may be noted that rejection regions have been defined by in-

equalities of the form r > a with acceptance when r , a. Chang-
ing rejection inequalities to r z a and acceptance when r < a
10-25
does not require dny changes in previous steps.
The following cases require a density function known as the

"Student t" and the procedures are called "t tests".
In the six "Normal" tests above it was always assumed that the
standard deviation values were known. When the standard de-i.at-
ions are unknown, estimates of c must be obtained from the sample
observations. If estimates, s, of a are used, then the "Normdl"
test is not applicable and the "t" test must be used instead
The 't" distribution is used in the same fashion as the "Normal"
for both one sided and two sided Lests.
Values of the ci.L-ulative (F(d) = P(x s d) Student distribution

are presented in Figure 10-55. It may be noted that to obtain
a particular tabular entry, two numbers are required, a value
for n(left most column) and a value for F(d). The entry found
is, then, the appropriate value for d. (The value of n is called
the number of degrees of freedom.) As an example, for 19 degrees
of freedom and F(d) = 0.975, the required value for d is 2.093.
We shall denote this vilue obtained from the table as t 0 .975,19 =
2.093.
The following notation will be used in describing various "t

Test" procedures.
I. R will denote the sample arithmetic average. In parti-

cular, if there are m observations
"in
If more than one sample is involved, a subscript on X will

be used to indicate the applicable sample. The jth obser-
vation in the ith sample will be denoted by xt3
mt
L_,
Sthu ~ X = =
where mi denotes the number of observations in the ith

s drre.
10-26
2. T will denote the total of the obs rvations
rn o r m]R T
STT -
X, -M. or m. X,
3. 3< will deuote the sample standard variance
m m
S S
S-11. (x-L i 7
m-l - n
j=l j=l
Mn. MIn
(X,- -y I FV;
-. -- LX;. - _
j~l j=1
S (or IS; ) is the sample estimate of the

standard deviat ion.
Case 6. A s tmple of :-" .bservat ions is taken tram a n (x,

populat ion. H b is to be tested aqainst ti, :->b at
a signilicance level of .
Step 1. Determine t -i us inq Faicure 1$- .
Step 2. Calculatc S and then r '-

5S.m
Step 3. f. r 1 -, resect Hq- otherwise H. is retained.
Cise 7. Sane as Case 6 but H, s-b is to be tested against

}{. :-- b at a siqnificance level of ?.
Step 1. Determine t 1--0 ,m-l as above.

X- b
Stop 2. Calculate S and then r S
Step I. If r -t reject H : otnerwist H. is retained.

I- 1 rti
10-27
Case H. Same as Casc 6 but H :., b is to be tested against

H, :i db at an level of s:`Jni ficance.
'
Step 1. Compute -12.
Stop 2. Determine t using Figure 10-26.
X b
Step 3. Compute S and then r
Step 4. If r -t m or r t ,n reject H- in favor co

H.; otherwise H, is retained.
Case 9. A sample of size in, is taken f, )m an n(x;, -) population.

A second sample of size .-
• is -aken from a different
n(x;,. ,,) population. It i.- assummed that The of these
two populations are equal and that this common value is
to be determined us n.j sample values.
H, :-.,-- is to be tested aciainst H. : >

>- at a
significant level ofF.
St< 1. Determine t 4
"Step 2. Compute 0 : - -
M, in.."L
Step 3. Compute
1 F •- (x, - xY + T (xc.- xWf
Mn.+1n..-2 .
T., T.-.
(x,
1 r e(S..
Stop "5. If r t H, is rc•ectod •n fv:'r ok H:
oth,,r''.-.'s, H, is r,:-tained.I
I m 2
4,
-A
In
ecr
10-28
Case 10. Same as Case 8, but H. : is to be tested against

H. :LL, L' at a significaince level of
Step 1. Compute . = 1 -
2
Step 2. Determine t using Fiqure 10-55.
Step 3. Same s Steps 2, 3, and 4 of C-=se 8.
Step 4. If r < -t , i f r > t reject H,

Sml+m:ý-2 o
in favor of H,; otherwise H, is retained.
The next level of abstraction in tnis series of test cases would

be the removal of the assumFtion that the standard deviations of
the two popul;itions involved are equal.. Un:'ortunately, this re-
moval leads to a discussion quite beyond the scope of this course.
The reader, intcrested in pursuing this problem, is referred to
any standard test on mathematicl statistics. However, using the
statisitic, r, where
,/_ +~-I~
and the "Student t" table with + m2 - 2 degrees of freedom is

the custoanry procedure followea _r this case.
The cases involving the student t distribution discussed above

Y %e all assumed an initial Normal, n(x;•,-,) population. (Indeed,
for samples of sizes greater than 30, -he normal distribution
2 is
may be used to diete-rnine regions of rejection even though 7,
estimated from the data). However, the t distribution is appli-
cable in a wide variety of situations in which the underlying
population is not Normal.
To illustrate this last statement we consider the following

experiment which was repeated 100 times.
All jacks, queens, and kings were removed from a standard deck
of cards. The remaining cards, 1 - 10, represented a uniform
distribution, P(x-k) = 1/10 for k = 1, .... 110. A sample of
size 5-was drawn from this deck in such a way that the probabil-
ity of drawing any denomination, (1-10), was the same from draw
to draw.
Now, the true mean of the original population was known, 4 5.5.
I
10-29
The sample of size 5 was used to test 1. :I=5.5, against H]- :,5.5
at a L0;T signifIcance level as f1,l •-.-
(k) = I -- 0.95
2
(2) 0 .95,4 2J32
5
(3) S• 1 ) (-
4-
i-I
x - 5.5
5
(4) r
(5) If r < - 2.132 or r > 2.132. H0 was rejected; otherwise

H, was accepted.
According to the development of the theory, H, should be rejected

10% of tie time. In 100 trials the actual number of rejections
was 9, i.e., the observed proportion of rejections was 9.0%, a
fair degree of approximation since the parent distribution
was far from normal and five is a small sample size.
As long as the density function of X is fairly symmetric about

the meain of the parent density function, the "t test" can be used
even though the parent population is not Normal, n(x;u,a).
Case 11. A group of m identical items is to be put on trial

Suntil
all m fail.
Each item is assumed to have a \e- x density function

for time-to-failure. Of course, the values of x assoc-
iated with each item are assumed to be equal. H,:X=)=0
is to be tested against Hl .X < 1, at an o- level of
s igni ficance.
Step 1. Enter the X2 taoile with 2m degrees of freedon and

with c and determine a value, X2 , such that
2 < X0
Pp(X yo) = or P(X 2 > x,) - .
Step 2. Determine T,
Step 3. Calculate, T, where T is the total of the observed

times-to-failure for the above m items.
S'ep 4. If T < T. reject H1 in favor of H1,; otherwise retain H..
- -- -
10-30
Case 12. Same as Case 10, but now the total operating time of
the m trials is fixed in advance to be Ta.;
NOTE: THE TRIAL TIME ASSOCIATED WITH , EACH ITEM IS NOT BEING
FIXED IN ADVANCE.
Step 1. The experiment if performed and the number of

failures, tk, occurring during the test is noted.
Step 2. A value of x•, as in Case 10, is determine entering

the tables with 2k + 2 degrees of freedom and with
the value of (.
Step 3. If T,' < - reject H0 in favor of H,; otherwise H,
2ýo
is retained.
Case 13. Same as Case 8 but now the experiment is terminated

when the kth failure occurs; k is a specified integer.
(This is one method of truncating the experiment).
Step 1. Determine X2 using 2k degrees of freedom and a as

was done in Case 10.
Step 2. Compute total opera*ing time, T, of the m items in

the test.
k
T t, + (m-k't•,
Step 3. If T < X- reject H, in favor of H, otherwise

accept H,.
3. DESIGN OF EXPERIMENTS AND ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
In a previous chapter we have considered in some general terms

a concept called a test plan. In this section we consider speci-
fic statistical techniques that may be used within this test plan,
in particular that area of statistics called design of experiments
and the methodology - analysis of variance - used therein.
Historically, the design of experiments was first used extensively

in agricultural experiments. The standard technique of "differ-
ences between two means"; i.e., the "t" test had been used to-
gether with data from a "treated" and "control" group to deLermine
10-31
if the "treatment" really had an effect. However, things got

more complicated. Numerous factors such as type of seed, type
and amount of fertilizer, amount of water, h.d to be considered
simultaneously. The use of paired comparisons meant inefficient
use of resources as well as inefficient production of information
based on the data gathered from these tests. With the advent of
the development of Design of Experiments and the associated use
of Analysic of Variance, a method of making a number of simultan-
eous comparisons with one testing procedure was available. This
method meant not only that the data from a test could be treated
more efficiently, but that the test itself could be designed to
yield the same information with the use of fewer resources, i.e.,
the resources were used mcre efficiently.
There are complete half-year graduate level courses in design of

experiments. Clearly, we cannot develop this area so completely
here. Therefore, we shall consider only the concepts involved in
this discussion.
3.1 APPLICABILITY OF USE OF EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
Experimental des iq!, is used to determine ýtether or not the

Cffects o0. "fact." rs` are significant. "Factors" can involve the
externai environments of operation as humidity, temperature, salt
air concentration, etc. "Factors" may also involve the opera-
tional conditions of applied voltage, or pressure head, or RPM -
as appropriate. Obviously, this technique could be used when it
was thought that the effects of such factors on reliability were
both strong and deleterious. However, while the design of exper-
iments does represent an efficient means cf gaining desired in-
formation, its efficiency is directly propcotional to the amount
of knowledge as to the factors which are possibly important in a
particular problem. Use of this technique presumes the absence
of the "shotgun approach" to finding "causes" of failure. Thus,
the statistician is dependent on the engineer to define the
"factors", while the engineer relies on the statistician to pro-
vide "efficiency."
As will be seen, the use of this technique can still require a

considerable expenditure of time and funds, Therefore, its use
in a development program is usually limited to critical hardware
items. Furthermore, there should be a reasonable amount of en-
gineering confidence that the possible important factors inducing
the problem to be studied has been delineated before such a de-
sign is implemented.
10-32
Finally, in order to consider a particular "factor" in the design

of the experiment, it must be possible to proxide a reasonable
amount of control over the values that the "factor" may take on
during the course of the experiment, i.e., the "factor" values
must be reproducible.
3.2 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
While the arithmetic associated with analyzing data from experi-

ments that have a complex design can be very complicated, the
fundamental arithmetic identity is an extremely simple one. We
shall provide an illustration of this identity first.
The general formulation of the arithmetic identity to be used can

be written as follows:
n n
(X, - a)2 n (XI - X)2] + n(X- a)'
i=l i~l
Let us see how this equation applies in a rather simple case.

There are two sets of observations - each set with four observa-
tions. Observation values in the first set are 'lenoted by X11,
X1, XI,, X, 4 . For our illustration X~j = 1, X12 = 2, XII = 3,
X4 = 4. The second set of values are X21 = 8, X2 = 9, X1 = 10,
and X2 4 = ii.
(1) The eight observations considered as a single grouE has

a mean of six and we write = (the grand or overall mean)
=6.0.
(2) The sum of the six squared deviations from this "grand
mean" of 6.0 is 108.0, i.e.,
a 4
(xý - :)2 = 108.U.

(1
j=l i=l
This sum of overall observations of the squared deviations from

the grand mean is called the "Total Sum of Squares".
(3) The mean in the fizst group is X= 2.5 and in the second
group the mean is . = 9.5. Now,ý n(3X - =)2 is called the
"between group" sui, of squares. i
The value of this "between group" sum of squares is the

10-33
value of 4(2.5 - 6)ý' + 4(9.5 - 6)`' = 4 F (3.5)2 + (-3.5):2

= 4 [12.%5 + 12.251 = 4 [24.51 = 98.0.
(4) Considering the first group of four observations as a

unit, they have a mean of 2.5 and the sum of squared
deviations from this group mean is 5.0. This is the
"within group" sum of squares for the first group. The
second group has a mean of 9.5 and a "within group" sum
of squares of 5. The total "within group" sum of squares
is, then, 5 +- 5 or 10.
(5) The total sum of squares, 108, has thus been partitioned
into (a) the "between group" sum of squares 98.0, and
(b) the 'within group' sum of squares of 10.
2 4 2 4
I Xr)= L~ L(X - X )1 ] + 4 (XI )

j=1 Si--l i=l j=li1
or, in general,
k n1 k n1 k
(7 X, - ) : L X - X) + n, (X
ii Li j=1 i=1
where there are k different groups, n1 observations in

the ith group, X is the grand mean and 7 is the mean
in the ith qroup.
As a final note, the total "within group" sum of squares

is somE-times referred to as the experimental error.
3.3 THE BASIC DESIGN OF EXPERIMENTS MODEL
A One Factor Experiment
For the purposes of this discussion it shall be assumed that we

have n observations in each of k groups - a total of n x k
observations. The n specimens in a group might be n transistor!
operating at a common ambient temperature. The differences between
the group' are different ambient temperatures. (In standard
terminology - the different groups rpresent different vreatments).
The observations might be times-of- failure.
It is assumed that the observation, X1 , associatcd with the jth
_m!
10-34
specimen in the ith group can be written as
X1 j = + b, + e, j
where ýk is called the true overall mean, bi is called the true

treatment effect and e,3 is the deviation of the observation
from the true group mean, L + bl . It is furthermore, understood
that ýi is such that k
Xb, = 0.
i= 1
Now, the overall sample mean, X, is an estimator for i; the sample

group mean, X1 , is an estimator for p + b, , thus, XX - X is an
estimator for b,
It is now assumed that the e1 • all represent independent observa-

tions from the same Normal density function n(X1 ; 0, 7t). The
fact that e 1 's are independent implies that (1) repair does not
influence the time-to-the-next-failure and (2) wear-out is not a
factor in the successive failures. The assumption that the e1 .'s
come from the same density function, n(X; 0, a), is used as
follows.
Now, X1 j - X1-.(4 + b, + el,) -(• + b, + e1')= ej - e1' where e'

is the deviation of X1 from i + b, . (Note e,' is a function of
etj, e _....e 1 ,, for each value of i.).
k n
Thus, f •(X1j - I: is a function only of the e 1 's. This
i=l j=1
"within group" sum of squares, then, may be used to estimate c
Now, XY- X = . + b, + e,
1 - (p + e") or XY - 7 = b, 4 (e,' - e")
where e' is a function of all the e,,. Thus
k k
n7 (X- nj (b, + e ' - e")2 This "between group" su.i of
i~l i=l
squares therefore involves the bl's anA the e1 i's.
The null hypothesis in this design is that all the b1 's are equal
to zero. Under the null hypothesis, the "between group" sum of
squares,
10- 35
k k k
S( 1 - X) = n (b, - e") 2 becomes nY(ei' - e',
Sil
i=l ij=
which is a function of the e1 's only. Indeed, under the null
hypothesis the "between group" sum of squares can also be used
to estimate C2
Let S2 denote the estimate of '2 using the within grour" sum of
SofS2of'2
squares. Let S1 denote the (independent of S1) estimate of o
using the "between group" sum of squares. Under the null hypo-
thesis, the ratio, s21, represents the ratio of two independent
estimates of t.e qame quantity, 02 The ratio should have values
close to 1.
On the other hand, if the null hyl cthesis is not true, i.et., at
learnt one of the bi's is not zero, then S2 should be greater than
S1. Thus, the r-gion of rejection of the null hypothesis is
2 S 1/S2 > F0 where th, constant, F0 , has to be determined. The
.- iann'r o' Ketermininq this value of F0 anr the means of converting
the "withii ,roup' and "between group" sums of squares to estimates
of C2 will be dis-ussed in the next section, the F Test.
3.4 THE r TESI
We shali sun-arize the discussion of the previous section by an

analyýýis-ofi-variance tzble for a one factor experiment. The first
t-ro columns represent the partitioning of the total sum of squares.
The third 'lumn, degrees of freedom, is a divisor which converts
each of the sum-of-squares parts to an estimator for c,'. The last
column represents the observed value of the F-ratio. (see table
10.2).
To obtain the critica[ value, F 0 , such that the null hypothesis

is rejected if S2iS2 > L7'o, the F table, here presented in Figure
10-55 is used. Three values are required to enter this table.
One is the number of degrees of freedom, m, associated with the
numerators, S,. Here, m is k - 3. The second is the number of
degrees of freedom, N, associated with the denominator, S2. In
this case N = i x (n-l). The third is the significance level, a.
In Figure 10-55 entry is made using 1 - a.
To illustrate this particular case we consider four groups, G1 ,

(7•2 G3 , G4 , with 3 obse' \ations in each group
10-36
z -1
cz1 c c'
0x -l -)
~v1.~LI
0
N--
~C14
o Coo4
t2 (pvX
10-37
G1 G2 G3 G4
2 3 4 5
3 4 5 6
4 5 6 7
TOTAL 9 12 15 18
MEAN 3 4 5 6
9+12+15+18 = 54
12 12
(a) The total sum of squares, (Xjj - 7)9, can be computed by

the formula
Wère T is the grand total of all the observations.
7 4 + 9 + 16 + 9 + 16 + 25 + 16 + 2 5 + 36 + 2 5 .~36 +
49 = 266
T2 (9 + 12 + 15 + 18)2 (54)2 27 x 27 9 x 27 243

n k 12 12 3
(a-1) T.tal SS (sum of squares) = 266 - 243 = 23
(a-2) Number ot degrees of freedom = 11
(b) Within group SS

For each of the four groups, I(X 1 - 2
Total for the four groups is 8.
(b--l) Within Group SS = 8
(L-2) Nxnuber of degrees of freedom = k x (n-i) = 4 x 2 8
(c) Between Group SS

n[ (X X' 3 x r (3 - 4. 5) a + (4 -4.5)' + (5 -4. 5)
+ (6 - 4.5)l
10-38
(1.5)2 + (1.5)2 (2.) 2

3 x r(0 .5) +
3 x FO.2- + 2.25 + 2.25 + 0.25] 3 x 5 - 15

L
(c-i) Between grotip SS = 15
(c-2) Number of degree of freedom - m = k - 1 = 3
The analysis-of-variance table (10.2) then takes the form:
Source Sum of Degrees

Squares of Freedom F
2 15
"Between 15 3 S2 5
Cells"
"Within 8 8 s-: 88
Cells"
Total 23 1i
Entering the F table with m 3, N = 8, and 0.9u (a siqnificance

level of 10%), the criticJl value of F, -,, is fo,_und to be 2.92.
Since F ý 5 > 2.92, the nul hypothesis is rejected and treatment
effects are said to be significan•. The detcrmin,•ti4on of the
numerical magnitude of this effect ;s maide usini the tre,.tm•nt
or grou- means.
Here, oie can see that for treatments are beiný, co:n. ared at thte
same time.
3.5 THE TWO FACTOR EXFTMRLMEINT
The discussion of this tvpe of experimeit is in.'l d, as a!, il!i ,s-

tration of the manner by which com[plications are iritr viuced.
sjjt.1 more
Furthermore, we can take this opportunity to introd<ue5L
of the "de ign of experiments terminol,,y.
This type of design is, obviously, used w,ýhen there are tw,
important factors which are suspected as 'causes olf failures ,I Ai
particular problem. Such cw-Jbknations as humidity aid a ,

temperature, pressur-o head and flu~d Aensity, v,:lta~it and ,•io •t
equipment, or, e~en time of day ani route. (This i0,tter -et of
conditions applies to designinl !:n experiment undert aKen to
determine the 'effects" of deFarture timrn ,no rout c used on tb. e
10-39
tim, to qct from work to home). Arbitrarily, we shall call one

fact-or treatments"
eactor and the second 'environments. The
(ifferent "treatments" shall be denoted Dy capital letters, A, B,
ttc., ana the "environments" by numerical subs-ripts BIB, .... ,
etc. Specimens are assigned "at random" to the different "treat-
ment-enironment' combinations and observations are recorded.
We bhall asstume that the-re are an equal number, n, of observations

from each "treatment/environment" combination. The letter "r"
shall denote the nlmnber of different treatments an& the letter
s' shall denote the number of environments.
The model is that
X_ý, 4 + T_ý + bt + Y-xj + e•x 3
"• ~where
(1) is the true overall mean;
(2) t• is the -main effect" of treatment a and

t 0
',h ere the summation is over the r different

r eatm.ý n t S;
(1) b, is the main effect Af the It' env-r:,rTment

andc
L-
iil
(4 -ill the e, represent sample values fro.m a

n( x,- po p uIat ion;
5 11
the , are called the "inte'ract ion between
the "treatments" and the "environiments" and
S
7 for each - treatment. and
i 'k
VtrojoK U
10-38
= 3 x (0.5)2 + (1.5)2 + (1.5)0 + (0.5)0
= 3 x 0.25 + 2.25 A- 2.25 + 0.25] 3 x 5 =15
(c-1) Between group SS = 15
(c-2) Number of degree of freedom = m = k - 1 = 3
The analysis-of-variance table (10.2) then takes the form:
Source Sum of Degrees F

Squares of Freedom S. F
S15 S2
"Between 15 3 S.=2- 5 -Y+= 5
cells" 3 S1
"Within 8 8 S1 = = 1
Cells"
Total 23 11
Entering the F table with m = 3, N = 8, and 0.90 (a significance

level of 10%), the critical value of F, Fo, is found to be 2.92.
Since F = 5 > 2.92, the null hypothesis is rejected and treatment
effects are said to be significant. The determination of the
numerical magnitude of this effect is made using the treatment
or group means.
Here, one can see that four treatments are being compared at the
same time.
3.5 TIHE TWO FACTOR EXPERIMENT
The discussion of this type of experiment is included as an illus-

tration of the manner by which complications are introduced.
Furthermore, we can take this opportunity to introduce sane more
of the "design of experiments" terminology.
This type of design is, obviously, used when there are two
important factors which are suspected as "causes of failures" in a
particular problem. Such combinations as humidity and ambient
temperature, pressure head and fluid density, voltage and age of
equipment, or, even time of day and route. (This latter set of
conditions applies to designing an experiment undertaken to
determine the "effects" of departure time and route used on the.
I 4] -
'-4
0
-y -
/4 -i H H
/ 0
/ b.L 4-
4 H
zz
,Cfr
W
H
cj
-- 4'-
I
I
4 0
H
-- 4
ri) r,
H
C.)
-4; H
(4) z
1C-40
These "interaction" terms represent either "reinforcement" or

"counteraction" of the effect of either the "treatment" Cr the
block by the other. The graphical presentations in Figure 10-41
where Temperature represents "environments" and Voltage Levels
represent "treatments", illustrates different possible situations
that might arise.
Again,T is an estimate for p;
ns r
TA
1 =is an estimate for p + tA:
S= T is an estimate for • + b'

n r
n
SXAX = n XAI J is an estimate for p + tA + b, + YAl
j=l
XA- - is an estimate for bj, + YAM
XA1 -3A- X is an estimate for YAX -
RA. - XA - 3 + 4.s an estimate for YAi
The total sum of squares, 7X I , is now partition:J
amongst the four sources:
(1) "Between treatments" Sum of Squares
(2) "Between environments" Sum of Squares
5a
i=l
(3) "Interaction" Sum of Squares
i 1-
Hr
z -' --
- 'I. Ii ,
~ ~ri~i1+
Q, E
w- L"
ri) H
Il-4
+t
10-44
4. BOOLEAN ALGEBRA
4 .1 TECHNIQUES
n.oolean algebra is the science of ;symbols and their combinations

used to describe and represent mathematical functions according
t, the rules of logic. It was named for an English mathematician.
George Boole, who, more than a century ago, translated the rules
of formal logic into mathematical terms. This science is based
upon three fundamental ideas; (a) symbols are used to represent
logical operations. (b) these operations are governed by' the
rules of logic, and (c) these rules are the same as those for an
algebra of the numbers 0 and 1 (binary algebra). There are many
forms of Boolean algebra: any combination of propositions, each
of which is of a binary nature, can be represented by Boolean
algebra. This dicussion is designed to familiarize the reader
generally with the symbolic logic used in Boolean algebra;
illustrations are given of basic logical operations, as well as
the symbols used for representing these operations, and methods
of combining the symbols into sequences of logical operations.
Using Boolean techniques, the technologist can analyze or synthe-

size switching systems in any medium. The procedures apply
equally well to relays, switche3, valves, clutches, flip-flops,
transistors, saturable reactions, in fact, any system or "ON-OFF"
or binary device is amenable to this logic design technique.
There are as yet no standard symbols for Boolean Algebra functions.

The logic literature varies widely in this respect. This section
presents some of the symbols and word definitions in common use.
Boolean facilitates the reduction c0 a problem to simplest form

for efficient processing by digital equipment. Functions can be
substituted and redundancies eliminated by analysis in Boolean
form. As in any algebra, it is necessary to know the character-
istics of all terms before the problem can be simplified.
Anything capable of being described can be assigned to classes.

Conversely, classes can be used for description. Anything can
be described by the classes with which it is or is not identified.
The classes can range from so exclusive as to contain nothing, to
so general as to include everything. A class containing nothing
is ca]'Jed a null class (usually identified by the figure 0); a
class including everything is called an all-inclusive class. All
classes between these extremes may be identified by letters.
A total concept, usually identified by the figure 1, is the

10-45
X aggregate of all classes. The following example will serve to

illustrate the relationship between the total concept, and the
all-inclusive, null, and intermediate classes. ,Horses can be a
tctal -,)ncept. Horses can be referred to as being manmials, as
being brown, or as being in the State of Maine. Mammals would
be an all-inclusive class because it includes all horses. Brown
horses would be an intermediate class identified by the letter
"A". Horses in the State of Maine would be another restrictive
class identified by the letter "B". The null class is arbitrarily
designated as that class which is so restrictive as to contain no
horses.
With each concept, logical operations can be performed on classes.

The three most common logical operations are union, intersc/ction,
and complementation. Table 10.4 shows several symbolic represen-
tations of each. Union combines classes on an alternative basis
and is expressed as "or". For example, the union of the two
classes ("A" and "B") cited above, would be expressed as class A
"or" class B. This would b:- less restrictive than either class
because it now admits all brown horses and, also, horses of any
color in the State of Maine.
Intersection combines classes on-a more restrictive basis and is

expressed as "and". For example, the intersection of class A
and class B would be expressed as A "and" B, and all the require-
ments of both A and B must be satisfied. Thus the intersection
of A and B would specify brown horses in the State of Maine.
Complementation is the operation in which items are described by

signifying that they do not belong to a class or classes. ?or
example, horses that are not in class A would include all horses
that are not brown. Horses that are not in class A and not in
class B would include all horses that are not brown and not in
the State of Maine. If this example were expressed as snot in
class A or not in class B, it would include horses in either, or
none, of the classes, but not in both.
Using horses as an example serves to acquaint the reader with the

logic of the all-inclusive and null classes, and the operations
of union, intersection, and complementation. Figure 10-47 illus-
trates these operations used in connection with switching net-
works, and includes symbols that replace the "ands", "ors", and
"nots". Referring to Figure 10-47, when the concept is conduc-
tivity between terminals X and Y, any condition which completes
the circuit between X and Y is an all-inclusive class. Because
we are dealing with a binary algebra, there can only be complete
conduction or no conduction. With switch A and switch B in.series,
r F
A
I+i 4'
I
_
_
{t J _
__LI
z
-__
0 -I-
U
0
-
z
z -
-
- -4
- ,-
cy
r
-- I
K'F
U
'7t t-i
/
z
/
-- -.-
-- I
(_.I
71 - --
Z-
•,) ×
- -
U 1
L• .) •'• r--'
-VN
10-48
both A and B must be in the closed position for the circuit to

be conductive. The circuit is not conductive if either A or B is
open, or, as expressed in Figure 10-47, A is not closed or B is
not clQsed. 1.ith the two switches in parallel, either A or B
must bc closed (both may be cloced) to make the circuit conduc-
tive; but both A and B must be open (not closed) to make the
circuit not conductive. If the concept were infinite resistance,
the all-inclusive and null classes would be reversed. Now, in-
finite resistance is an all-inclusive class and conductivity is
a null class. The switch positions and descriptions are changed
as indicated in the figure.
Table 10.5 indicates other logical operations and connectives

and a Few of the symbols commonly used to represent them.
"Exclusive or" elements beong to one but no more than one of the
combined terms. "Equivalence" is defined as that relationship
between two or more sequences of operations whose resultunts are
identical. For example, if AnB = C and DWE = C, then AnB is
equivalent to DnE. Implication is used when one situation implies
another, such as a football game implying running or bodily con-
tact, an electrical output from a circuit implying an input, or
a current flow implying a complete oarcuit. Reverse implication
is implication in which the implied term appears first for con-
venience of expression; for example, A.B could be written BD ".
The symbol for inhibition is another method for representing "and
not" -- thus inhibition can be defined in terms of the combina-
tion of the previously described complementation and intersection.
For each logical function of even the most complex binary device,
the combination of inputs and resulting output can be expressed
as a Boolean equation. Figure 10-49 illustrates the Boolean
expressions for some basic logical functions.
4.2 CLASSIFICATION LOGIC
Various devices have been developed which sort items according

to the classes in which they belong. In all cases the device
asks, regarding each pertinent class, "Is the element contained
in this class?" Because only two possible answers exist (yes or
no), a binary device is capable of selecting all the elements in
any class. The choice may be made more exclusive by submitting
the selected elements to a succession of inspections involving
dIfferent classes, or it may be made more inclusive by including
elements from two or more classes. The ordinary punched-card
sorter is perhaps the most widely used automatic device employing
thi, principle.
4
II
, ["
z• •
(3 L
8 ' 0
-
0: II
a tc -ih beSo 1r Ofls rn

iC ~' i~uhih
sJ i,_ ec ri i ~n aIr : -jSc- I c, s se han S 1ryer
ben - nn t 0m t, s1 r'
Of> m~
In
'0 Le tor-,-[' fr each, r s n, c,-t an
a fnl- ievncleý (in th n'ie Itatn t.ah ew 4

n :i,.)unds; c-lass C,
avio tl InL'-,
-i h a ir
0 151
% r
\'r~
evervone
'th blue eves, c Ias
with a -rimincil
F : ,
C 0! cllIs evewzi earns l.e ss t1-an $1,9 Der year;

etc The fact that a pers _) be'-y-,L to any- c Ia s I s in-,; IcaLit e,
b - a 'hol-e p-unched thro.u..h tiaat perfzen's card. in the s pa Ce r Crp r
Seon t 111 th',ýat clIa s.
A machine carable of insroectinq one class at a time rroust b.-z

success ively set up to sort out the cards w1hich havw.e a hole ",n)
the soace rpentn- each pertinent class. The inspectiron car.
beno,_y enspect tehanca todtpineli which aire prestoube (player
pi-nosins_-c
th r- 11to ete-aic Vichprtessurct e (playerc
Onl th seectd crdsneed be in-
elecricl cntatsetc
sp,,eted in _-.oceearng operations. Note that the machine iS rer-_
forminq the logical operationr of int-ersection (A'-B C D-E F' G).
The order of sorting is unimpor tant except that the total number
o__finspections can be reduccd by sorting for the most restrictive
class first. Repetitive sorting for a single clasLý always re-
sults in sc~ect~ion of the samne cards, so A _'A -A, or 2A A. It is
evident, then, that numerical coefficients have no meaning in
Boolean algebra. FAirly simpale machines can inispec' several
classes s'multanreously and seleci only those cards which fit all
the classes being inspected.
It is usually more practical to divide detailed information Such

as veight ano incomc into several subclasses for recording._J The
number and range of the classes are fixed according to the detail
of the available information and the purposes for which, it is to
heused. Weight may be (lassed as (BI ) less than 100 pounds.
(,3,) 100 to 120 pounds, (B.,) 120 to 130 pounds, (B4 ) 130 to 140
pounds;, (fbj 140C to 150 pounds, (B,, ) 150 to 160 pounds, (B,,) 160
to) 17 ( pounds, (B.
8 ) 17 0 toý 180 pounds, (B,) 180 to 200 pounds ,
and (B 2 )over 200 pounds. Income may be classed as (F,) 0 to
$2,000, (F,"2,000 to $4,000, (F,) $4,000 to $6,000, (1.4) $6,0(00
Io $8,000 (F,) $8,000 to $10,000, (F,) $10),000 to $15,000, and
(F-,)aver $15,000).
TS
sr -. ";shtne in"re
s to sf "CII, ,c
Q .ei ct S
eitr wi hztubls B or- & >din ths theO

oCr fo! C 3oo lean C rrt in of unio- (Bý B,- Tt st1
th.e 'n e' lr oi3 inc're C la S te 71. chi
"Ine 41 ýi -' t -2r
(1 all +-e cl3rds n ch e (- for inoeclaýsses F>, F, r
ose cards -h;ich are rnot uu n c .5 for
n-,o class F- n
riot -u nch e' tor class F o lotter tetnori L- ~- c
c s ~r al-e
u, as i t r' "iu ir es i n pe c t ~on oDf cl two space into' fi
soiD-ces. "hen t'. macniJ"ne .;s s et- up~ t< s i2.ect arswic r
not rpunched, it is pcr fcrmir.4 the looji aI oper at*' coo.n1:_
l-
mentation. ot F,- and no-t F., , is expressed, idcqraphicallv as
Te exoressiOn A (Bz _!-3 )>. ) . is h e na .-.- ' '-
with the term (BF Bý:) scbs t~itted for class ;F, arvi hoe term.
(F.- -F,) s~ubstituted for class 1-. To a-void Tw-ssIb~le ambiguities,
the ne~w terms are isolated- in parentheses. The parentheses,
like the punctuation marks in orloinary language, are used to
garoup related terms. The logical ru les of man~ipulatione forý
parenthleses in Boolean algebra become obv,.ious when the oxpr.os-
sions are converted to ordinary language. The expression,
A _(B,- B. ) C cioncisely states "A, and Bý or B,, , and C.' Omission
of the parentheses, A_8 B,1 &C, like omission of punctuation -,arks,
"A and B. or B. and C," rcssults in ambiguity. Parentheses, or
punctuation marks,*are necessary in _-his case to ;orevent miSzir-
terpret-ing the expression as "A and! B., or B.- and C...
The expressioni E- (F,, -F states "E, and not F., arid not F, . Not e
the the punctuation may be omitted without causing ambiguity in
this case, and E (FJý F-) El"-;- _F,. within any Boolean expression,
changes of signs from -to . or vice versa always require the
use of parentheses to avoi~d ambiguity.
4.3 RULES OF OPERATION
In the example of the card-sorting machine, the function of

select ing the cards punched for income classes F, , F2,, F3 , F., or
Fr, implied selection of the cards not puncheu for income class
F6 and not punched for income class F,; therefor2,3
F,11F2 IJF31F 4 d F, =: ,,-
and the latter, more convenient expression of two terms was sub-
stituted !or the five-~term expression. a-. this case, the logical.
substitution of functions may have been apparent without the use
of Boolean algebra but, in the simplification or more complex
i 11- 52
obi- much n,-re ma-neuverin is often necessary and manvy mani-

',.,_ionis ,h.c•.are bvioUs a easy
ed in Boolean form miq-ht
escazre Jetect -on 1-v 4I~rect- *-'aly~i.'s
With Certain limi"tatiLons, which will be mentioned later, the

operation of union Is toe same as that of addition in common
algebra, and the nperntirn c;` nt -?z~on Is rhe sam:e t:ldt
Ud
of multiplication. The use of and instead of - and does
not preclude the possibility of contracting the symbolism as is
done with + and in such expressions as: for example, AB+C.
The expression (A-B) C can be contracted to AB C. Further, by
adopting the convention that the impli,-A - nective is that
which does not appear n an expression (and also that the implied
connective is accompanied by implied parentheses) both kinds of
expressions can be contracted. Thus: (A B) C can be contracted
to AB-C; (A B)-C can be contracted to AB-C: A-(& B,ý)'C can be
contracted to A BB..-C; and the expression
A" (B- B- )YC-Dý'EFý§F _
can be contracted to either
Ar'B, B. 'CCD-ErF.-F,
or
A (B <B 8 ) c D E Fz F,.
Another method for contracting and simplifying Boolean expressions

is to substitute one term of an abviously true relationship for
its more complex counterpart. For example, this can be done in
the following ten relationships which are true for all classes:
1. XLX-X; also X X:CX. A proposition is not changed by repe-

tition, either in an alternative or in a restrictive sense. For
this reason, coefficients other than 0 and 1 have no meaning
(2X = X).
2. 0OX 0. Since an "and" operation is restrictive and no

class can be more restrictive than the null class, any intersec-
ting combination which includes a null class (0) must be all
exclusive.
3. Xr•I-X. All classes must be entirely contained within the

concept- therefore the added restri'tion of belonging to the
concept has no effect.
10-53
A - X. =
,thino, to the null class (0); hence the
inclusion of the null class as an alternative is meaningless.
5. X-lI-. Everything within the concept must belong to any

unioi. which. i..clu-.es the entire concept (I) as an alternative.
No class can include more than the total concept.
6. XrX-0. Nothing can belong to any clasý. and not belong to

that class.
7. XLX•1. Everything must either beong to a class or not

belong to that class.
3. (X)=X. Double negatives cancel each othpe.
9. (XXJY X2 Y. Everything which does not belong to either X

or Y obviously does not belong to X and does not belong to Y.
10. XUY-(XrY). That which either does not belong t, X or does

not belonq to Y cannot belong to both X and Y.
As an ordinary algebra, there are various manipulations possible

in Boolean algt:bra which will permit simplifi-ation of expres-
sion. For example, in ordinary algebra:
a2 - b 2 (a + b) (a - b) b
a + b a + b
In Boolean algebra, manipulations based on the following postu-

lates zre also possible.
11. Operations of union or interse-tion are commutative.
XUY-YUIX (Compares to X+Y = Y+X in common albegra)

XnY-YnX (Compares to X'Y = Y'X in common algebra,
The example of the card-sorting device showed that the order of

inspection has no logical significance.
12. Operations of union or intersection are associative,
X1_ (YUZ) =(%1r) I-7,=XY1JZ (compares to
X + (Y + Z) = (X + Y) + Z = X + Y + Z in common algebra)
Xr, (Ynz) -(X(Y) z-)V'TyrZ (compare:s to

10-54
X -(Y - Z = (X *Z) - Z = X - Y - Z in common aqer
Parentheses are required only whon -a change of connectives occiurs.
13. Operations of union and intersection dre distrib-utiv.e.
-4YZ)(xY)(X: Z) (not true for addition in common

algebra)
X" (YUZ! (X"Y)i (X-zz) (compare to
X - (Y+z) =(X.Y) + (X-Z) in algebra)
Everything which is included either in X or in both Y and Z

must be included in X or Y and in X or Z. Everything which is
inc'Lu(ed in X and either Y or Z must be included eithrcr in X
and Y, or in X and Z.
In the follow4 -g btpby-s tep simplifi-aticnz Of AUAB5 -o AUB, the

manipulation performed is explained beside each step, the circled
niuzn ~s refer to the rules of operation given above.
K'AB A(BUB)UJAB (BIUB) -1 (7),_A"l-A (3)

=-ABUAUB A,'-'(B1JB) AB'AB (13)
-ABUA&BUABLIAB ABU AB' AB (1)
-A(BUB) 1, iAB ABU AýBÀ (B IB) (13)
-A(BUB) UB (AUA) ABUAB B (A!A) (13)
-A(BUjB)UB (Al!A) 1 (7), B(_l B (3)
--AUB (BJ!B) 1 (7), (Ar)l) A (3)
A AiB=A1JB
5. REFERENCES
1. Sequential Analysis, A. Wald, John Wiley & Sons, 1947.
2. Introduction to Statistical Analysis, W. nixon, F. J. Massey,

McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1951.
3. Introduction to the Theory of Statistics, A. M. Mood,

McGraw-Hill Book Co,, 1950.
4,. Mathematical Methods of Statistics, H. Cramer, Princeton

university Press, 1'157.
10-55
C.VnLATIrv% "STUDENT8'S Dt@TmarUTION"
Ff1) .}
-. v9'
.9753)
+ k .9
II
I I O0 ,]7F
8 6 314 12 70 31, 21 63 657 61 619
2 si6 2IS23 92') 4 303 6 9•05 9 925f 31598
3 .761 1 ,6183 • 353 3 182 4 541 5 841 12 941
45 7i 1533 22 05335
132 22 776 3,747 4 604 8 610
476 4032 853
6 .7i8 1 4•0 1 9,43 2 447 3 143 3 707 5 959

7 71 415 i 895 2 O5 2 998 3 499 5405
8 .7(W0 i397 1 860 2 306 2.896( 3356 3 uqi
9 703 I 1.X33 2262 2821 3.250 4 781
i0 .700 1.372 2 2 228 2764 3.109 5
Ii .697 1 363 . 794 2 20i 2 718 3.106 4 437

12 51 .356 1.782 2 179 2 681 3, 055 4 318
!3 .604 1.350 1 771 2.160 2 6,0 3 012 4 221
14 692 1 345 1.761 2 145 2 624 2 977 4 140
15 .691 1 34M 1 753 2.131 2.602 2,947 4 073
16 6%
. 1 ,337 1.746 2 120 2.583 2,921 4.015
17 689 1 333 "740 2 110 2 567 2 898 3 965
18 688 1,330 1 734 2 101 2.552 2.87R 3.922
19 688 1328 1 729 2 093 2 539 2 861 3 883
20 687 1.325 1 725 2 086 2 528 2845 3 850
21 6M686 323 1.721 2 080 2 518 2 831 3 819
22 .686 1 321 1.717 2074 2 508 2 810 3 792
23 685 1 339 1 714 2 069 2 V'*O 2 807 3 767
24 !85 3,8 1.711 2 004 2 402 2 797 3 745
25 .684 l 3M 1 708 2 060 2.485 2.787 3 7U5
284 w 15. 1700) 2 056 2479 2.779 3.707

27 684 .3 14 1.703 2 052 2 473 2.771 3 690
28 63o 1 313 70! 2048 2 467 2 763 3 674
29 .83 1!i 1.699 2.045 2.462 2,756 3659
30 683 1310 1.,697 2042 2.457 2.750 3 46
ch 68! 3W0 i ,M 2 021 2.423 2704
2 3ý551
60 .679 .79
M 1 .671 2,000 2,390 22641 34600
120 0677 1 2891 1.658 1 980 2 -'8 :2617 3 373
.674 1. 2 1 1.8645 1 -9 2•3261 2.576 3.291
A
10.-56
I' !Z E r. 8! 4 ::
-- . Or-
..
S ~ n C4C NCO N -- - - --- ----
IN r. I 8..
v a-
*ý I N r4 ci L
sa A ei Wace e Ce4C. 4 a 4 C4. at
.r14c rc4' c4 4 C A~j. r.4
0 01aC 4ýi . 4 C44Z 4 .
- 1 2 - :2;3 t 7:;
4ap maui~u wp viAj msil4s

cj 4 -j
Chapt*rr 11
VERIFICATION
Pae
1. ASSURANCE 11- 4
1.1 Qualitative Assurance 11- 4
1.2 Quantitative Assessment ii- 5
2. APPLICATTON OF STATISTICAL THEORY i1- 5

2,1 Basic Assumptions 11- 5
2.2 Form of the Statement 11- 6
3. RELIABILITY ESTIM4ATION 11- 6

Point Estimates ii- 6
Point Estimation - Systems ii- 6
3.3 Interval Estimation 11- 7
3.3.1 Confidence !1- 7
3.3.2 Linomial Distribution 11-10
3.3.3 Exponential Distribution 11-12
3.3.4 Summary 11-16
4, DEMONSTRATION TESTING 11-16

4.1 Testing Statistical Hypothesis 11-18
4.2 Basis of Test Procedures 11-18
4.3 Formal Tesit Procedures 11-22
4.4 Sequential Test Plans 11-23
5. SEQUENTIAL SAMPLTN3 PLANS 11-26

5.) Agree Plan 11-26
5.2 Additional Sources 11-26
6. REFERENCES 11-26
-bi
11-2
Cnapter 11
VERIFICATION
If all people concerned in the development of hardware for a

system were omniscient, there would be no need for a hardware
development phase. Engineers could make up specifications and
drawings; the hardware would be built, acouired, and installed;
and the installed system would work. Unfortunately, real true-
to-life human beings are not omniscient. They h,,e to acquire
information. -he basic pu•7pose of experimenting (testing) with
hardware is to provide information which cannot be gained by
other means. Thus, when there is the willingness to appreciate
the need to spend the money and time to obtain desired infot-
maLion ny testing, one has the begLnning ot a test program.
Testing falls into four generdl categories:
(a) Development tests - to get the equipment to work and

evaluate the characte'-istics of its performance and endurance
under severe environments.
(b) Qualification tests - to formally subject the equipment

to its planned operating envirornent to display the adequacy
of the dtsian.
(c) Acceptance tests - to verify that the production lot

falls within the specified tolerance ranje, and
(d) Demonstration tests - to provide an objtctive evaluat ion

of the capability of the production lot to continue to per-
form its function under spccified environmental and !obiing
condit ions.
Tiiis course will not dwell on tests and develo'.)ment testinq to

advance the state-of-the-art but on the verification of per-
formance attainment. The purpose of this chapter 1s to discuss
the applications of testing to the assurance of reliability in
the pr aduct.
Let us discuss, briefly the decision process. The enoineer res-

ponsible for a design has the responsibility of providinq an
eq-ipment that will work when required and will continue to keep
working as long as it is needed.
In the process of design, most o' the desio parameters are

determined analytically. In developinq his desiqn, the desiq.ner
11-3
5or' um-
s Jo cis i i ns5 , has o on f act s av ai 1lab I( to -rn , e x',er -
J i-i no cfl niqi
er i j pmi (, Tho ania ly t i ca I met hlod a - ecd has
'02L3;h;z~c' ipeaOttsn
bee nmerO'us a -pictions. The
P'ts LVjntr api jesL;n nc]In~ 'I' d~jmcvnt cthe a'pp' csabi lity o'f
tr' It rar i 11ulaI
a na--icvs i s to he c( siqn he is wo-rk in0( on. r act,' rs
Sn.f luenc inri t he u lt imate( r e I tib i o heu .uipment are in-
o i cled in t he cho ices he has rn i( i F (r e <acop LO, when he ccnipotes
th". struo~':tl-al1 tent f ai t 'undlati_'-ýr he bases the strenqith
on ich i ovinoi ai low probabi Iit,, of fa I rr of that member and
aIdequAte st iffnesŽ3 to pr~e,'ent exce ss iv(eflt n and control
oinwa'(nt ci ,- ibrait i n
Wliert- th(. Jcs i onr fee is he- ds n 't knowA enuu;h , he orders tests
tO cazn re
-. W!-erfe he mak's a ',cis ion basedc on extrapolation
"of (re.: jou.1 e~xper iorwe or t r adýi t 1, no I ana I ys is , he orders a test
-(, iofv t ia+ tlhe analysisi , s accurat e. Mron 'ie is satisftied
n': 'I wwlmet
.; ",C t Ithe '_cr fo)rma nCe0 r ela r erents, he re-
Ia-ý 'S T'r odUCt on _T
tt he rlas (r I o e of tlhe, ,,rx,,1 n,:s- for p-ro)duct ion , testino is

use
t r inetha-t the oo ft tie product ion line stx avs
%withFlin the im:t r'rscribe<
I 0 te l d'-e s Iqne r Tests are, per formed
as)
tol'I t. ha) no or 0r e': i a~t ns from!7 soeci fications oxist
An"t t-ts ts aire u'erformed011 ty Chat the ecjui pmkont operates
it
-_,~ or ..ihes
" lii f e ro rman ce tr at r ea so nable t im e.
Ne it h or the) on, ne or res; on.-ý bIc~ i t:,r des i in i no a palrt- , nor the
iro c t etmo e~l b or Jtevic cýýentit o)f the, system nor
t he c t ,-ii~ba i noC t sy t (- ~a a n.0ce ihaaLite
Coý-t IInt\ t !,,.t thi s\Icr Li kwe "tthe swtch is cl1Isosd"
Ji ttl+st s are, r lin irol iitta btoC0!Tl a,.ail~ible eachl of these
in I.- I 1oa 1i it e I i. s~es s thi is d at -ia nd. willea ch
Iac* I it ot' Ive d ~ nas to w~hether or not. the opro",abilifty
S V~ mot meI ýAt tho system- ilwo"rk 'w'hen the Switch is
1 c . 1 1otact s have aini will be , canceld I whi-.ien t-h is ass ess-
nl
lt 1+ 1'1ant i t ý iv ' J'at 'A s lie.,at i ve. on the other hand, lan~e
nt2 'n\
't h 0 oenvoithor zed, arnd expe~nded wý-hen a spneciftic
idca -v .l 't popiAte author ity - has made a positive
ot.~- a s pec i !c txampe o0 t ht latter , co.ýns ider the-
re I jat ns hi 1.'ft' eoý1n t no s,_ccess a~the riuclear su~xnarine, Naut-
11'is r.nd t he de(Ic i S-I'on toC- convrt
l, thev n ucle,ar s ubia r ne , G;eor,4e
i.ino;t on, i z: -1
s car ricr. The as-sessm~ent by the des iciner
or p r CC
oc.nn cain be a dec isiv 1VO ctor in the co'nduct of a
~~n v. t p r a Tt is , theret uncsayt rvd
r t.s its at tes t da~t ai in suc-h a f. lrm that tlhis Iuitat ive assefis-
m''nt. -,n tbe male in ai reasonable aislhion.
11-4
One of thie principal objf~ctives of a test program is toý Providc

timely qLeantitative data to the oný_ineer to_ enable himi' to make
dec is ions.
1.AS S L'RA1C
The satisfaction of the Judgment of the engineer that the equiip--

ment will perform -eliably will be c.I~led assurance. It will be
based or. two factors, his qualitativ'- s..tisfaction that the des-
ign is 'right" iriclurling verificati.on by testinc, that his analyses
were good, and proof (statistical v'rification) that th( ;1tput
of the production line meets expectation.
1.1 QUALirATIVE ASSURANCE
Part of the evidence used by a designer to satisfv hi-rself that

a design will be adequate, is the similarity of the design to
existing success ful equipmnent. Part come~z- from his7 knio-.'led~ie
that the analysis has been thorou..h, taking all imp~ortanit fact rrs
into account. This evidence, whien backed up by tests that prove
to him that his assumptions are subs tant iate,&, is 1ll he nt'edis
t~o give him assurance that the di:'s ,jn is sat istvjctory
The customer, when the des ign is contracted, needs a means to

evaluate this evidence. He '1o-uld prefer not to bve faýced wi.th
major des ign modi ficat ions a!fter the equij--ent is b'uilt and'
delivered. He would usually pre fer that the deli very no't. be
delayed by major, correct ion of def~ cienclies discoverel Ilurlinoi
acceptance test rng. To obtaiin assurance of this type (t~hat
analyses were thorough and competent and were- supported by test
results) requires that the customer scxrehow obtain Visibility of
the analyses and dec.Ls ions Of the des iqner as well as the results
of all tests conducted. ',his, in recent contractinma is don(
through s-uch devices As -eliability predictions, dt'..i~k r. review.%s,
failure di-gn~sis requirements in the clontr act. The trs
io-nerateid by such activities provides the cust~w~er with ,b)('-,tive
evidence that the designer did a competent iob. F iv 1ln t-
evidence can be obtained that the 'Production and 1ass,-nblv areas~
are competently controlled thzo ugh enforced requirements fot-
insvection. Týhe evidence (data) furnished as the result, o-f
testing, is invariably statistical iin nature. No two tests ever
yield exactly the samie data. The ran&ý.i variat ions in test
conditions provide the variabill~ty -of 1ata mentionedJ in our last
chapter. Test conditions may include a "bias". Th-ý' test of
every possible corb-'nation of Fpirameters, to eliminate a bias,
turns out to requirt very _-xtens:.,., testincg. Stat istical desi~in
of experiments perwiits the statisti.cian to im-prove the efticiencv,
Ii. •5
of testing, providing a test program that yields the most perti-

nent information for the least cost. This is a specialized area
and always should be performed by (or rather with the assistance
of) specialists in the field of statistics. And like any design,
must be done before the tests are run.
1.2 QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENT
It sometimes happens that an ergineer who is "positive" that his

answer is right turns out to be wrong. Qualitative judgment can
never be relied on entirely. If a system could be operated for
an extremely long time, the true reliability could be "'measured"
Lacking such extreme time of operation, the engineer would like
to place a limit or bound on what he can say about the system.
Treating the data for a particular test a's a "random" sample of
data from the population we might discuss what the "statistical"
meaning of the data is.
2. APPLICATION OF STATISTICAL THEORY
The interpretation of data derived in a test plan depends, of

course, on the purpose for which the testing was performed, the
care with which the tests were conducted and documented and the
adequacy of the plan to provide the information desired. When
the purpose of the testing is to develop quantitative assurance
that a required reliability has been achieved, the quantitative
measure of this assurance is termed confidence.
2.1 BASIC ASSUMPTIONS
On developing equipment we start with the assumption t1-3t every

part will act in a definable way, that every equipment produced
will be exactly alike , exactly like the blueprints. Every time
we conduct a particular test, we should get exactly the same
result. But we know equipment does not come out identical. Each
equipment will be different, having variations from the basic
design. Tf an infinite number of these equipments were built
the minor variations of each parameter would form some pattern.
But we cannot determine what this pattern is from testing one
unit. We cannot, usually, test all the units built, particularly
when the test results in destruction. We wbuldn't have any to
use. As the nuclear engineers have done in a similar situation
we turn to the field of statistics, making the following assump-
tions.
(a) The true reliability of the equipment is a specific

number, not determinable.
11-6
(b) certain of the equipments ,i`l11 fail on test; others

s.ucceed. The probability that an e(quipment will succeed is
a measul.e of the true reliability of t'e system.
(c) The equipments tested are a sample drawn from a con-

ceptual infinite nu;nber of equipments all built to the design.
SFORM
OF THE STATEMENT
The numerical reliability statement we make aboat the equipment

as e result of testing is made in ,wo forms: (a) Point estimate,
and (b) interval estimate.
3. PELIABILITY ESTIMATION
3.1 POINT ESTIMATES
A point estimate is a number whic-. s an estimat. of the true

value of a parameter and is based on "n available sample (,f
observed data. The point estimate of reliability for example
is usually just the ratio of the number of successes to the
nunber of trials. The point estimate of mean life may be
computed as follows:
Suppose that we have conducted tests to failure of a number of

essentially identical components and have recorded the times to
failure, tj, t2 ... t. for each failed component. The point
estimate of mean life is the sum cf the •imes to failure,
divided by the number of failures, in this case
ti
Mean Life i1.

n
3.2 PO1'NT ESTIMATION - SYST1E4S
Point estimates of reliability or mean life can be made for any

level of assembly, fron part to complete systems. Suppose we
hagve a system (-r subsystem) made up of three components.
Component A is connected in series with the parallel arrdngement

of c. ponents B and C. Substituting the component point esti-
mate reliabilities on A, 73, and C into the following equation
yields the point estimate of the system reliability Rs. (Refer-
ence Chapter 4 for combinations of probabilities).
Rs RA(R + R[ - RBRC)
11-7
It should be •-,entioneul that use Of the foregoing equation implies

indepenOence bet-.een the constituent c.,ponentS. 1hat is, there
is no interaction in the sense that when the components are put
tcogether in the systen. an environumcnt is not created which sign-
ificantlv affects the reliability of any component.
3. 3 INTERVAL ESr 1.I' T -IT
3.3.1 Confilence: Interval estimation involves the construction

of a confiderce interval on the parameter of interest, e g., reli-
ability or MLBF. A confidence interval is an interval which
covers the true but unknown value of the parameter with a given
degree of confidence. The construction of the interval is based
on test information and certain assumptions with regard to the
underlv\ng distribution. Hc,' the interval is actually establish-
ed will be discussed a bit later in this section. At this point,
we attempt to provide some insight into the confidence interval
concept.
"A servo-ampilfier has a 1000 hour reliability of 97% at the 90%

confidence level." What do these words mean? The reliability
portion of the statement says: "There is a 97% probability that
the servo-amplifier will function satisfactorily, under specified
conditions, for a period of 1000 hours." The second part adds:
"There is a 90$-7 chance that the reliability of the servo-amplifier
is at least as good as we have just stated."
Many people find this puzzling. Why make a statement about some
percentage of probability, Lhen almost in the same breath admit
that we are not altogether certain? Couldn't we wrap up the
percentages in a single figure?
To answer this question, consider first the case of a man reach-

ing blindfolded into a bucket to pull out a marble. He knows
tLat the bucket contains 500 marbles, 200 black ones and 300
white ones. We'll say that he counted the marbles himself, put
them into the bucket, and stirred them around to assure random
selection. The man can now say with perfe-t confidence, "There
is a 40%/ probability that a marble withdrawn at random will be
a black one." No confidence level needs to be added; the state-
ment just made is known to be 100% true.
Now suppose that the man dips into another bucket, this one con-
taining a very large number of marbles of some unknown assort-
ment. We permit him to withdraw 10 marbles at random, then look
at them to obtain some idea as to what may be the composition
of the mixture in the bucket. Suppose that, in the sample of
. . . 4kv
11-6
10, !, observes 3 black marbles, 6 white ones, and one red one.
He might then say, "There is a 30% probability that a marble
withdrawn at random from this bucket will be black." But this
statement cannot be made with complete assurance that it is
correct, for the man doesn't know what's 'n the brcket7 he can
only make an educated guess based on the limited amount of in-
formation obtained from the sample. So he has to add a state-
ment that will indicate whether he's in a position to make a
pretty accurate estimate or is only guessing.
So it is with statenents concerning reliability. If we life-

tested all servo-amplifiers of certain Mark and Model number, we
would have a complete knowledge of the failure pattern for this
particular device. We could then issue, without qualification,
a statement of what chance a single newly manufactured unit
would have of working properly for 1000 hours. But nobody ic
going to destroy an entire output for the sake of perfect. infor-
mation. Rather, we test a few, in the same fashion as the fellow
reaching into tle bucket for 10 marbles, and make an educated
guess about the characteristics of a product from which our par-
ticular sample was drawn. Then, to be completely honest, we own
up that our prediction is based on sample information without
knowledge of the population, and attach a "percent confidence
level," so that all may know what test data we had to support
our estimate.
Naturally, the more units we test, the better can be our guess
and the higher the confidence we can have in it. (This corres-
ponds to the blindfolded man being given the opportunity to
examine 20 or 50 marbles from the bucket of unknown composition,
instead of only 10 as mentioned previously.) Finally, the more
modest is our reliability claim the higher can be our confidence
that the reliability is at least as high as we are claiming.
The foregoing discussion points up the fact that we can only make
statemtents about a probability or reliability with perfect assur-
ance or confidence when the qample observed is the completepopu-
lation. Obviously, there is an intimate relation between confi-
dence and probability. This relation is indicated in the accom-
panying Figure 11-9. The numerical values in the table are com-
puted by techniques to be explained presently. One would guess
that, based on a sample of 10, the estimate of 30% for the pro-
bability of drawing a black i- not very good. As a matter of
fact, it turns out that we are only 38.3% confident that the true
probability is greater than 30%. On the other hand, if we had
observed 12 black marbles in a sample of 40, we could be 44.1%
confident f-hat the true probability is greater than 30%. This
V
11-9
K'
-~ 0 0- 0 0 0 0
CC
zz
00
H
-44
P4t
11-10
result corresponds to intuition; it is a consequence of the

greater amount of data in the second sample. Returning to the
sample of 10 with 3 blacks observed, we would find tIat the con-
fidence in a lower probability, say 20%, is 67.8%. Ahen we make
some inference about probability (or reliability) from observed
results, there is some associated confiden•.e. There is a need,
then, for assessing quantita-tively our degree of confidence in
such an inference.
So far the confidence concept has been discussed in a general

sort of way, and some numerical results have been given. How
are theoc results sbtainei, and what precisely is the meaning
of a confidence interval?
3.3.2 Binomial Distribution: First let us consider the binom-

ial case. Suppose we have performed n.independent trials and s
of them were successful according to some defined criterion.
(In the marble example n = 10 and s = 3.) Designate PL as the
lower bound at confidence level a; by lower bound here we simply
mean the probability value which corresponds to confidence level
ce Using pL as the basic probability in the binomial probability
expression, form the probability of obtaining a result at least
as good as the actual observed one, and set this equal to one minus
confidence. In mathematical notation,
n
n(i pt (1 - PL))n-
i1
11.2
For a given value of o this equation can be solved for PL" Or

for a given value or PL the confidence a can be determined.
Having obtained PL for some particular ca,we now make the state-
ment that
PPL P)t t
which is read as. "The probability that the computed lower bound
is less than or equal to the true (but u 'nown) probability is
a. Perhaps a better way to state it, is: "The probability
(confidence'! is a that the interval PL to 1 includes the true
probability." Now wheat does thi'; mean? A computed interval
(PLl) either covers the true probability, or it doesn't cover it.
How does this jibe with our confidence statement above?
To return to the maible example, suppose we randcxnly draw re-

peated (theoretically an infinite number of) samples of size 10
ii-ii
each. The number o± blacks, of course, will in general vary

from sample to saml 7e. (Previously, w;e had 3 blacks in such a
sample.) At some fixed confidence le-,el, say -Y = 0.678, we com-
pute the lower confidence bound for each sample and consider the
set of o - confidence intý: vals (pL,!) thus obtained. It will
turn out that 1V7.8%0 of the intervals will cover the true proba-
bility and 32.2% of them will not.
Now we actually have only one sample of size 10 wherein 3 black

marbles were observed and PL ;z 0.2 for a = 0.678. If we make
the claim that the interval (0.2,1) contains the true probability,
we are either right or wrong. However, since this interval is
one of many possible intervals, 67.8% of which cover the true
probability, our particular claio has a 67.8% chance of being
correct. It is only in the sense of the percentage of correct
claims that we say-
P(0.20 t p) = 0.678
Solutions to equation 11.2 can be found in the tables of the

binomial probability distribution (1).
In t'nc above description of the meaning of "confidence interval",

it can be seen that the frequency interpretation of probab.JIL,'
is used; in particular, -inrepeated sampling fro.n the same den-
sity function, a given proportion of such intervals will cover
the true parameter value. Unfortunately, the situation wherein
there is repeated samplina is the exception rather than the rule.
Most frequently, we have one sample and have to base our confi-
dence statement on that one sample's data.
The type of confidence interval obtained from equation 11.2 or

from the reliability/confidence charts Figures 11-29 to 11-34
is a one-sided interval. It is called one-sided, because the
upper end of the interval is always uiaity. There is alduo ý.uci
a thing as a two-sided interval, whose upper limit, as well as
the lower limit, is variable from sample to sample. The confi-
dence concept of a two-sided interval is exactly the same as
that of the one-sided, except in this case we are sayinq that the
confidence is the probability that the interval -- lower bound to
upper bound (where the upper bound is less than 1.0) -- contains
the true value. Our discussion will be limited to the one-sided
interval bccause in reliability applications we are usually con-
cerned more that the reliability exceeds a cerLain minimum than
that it will be found within an interval.
Let us consider briefly a simple application of binomial confi-

11-12
dence intervals. Suppose in a particular missile program 20

shots have been fired with 2 failures. We assume here a binomial
situation, obviously an over-simplified assumption. The missile
reliability cannot be expected to be the same for each shot. Nor
would shots be independent of one ano~her, since fixes and improve-
ments are constantly made in the program as a consequence of fir-
ing data. Recognizing these limitations, -e still assume binomial
and make use of the chart on Figure 11-31. This figure provides
a graphical solution to equation 11.2 for the case of two failures
in any number of tests. Finding 20 trials along the bottom,
follow the line up to the 95% confidence curve (the top curve).
The intersection falls between .71 and .72 (actually .716). This
gives us a 0.716 lower bound reliability at the 0.95 confidence
level. At the conclusion of the program the results are 5 fail-
ures in 50 launches, giving the same point estimate reliability
of 0.9. Superficially there hgs been no improvement. However,
using the chart on Figure 11-34, since we now have 5 failures in
50 tests, we now find that the indicated reliability is about .80
(actually .798) so we can claim a reliability at least as good
as 0.798 at 0.95 confidence. Our improved reliability claim is,
of course, a consequence of the larger sample size. If the pro-
gram reliability specification was 0.75 at 95% confidence, it
was not met after 20 shots. It was met after 50. The point we
make here is simply that attainment of a reliability/confidence
specific-tion depends upon, among other things, the number of
tests specified in a program and conversely, our requirement for
confidence Jetermines the number of tests required. Therefore,
such specificatic;'s should be imposed on a program only -fter
careful deliberation and compromises between the specifications
and program testing costs.
3.3.3 Exponential Distribution: The interpretation of confi-

dence intervals in terms of percentage of correctness of claims
is valid regardless of the underlying distribution. What does
depend upon the distribution is the technique of computing the
interval. So far we have talked in terms of the binomial assump-
tions, one of considerable importance in reliability practice.
Another important distribution, as pointed out in chapters 4 and
5 is the negative exponential distribution of time-to-failure
corresponding to the underlying condition of constant failure
rate. We now consider the technique for computing a one-sided
confidence interval for this case.
The formula for reliability, it will be recalled, is

R = e-kt
where 1 is the underlying constant failure rate and is the

11-13
mission or operating time.
Since irn a practical situation the amount of test data is finite,

we cannot determine X precisely. We are once again confronted
with the need to make some claim about a value at some confidence
level. Epstein and Sobel (2) A.ive shown essentially that the
upper confidence bound on X at confidence a is given by
X2 (e, 2r + 2) 11.3
2T
where r is the number of failures experienced in a test termin-
ated at a prespecified total accumulated time T. The 2r + 2 in
formula 11.3 refers to the degrees of freedom of the x 2 (chi-
square) variable. If the test was specified to terminate upon
the r~i failure, then 2r degrees of freedom should be used.
At this point a few words about the chi-squpre tables may be

appropriate. The chi-square tables give the value of a distri-
bution quite useful in statistics (Figure 11-14) one of their
main uses being the determination of confidence limits applicable
to the negative exponential distribution. The degrees of free-
dom determines the shape of the distribution. Its only interest
to us is its use as a parameter tc determine which of the distri-
butions fits the data we have available. A tabulation of x2 for
degrees of freedom from 1 to 30 is given in Figure 11-28. The
entries in this table are those values, x2 for which the left-
hand area under the curve is equal to a. In our application
jf(x2)
xo
d-y, 11.4
0
where f(X2 ) represents the Xa density function and f(x2)dx 2ucl.

0
Based on equation 11.4 one may make the confidence statement
which reads:
PTT ) 11.5
For a numerical example let us return to the servo-amplifier

mentioned at the beginning of this discussion on interval esti-
mation. Let us assume that either one servo was tested to 75,500
hours or that 100 identical specimens were tested, each to 755
hours, and that no failures occurred.
The informnation and dataare summarized as follows:

11-14
Nlf
z7
Miss ion time, t - l"Q', hours

T.:t.Ai t,.'st t •me, T 7%,:: •) hours
Failures, r o, degrees of freedom 2r + 2 2
Confidenice, i 0.90
Applying formula 11.3, as follows \ = xi/2T. For two degrees of

freedom and , .90 the value given for x2 is 4.61 so
4.61
'U 2 x 75,500 .0305
We find tha÷- at th( 90"./ confidence level the upper bound on fail-
ure rate is 'U - 0.03C5 failure per thousand hours. Toe corres-
pondin,ý 90W/ lower b-und on MTBF is 9 L l/PU = 32,790 hour-,
which means that we are 0'/, confident that our servo has an MTBF
of 32,790 hours or more. For the 1000 hour mission or operating
time the 9), lower confidence bound on reliability is
-u, . )305
RL e-
- = 0.970, which of course, is the figure cited
earlier. This result means that we may make the claim, with 90%
assurance, that the probability of successful servo operation for
1000 hour period is 0.97 or better.
The servo-amplifier exarnle above was worked out by direct com-

out itions from the pertinent for'hulas under the negative expon-
ential assumption. It. is possible to obtain essentially the same
in~wets by usc of the reliability test demonstration chart,
Fiiure11 This foll,,ws because, although the charts were
_l_2.
,Jerivi-d undler the binomial assumption, they approximate the

nelait 1v' c ,xtonential cas- very well in the reo ions where n >> r,
* %e.-,
here the nunbor of test cycles is much larger than the
nur-ber o_ tailurets. The r for use in the charts is interpreted as
the number -0 mission cycle-s tested, i.e., n ý Tit. In our servo
pr•,blem n 75.l >! l avying ,ised the appropriate chart to
"ohtain RL at some confidence .,, we can compute the corresponding
MTSF ,:nd failure rate bounds by 4, ý -t,, InRL and IU IiL - InR t.
The, student may verify for himsself that this procedure ires
essentiall-y the same answers as those com.puted by the chi square
f.•rm:,u Ia.
It _one crsire. to demonstrate a specified reliability at a stated

confidenct, it - obvicis that the testing requirements can be
establishnd. Fiqure ll-29throuoh 11-34, for example, ,-In be used
for thi -- purpose. The reguireme-ts would be in terms -4 a liven
number ot failures in a requirec. number of test cycles. If the
reluirements are met in actual testini, then the reliability/
confidence requirement has been met.
Exa~inatin of Figure 11-29 to 11-34 will show that as reliability

11-16
requirements increase, tests required to demonstrate that the

reliability has been achieved at a stated confidence increase
proportionately. An order of magnitude increase from .9 to .99
say requires an order of magnitude increase in testing from 22 to
235. This is shown in figure 11-17
This indicates that reliability testing to reasonably high con-

fidences may cost excessively, both in terms of test cycles and/
or time required, number of specimens, and money.
3.3.4 Summary: The use of testing to develop the statistical

level of confidence that the deeign has achieved a high level of
reliability is limited by the amount of money and time the cus-
tomer can afford. The need for a chosen level of high confidence
depends on what other proof is available that will give the
designee and customer "reasonable" assurance of high reliability.
As discussed egrlier, qg~lit~tt•V• Ag,"O~q
'@ ~p~ tg thp qV•nV-
tatiVd &h~hb ted£iftabheb) ot~oivod frft a successfull~y 00th-
pleted demonstration plan. It should not supplant it. The de-
gree of support offered by qualitative assurance must be evaluated,
on the basis of the evidence shown, by the customer. Based on the
total evidence -- his satisfaction that the designer has been
complete and competent in his analysis, that the inspection on
the production line is adequate, that the testing supports the
analysis and the demonstration tests yields a reasonable confi-
dence though not able to be specified quantitatively that the
achieved reliability has been met -- the customer can accept the
product. Since the evidence cannot be submitted until the acts
are performed, the customer must make the initial presumption
that the various factors of proof required will be favorable,
deciding before negotiating the contract just what evidence he
is willing to accept to convince himself, and how much he is
willing to pay for, then negotiate the contract and administer it
to be sure he gets the quality of design and production desired.
4. DE4ONSTRATION TESTING
As pointed out earlier, qualitative assurance should support the

demonstration plan, not eliminate it. We recognize that we need
an acceptance test plan to decide whether or not a requirement
has been met. The purpose of this section is to explain how to
develop a test plan or how to understand a test plan proposed by
a contractor.
It is generally recognized that a correct decision as to whether

or not to accept could be effectively guaranteed if a sufficient
11-17
I?0
7.--
rq n 0
0 c., c' ý
1]1-18
amount of testing w--r done. Usually, schedule anJ bud.etary

limitations do not permit. We are then forced to make this dc-
cision with a lirnited amount of testing, i.e., on a sample the
natural inference is that a correct decision cannot be 100%
guaranteed. This implies that the contractor is takinq some risk
that equipment meeting or exceeding the specification will be re-
jected. The customer, on the other hand, is taking some risk
that ihe will be accepting sub-standard equipment. Statistics
gives both parties the capability of numerically assessing the
magnitudc of these risks as well as determining required changes
to the test plan should be magnitude of these risks prove unde-
sirable to either c- both of the parties.
4.1 TESTING STATISTICAL HYPOTHESIS
The producer w~jnt-s to be reasonably sure that equipment meeting

the requirements is accepted. He wanes to keep his risk to as
small a value as possible. He would like to keep the "producer's risk
defined as the probability that an -quipment meeting the require-
ments is rejected, to a numerically small fraction. The customer
similarly wants to keep the "consiuners risk", defined as the pro-
bability that an equipment not meeting the minimum acceptable re-
quirement is accepted, to a numerically small fraction. We thus
need a numerical assessment of the magnitude of these risks.
4.2 BASIS OF TEST PROCEDURES
The establishunent of a numerical value to the magnitude ot the

risks involves the extent of testing. Consider for examiple:
An engineer has two theories to explain a phenomenon. In theory

1 the probability that the phenomenon will occur on any trial is
50%. Under theory 2 the probability is only 31%. He would like
to learn which theory is correct. To find out, he decides to
conduct an experiment 10 times and record whether or )t the
phenomenon occurs. In attom.,ting to interpret the result of the
experiment as to which theory to prefer he feels that the decision
should invo];'e the relative probabilities of observing this re-
sult when p = .50 and when p - .31. Setting up the hypothesis
that p = .50 as what is usually called the null hypothesis, Ho,
he can test this against the alternate h,'pothesis, HI, that p-.31.
Using a tabular form, Figure 11-19 he computes the probability
of observing each of the -ssible outcome- on each hypothesis.
Since the ovents are not time dependent, but rather independent
trials, the bi:.omial equation will be used.
11-1
- ~ ~~ '" ~ ~ t 00
I; -t4 00 IV C
UC2
CC
C' -' -~~ ~z~a 0N
11-20
In this table he notes that 10 successes is 119 times more likely

under the hypothesis P = 1 12 than it is under the hypothesis
p = .31. if 1C successes zcur, therefore, the hypothesis p = 1/2,
is to be preferred. In a similar way 0 successes is (1/25th) as
likely under p = 1/2 than under p =- 0.31. If no successes occur,
the hypothesis, p = .31, is preferred- It is intuitively clear
to this engineer that his decision should be based on a ratio of
probabilities under the two hypotheses of the observed result.
However, the observance of a particular result, even though highly
favorable to one hypothesis, does not negate the possibility that
the other hypothesis is true. Therefore, if this engineer is to
reach some conclusion and then to take action on the basis of thls
conclusion, he must be willing to accept some risk of reaching A
erroneous conclusion.
Obviously he will reject the hypothesis p ý .50 and prefer p = .31

if two or less trials result in success, this gives him 5:1 odds
of being right. If p = .50 is actually the corr-rt. snlrtion, the
probability of achieving 0, 1 or 2 succ.-CZ i• L':_ :urm of th'
probabiIities '3r tlie numbers of successes (Figure 11-20) or
about .055. This is the risk he takes of b2ing wrong, of coming
to an erroneous conclusion based on the tests. This risk is
usually called the producers risk, the probability that an obser-
vation will fall into a region of rejection when the hypothesis
is in fact true.
Alternately, if p is in fact .31 the probability that he will

observe the result, 0, 1.or 2 successes, is .356, leaving a pro-
bability of .644 that some other result will be obtained (3 or
more successes). This value .644 is the probability that he will
accept the hypothesis p = .50 when p is in fact .31. This is the
consumers risk, the probability of incorrectly accepting the null
hypothesis when the alternate hypothesis is true.
Figure 11-20 shows that this engineer does have the capability of
controlling the magnitude of the risk by appropriate selection of
the critical region.
Of course, the engineer still has a remaining decision -- that

of whether or not the risks are acceptable. If he does find a
region of rejection, e.g., 0 or 1 or 2 successes that has accep-
table values of Producers and consumers risks the derivation of
the test procedure is complete.
His choice of decision criteria (two or less occurrencos in ten

trials) still leaves him a risk of 64% that he will Lncorectly
accept the hypothesis p = .5. Changing the acceptance region to
11-21
-.4 -4
V) I
0 :1
0 0~ 0) 01
ODw0
m
0 0 C
11-22
0, 1, 2 or 3 occurren-es, reduces his (the consumer's) risk to

38% but increa--s the producers risk to 17%.
If the engineer cannot find a region of acceptance that provides

acceptable values of the risks, he must c insider the use of more
than 10 trials.
4.3 FORMAL TEST PROCEDURES
Using the concept iust introduced we can develop a formal test

procedure to determine the rejection region for a reliability
demonstration test.
A new system is assumed to have a negative exponential density

function for times to failure. The required reliability is 425
h"'2 MTBF. A test is to be designed to ttrst this value (425
hrs. MTBF) againrist an alternate hypothesis of 250 hrs. MTBF.
(considered a minimum acceptable reliability)
H0 = 425 hrs
H1 = 250 hrs
to determine the form of the region in which the null hypothesis

will be rejected, we compute the ratio of probabilities of the
.,bserved result under the two hypothesis, establishing the re-
jection region such that if the ratio P 0 /PI is less than some
value, the null hypothesis will be rejected. A number, T, repre-
senting the length of time the test is to b- run, i' computed such
that, if the equipment fails within the test time, the hypothesis
is to be rejected. To determine the value of T, assume H0 is true.
Select a value for the producers risk.
The producers risk is the probability that a failure will occur

prior to the end of the test (time = T) when the MTBF is equal
to or greater than 425 hrs. For this example, we will select a
value of 0.10 for the producers risk.
As you will recall from our discussion of confidence, the

probability that an interval contains the true value ot MTBF was
expressed by the equation
9 2T
Solving for our test time, T we find
T 11.5
2
11-23
Using 2 degrees of freedom, since tt, test is specified to term-

inate on thel first foil,,c 2,ni .1 t) obbbili ty that the interval
contains the trueý value 'we find
- .211
.211 x 425 46 hours

2
The test procedure is to put thesystem _in test for 44.e hours.
If it fails before this time i{0 is; rejcctfd. If it does not fail
the system is accepted.
The consumers risk is computed as the probability that the syste:n

does not fail prior to 44.6 hours when the MTBF is really 250
hours
-44.6 2250 -. t
p(s) = e - - e .835
This means that the test procedure will accept systems with an MTBF
of 250 hours 83.5% of the time.
unacceptable)
Systems with MTBF lower than 250 hours (considered
will be accepted with gradually reducing probabilities. The
the consumers
MTBF of 250 hours is a limiting condition ciefininq
risK as a probability approachino 83.5! that bad systems, systems
with MTBFs lower than 250 hours will be accepted.
4.4 SEQUEN'.IAL TEST PLANS
This value of the consumers risk is considered unacceptable. One

procedure, used in industry is to sup.. rimpose a second test pro-
cedure on top of the first one. In this second test procedure the
null hypothesis (H 0 ) is the minimum acceptable value of MTBF
(2t0 hrs). This value is to be tested against a (new) alternate
hypothesis, Hi{ of 425 hours. A test time is to be computed such
that a system with MTBFs equal to eL less than 250 hours will
not be accepted more than 10 ( the timc. (not, the reversal of
null and alternate hypetlieses.)
Entering a table of -\ with 2 degrees of freedom and the proba-

bility of .90, since this time we want a probability of 90% that
the true MTBF is greater than 250 hours (10% risk chat it is not).
The value of x'2 is found to be 4.61
T2.
x'Ce 4.61 x 250
57 5. rh- rs
2 2
11-24
The system is placed on test. If it fails prior to the 44.6 hours

it is rejected. If it operates successfully for 575.6 hours it is
accepted. If a failure occurs between 44.6 and 575.6 hours, the
trial is continued. We are now concerned about a second failure.
To compute the times to the second failure, select values from
the X table for the same ribks as before but with 4 degrees of
freedom (2 failures).
H0 = 425 H6 = 250
x 2 (.10,4) = 1.06 X 2 (.90,4) = 7.78
T• = 225 T1 = 970
If the second failure occurs prior to 225 hours the system is re-
jected. If the second failure has not occurred by 970 hours, the
system is accepted. Again should the second failure occur in the
interval 225 to 970 hours, no deciEion is reached. The procedure
is repeated, computing the times for three failures, and so on.
A more detailed discussion of the sequential test plans will be
found in chapter 10.
Thc test plan just described has established the risks of "good"
(MTBF >425 hours) systems being rejected and "bad systems (MTBF <
250 hours) accepted at ten percent. Suppose, however we redefine
a bad system as one having an MTBF less than 400 hours. The
initial values for the first plan based on H0 = 425 zemains the
same, (assuming the risks are to be kept at ten percent). A
comparison of this revised plan with the previous one is given in
Figure 11-25 .
Test time of 921 hours is required if no failure occurs. If tlke

first failure does occur in the nr-decision- range, (44.6, 921)
and this i3 qiiite likely, then, after repair, the system is con-
tinued on test, being accepted if the test runs 1552 hours without
a second failure. The Lureau might not wish to buy a "used" com-
puter with an MTBF of 425 hours after being on trial for 1.552 hrs.
The requirement of testing 8 = 425 against 9 = 400 at 10% risks
is not a reasonable requirement in that the trial times involved
are, for all practical purposes, equivalent to destructive testing.
To reduce trial time, a "bad" computer may be redefined as 9 = 250
and/or the 10% consumers risk may be increased.
It may be noted that if you test HO: q = 425 against HI: 0 = 400
at a = 0.10, the same rejection region, (0,44.6) is obtained.
Indeed, the interval, (0,44.6), is suitable to test 9 = 425
against any 9 less than 425 as long as o= 0.10. In this situation,
11-?5
M - "o
• • L) • 2'. u-
r-m
~~ i,
11-26
one has been able to derive one rejection interval to test the
simple null hypothesis 9 = 425 against the composite alternative,
425. Using this common rejection req ion , one could
S- compute
the consumers risk with ti is test for say ) = 424, r = 400, 9 = 250
etc., making his choice on the risk he was willing to take.
5. S-EQUNTIAL SAMPLING PLANS
5.i. AGREE PLAN
Sequential test plans -Ave been computed and are available for
use (3) in the report of the Ad Hoc Group on Reliability Df
Electronic Equipment (AGREE, Task Group 3). This acceptance
table makes the following assumptions:
(a) Both Producers Risk and Consumers Risk are set at 10%':
(b) The alternative hypothesis has been set at ', 3 the
value of the null hypothesis.
This second assumption controls the Consumers Risk. In effect it

is sayino the probability is 10 that an equipment whose MTBF is
only 2. 3 the specified value will be accepted. If the sp-cified
value of MTBF is 1000 hours, the equipment will be accepted with
an MTBF lower than 670 hours ten percent of the time.
5.2 ADDITIONAL SOURCES
The AGREE sequential test plan is incorporated as the test plan

for Electro-nics Equipment in MIL R 22732 (SHIPS). MIL STP 12'5
provides plans for samplinq by attributes and may be used as
outlined in that chap.;,r for developing test plans, or for in-
terpreting the meaninq in terns of risk in plns proposed by
contractors.
6. REFERENCES
'.Fables of Binomial Probability Distribution Function,

National Bureau -f Standards Applied Mathematics Series 6,
U. S. Government Printing Office, %,,ashinqton, 1. C.
2. Life Testinq, Epstein an" Sobel, Journal of the ,%merican

Statistical Association, Vol. 48, 1953.
3. Reliability of Military Electronic Equiyxnent, Report by

Advisory Group on Reliability of Electronic Equipment,
11-27
4 June 1957, U. S. Governmrent Printing: Officce, Washington,

D. C.
4. Introduction to the Theory ol Statistics, A. F. Mood, McGraw-

Hill Bock Company, 1950.
5. Mathematical Methods of Statistics, H. Cramer; Princeton

University Press.
11-28
Loegreeirý of freedom (2r)
- Nfwi
I-C0- N r Ct-rot
1, g 1Nt Cr 0,c
N .ror at -N to Vl-C I,- t Ii V
::52 c: 0, -0t flf ,
CC c I- N Ct-o-t
vN w vttt ml mO
Cc C o Cctt ~ to N 0 - t C V C r C c
az to - N 4 CJ A ~ l r r . - w pt 't I v--
ct . .. o * C ) S t- -t -N t tN tlo-t Ct r-
N *tor-etC -fiw~~N t 7- N v C~ o t e
44C - t- at ~ i- r t e~C C- -d Nr tft t

- tc ~~~ ~ ' 4 ~) ) ~
N tW t t- ~ C ~ ~ ~ - N ¶ t1 r t o f
f At tC i4 0 NN C fili (t t a
H .- -s~~~zt ~zc tIo I ~ ~ t co t r a
-~ ~~~~ i N-l - f
-N -N -tf-r-f---
o~l t0l tS
C~ ~~~~ C t 3- tC
aiJrC %C
A~-~.
14
11-2 9
,-
F
______
___
- -t __-.
0
I I
C/)
I
I
____
1
-
----
-
_
S I
IyI
-
I a.
I ± +
I------- I -
I
II
I I
I I
NH -+
±
IA
-+---
/1
4
- -I j--/
- 1!
I
-
1 /
H'Hi)/ i-I-- -
/tr1htr1N F
I
LL
11-30
O I
izI
- SJ2
m Go_ _ _ _
7 _ _)
w
11-31
o) 0
to 00
m~ to c
11-32
(01 __L_
I I0___G' I
• z
I"i4
X1119 ilH
11-33
_~~0 1 _ 1__0
1-4
0 0 0 ( 0) 13
11-34
00
'of
_ _ _ _ _ CID_
E-4 I 0to 0
12-1
Chapter 12
FAILURE MODES & EFFECTS ANALYSIS

Page
1. USES OF FAILURE MODES & EFFECTS ANALYSIS 12- 3
1.1 Application to Reliability Prediction 12- 3
1.2 Application to Maintainability Prediction 12- 4
1.3 Application to Safety Analysis 12- 6
1.4 Time of Analysis 12- 6
2. IDENTIFICATION OF CRITICAL ITEMS 12-10

2.1 Failure Effect Analysis 12-10
2.2 Reliability Model Indexing Numbers 12-11
2.3 Criticality Ranking 12-11
2.4 Critical Items List 12-13
2.5 A~plications of Criticality Ranking 12-14
3. REDUCING EFFFCTS OF FAILURE 12-16
4. SUMMARY 12-17
5. REFERENCES 12-18
I
"12-2
Chapter 12
FAILURE MODES & EFFECTS ANALYSIS
A Failure Modes and Effects analysis is a qualitative means of

evaluating the reliability, maintainability and safety of a de-
sign by considering potential failures and the resulting effects
on a system. Basically the analysis involves the identification
and tabulation of the ways (or modes) in hiich a part, component
or system can fail, as for example (1), a ball bearing may fail
from normal wearout or abnormal wearout, or brinelling. The
effect of each mode is identified, as abnormal wear'ut will cause
increased noise and vibration, with rapid wearing of bearing
parts and eventual destruction of bearing and seizing of the pump.
In using the analysis the identified .ffect may be different de-

pending on the purpose for which the analysis is to be used. In
reliability analysis the effect considered is the effect on the
performance of system function. In maintainability analysis, the
effects include the symptoms by which a failure could be identi-
fied (as temperature of the jearing) and the additional parts
needing replacement due to damage because of the failure of the
part. In Safety analysis, the additional effects considered
would be damage to adjacent equipment and possible danger to
personnel.
Failure mode and effect analysis is a systematic procodure for

determining the basic causes of failure and defining actions to
minimize their effects. It may be applied at any level of
assembly (from complete weapons systems to parts). In each case
the utude .s described as the way in which the unit fails to per-
form its function. For a missile system the function of hitting
a target may not be performed due to guidance error or incorrect
velocity duo to early engine shutdown, etc. For a pump, failure
to produce the proper volume and pressure of fluid may be due to
loss of suction or bearing seizure. In chapter 3 we described
the breakdown of functional requirements step by step, identify-
ing functions with hardware that performed the function. In the
same way, in Failure Modes and Effects analysis we establish the
functions that the equipment is intended to perform describing as
modes of failure ways in which the equipment can fail to perform
the function. In reliability analysis, the effects are the in-
verse of the defined function that is the failure mode effect
is the failure to perform the required functicn.
The analysis is performed to isolate and identify weaknesses in

the design. The final step in the analysis is the determination
12-3
of ways t.(o, eliminate or ,',n', t h- Lprobabi li ty of incidence of

critical failur, modes to iy'rovo' the design. Since funds and
time are never unlimited, orrwtive action involves the assiqn-
ment of priorities of effort bas-- on relative seriousness of
the consequences (effects) of !aiihires.
1. USES OF FAILURE MODES & EFFECTS ANALYSIS
1.1 APPLICATION TO RELIABILITY PREDICTION
A method used in oredicting the reliability of mechanical systems

is similar to the method used in predicting the reliability of
electronic systems. A reliability block diagram, which is a
pictorial representation of a failure effects analysis, is a
basic part of each method. In electronic systems, the blocks
are identified as parts or components. Failure modes or mechan-
isms are seldom referred to. In mechanical systems, however,
the blocks are identified by modes of failure, for each part or
component. In mechanical system reliability predictions, refer-
ence is mad- to "types of failures of parts in specific applica-
tion" rather than "parts failure rates."
It is evident that an accurate, precise definitin of failure is

necessary. The definition of compc'nent failure is as needed as
the definition of system failure, in particular where the compon-
ents arc those parts of the syst.,- to, be use; in the system pre-
diction and failure rate data is avaiiable for them. The control-
ling factor in determining the mea-ing of component failure is
the tolerance of the system to component variation and/or inop-
erability. This tolerance varies with the type and timing of
component performance variation, e.g., a sticking valve may or
may not affect system performance, dependin, on whether the
valve sticks open or closed and when the sticking occurs. There-
fore, component failures in meecnanical systems often cannot be
defined except in reference to that system. A brief outline of
a method to be used in predictin-) the reliability of a large
mechanical system is as follows:
Step 1. Divide the system into a number of subsystems which can

be more ea.sily dealt with. As this,• prediction method involves
predicting the reliability of each subsystem and then Lecombining
these predictions to arrive at the overall system reliability,
the division must take place on a functional basis. Careful and
precise system and subsystem definition (chapter 4) is a necessary
prerequisite. The block diagram is useful in coordinating and
recording the functional brea.'-.own. Numbers are usually assigned
~i
12-4
to the blocks fer ease of cross reference. Systtm definition

should include time line analysis, environments, and definition
of failure at each block level.
Step 2. Make a detailed study of the schemnatic engineering draw-

ings for each subsystem in order to determine all of the signi-
ficant modes of failure. Knowledge of the effect of component
failure as well as the subsystem and system reaction to failure
of the component is necessary. Definition of failure is an
essential portion of the analysis, but it cannot be treated in
general terms; i.e., failure means operation not in conformity
with some well-stated performance requirements.
Step 3. Determine all of the component failure mechanisms which

could lead to each of the failure modes. Failure mechanisms are
the basic physical causes of failure and failure modes are the
reactions to failure mechanisms. Failure modes can result from
the occurrence of any one of a set of failure mechanisms or from
the simultaneous occurrence of two or more particular failure
mechanisms.
Step 4. Make a summary of all the reliability information obtained

and analyzed from the design schematic drawings. This is accom--
plished by tabulating all of the failure modes and making an
analysis to demonstrate the relationships between component and
system malfunctions. (Figure 12-5).
Step 5. Using the information compiled above, prepare a relia-

bility model in the same manner as in chapter 5.
Step 6. Determine the probabilities of occurrence of the failure

modes to be used as numerical inputs. This type of data may be
obtained from manufacturers or may be estimated from the prior
experience of the engineer. While in most cases, the values
of failure rates are approximate, this computation has jreat
power in comparing alternatives. Reference (2) is an excellent
exmnple of such a computation.
Step 7. Generate the system reliability prediction utilizing

the reliability model and the probabilities associated with the
occurrence of each failure mode to arrive at a numerical valie
representing the overall reliability of the system under investi-
qation.
1.2 APPLICATION TO MAINTAINABILITY PREDICTION
AS mentioned in chapter 8 the prediction of a Mean Time to Restore

12-5
• . -- . .
•T ... .. . .. --
•: . . . -" ... - . .. - - r
*-- I
• . ......
•.. .. ..... .. ....... .......... • . m
, - -_
2C •b X 1 .
ti2 ___
,H
.. ...... . ..."_..
. .. .. . S i
• , . • ,,,• ,
].2 -6
(MTTR) requires fir ;, h t, t in of the parts subject to o

failure and an estinmate c! t i,,u- bable frequency of sich failures.
The failure Modes and Etf to' 4'sis requires the •:-eati n of
just such a list. The documenrtation provides the necessary design
discipline for methodically evaluating the probability of failure
and the results thereof for tade-.)tf between reliability and
maintainability to achieve ti. -"sten availability requirements.
The failure modes approach refines the prediction reliability
and maintainability to a consid_:ration of the various mechanisms
of failures that may be operablu.
Figure 12-7 provides an exAmple of o Failure modes mnd effects

analysis for maintainabiility ev~i~±lution (1). The equipcnent is a
steam turbo-pump. Figure 12--8 continues the analysis of tasks
to the individual task elementb as outlired in chauter H.
1.3 APPLICATION TO SAFETY ANAIYSIS
The safety aspects of equirm •ent failure are investigated by a

Safety 3nalysis. Safety analysis is not restri-ttd to human
safety, but includes the effect ,n the total system, associated
or adjacent equipment and perso:mel in the vicin`ty eithl asi-c-
iated with the system or casual. Startini from the identifica-
tion of the expected tailure mi tdes, the effect on the adcJacent
and associated equipment is evaluated. An example is qiven In
Figure 12-9.
1.4 TJME OF ANALYSIS
Failure modes and ettects analysis starts from the top down.
System functions and failure modes art, first consi .ered in
abstrctior,, then expanded down to the subsystei7',, o"o.. nt and
part level.
It is irnitiated during the c .•t phase of a desiqn, t:ien as

the design beconmes more clt, a .evI ined, is expanded concurrently
with' the design. The effectiveness of the analysi-3 in system
tradeoffs is made possible by it.t ivailabilitv at the time, desigin
decisions are required. The anal .sis d(ocumentati on mýust be k#-et
dynamic and current ý itn the dJtsiq.n clt-ar through the final test
and delivery of the cqu1~rient. It must be available for siseas
design changes are preoused t.o, 'Assure that the discipline pro-
vided keeps control of the effcts of changes in reliability and
maintainabi] ity.
In the failure effect andlysis o the structure, no written

analysis accompanie3 the reliability mode. During the design
___________ - _________- 12-7
- T.
- -
z
-. .. '-.
Q< - -,
z
-
-I .,-
H
:7 z -
7 z
£
Cl) -oz
-
Cl) H>f
7
-r u
U cz
<c r< H
H H H<
I->
H
H H Z
U OiZ,
-
O U
II
H
1w
Ici
iK -
I *
- -
-,-
H
- L
I____
-
K
zO
-
Z<&-
<?Ko
.
<I
-
___ ___
I I
H
-' *A4
1
-I 1=
H l
4: I
,
' 1' K
II
- I
U
A4
K 717 4:
__
12-8
00
0. 4)
cq N ) -4
00 U" ::
c o
C)4
11-4Pi
L:H E H
12-9
lii
Q))
oo
i i?
z r_0
-
c) ., 0
Cd 4?
<.4 .
cc0
U2 _ _
A4?
'-41
F-44
w4-
12-10
the structure undergces an analysis invwlving design and stress

calculations, which can be classified as a single failure effect
analysis. On the basis of this analysis, the structure is strength-
ened/redesigned at those points where possible failure will occur.
For this reason, it can be stated that the complete structure has
been designed to withstand normal loads without failures which
will result in loss.
2. IDENTIFICATION OF CRITICAL ITEMS
As we mentioned earlier, the identification of weaknesses in the

design is not the end objective. From the analysis,we must determine
corrective action to improve the design. The failure modes and
effects analysis can be used to assess the relative importance
of the various weaknesses isolated to permit intelligent appli-
cation of effort (time and money) in selecting corrective action.
This is performed as follows:
A reliability model is developed for the system. This model

serves for definition of the subsystems and identification of
the functional components. It is not a furctional schematic or
an energy flow diagram, but serves for early analysis and t.
point out "weak links" which detract from the overall mission
attainment. A model of a system should have provisions to point
out the failure modes which are applicable to redundancy°
2.1 FAILURE EFFECT ANALYSIS
A failure mode and effect analysis is performed for each block

in the reliability analysis logic diagram. The failure effect
analysis shall indicate the effect of component failure on the
subsystem or system performance. In determining the effect of a
component failure on sub-system performance, four modes of fail-
ure are considered.
1. Premature operation of a component.
2. Failure of a component to operate at prescribed time.
3. Failure of a component to cease operation at a prescribed

time.
4. Failure of a component during operation.
Each component is evaluated in this manner .'or the failure modes

that are applicable.
Ij
12-11
"A usual form, Figure 12-12, for the single faiLure effect analysis,
calls for the following critique of each component in the system:
Co lumn n Nomenclature Desci on
1 ite:a Identify item by name, number required

and code designation.
2 Part No. Federal Stock Number, Classification or

Circuit designation, etc.
3 Function Concise statement of the components

function.
4 Failure Mode Concise statement of the applicable

mode(s) of component failure.
5 Failure Effect Full explanation of the effects on the

on System Per- performance of a system and the de-
f0roarc pendency on time for a given part
failure and a justificatior of the
probability of loss statement.
6 Loss Probability Assign numerical index for the probab-

(%) ility of system loss if part fails.
Suggested scale Certain Loss - 100%,
Probable Loss - 50%, No Effect - 0%.
7 Failure Mode Enter estimated or recorded ratio of

Frequency Patio failures in each mode to total failures
of the part.
2.2 RELIABILITY MODEL INDEXING NUMBERS
A means for direct reference of all items in the reliability

model is provided by using an indexing number system. Numbers
are used to denote systems, subsystems, assemblies and components.
If new itms are added or existing items removed, new numbers
are assi.gned to the additions and the existing numbers are dis-
continued for deleted items.
2.3 CRITICALIM RANKING
A critical items list is by definition based on the item's

applicable failure mode, the system loss probability from the
failure effect analysis, the item's failure mode frequency ratio,
and the item's unreliability associated with the critical failure
mode (or modes).
S~12.-12
rx _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
r.
I 0d
z
12-13
The failure mode frequency ratio is determined by the failure

history of the component. The failure mode frequency ratio
(FMFR) is the ratio of the number of failures that occur in a
single mode to the total number of failures:
Failures in a single mode

Total number of failures
If a failure history is not available on the particular component

in question to determine the failure mode frequency ratio, similar
components used in the industzy are valuable sources of failure
information. Care should be taken that the similar item is used
in a similar situation.
The unreliability of a component is determined from its failure

rate and its time of operation. Appeal is made to the System
Model to determine the environmental conditions during component
operation and the time of component operation per mission phase!
subphase. The time of operation and the environmental conditions
must be known to predict the failure rates and number of fail-
ures of components. Once the failure rate is determined it is
multiplied by the length of time rf operation in the following
equation to determine the unreliability:
Q e-
where
X = failure rate
t = time of operation
Criticality Ranking is accomplished by multiplying the thr~e
factors together:
CR = (PL) (FMFR) (Q)
where
probability of loss S=
F`MFR = Failure mode frequency ratio
Q = probability of component failure
2.4 CRITICAL ITEMS LIST
Based on the single failure effect analysis, a critical items

12-14
list is prepared. These listings are an abstract of those items

in the failure effect analysis whose single failure results in
the probability of loss, placed in numerical sequence of their
criticality ranking. The form for these critical item lists
should include the following information:
Column Nomenclature Description
1 System Identify system by indexing number
2 Subsystem Identify subsystem by indexing number
3 Assembly Identify Reliability Functional Block

by indexing number.
4 Component Identify component by indexing number.
5 Item Identify item by name
6 Mode of Failure Concise statement of the applicable

mode of component failure.
7 Loss Effect The degree of loss probability (should

the indicated bype of failure occur).
8 Reaction Time The estimated time elapsed from a com-

ponent failure to loss oE vehicle (i.e.,
0.1, 1, 10, 100, etc. seconds).
9 Criticality As computed in paragraph 2.3.

Ranking
Where a component has more than one mode of failure, which re-
sults in the probability of loss, separate entries are made in
the critical items list for each mode.
Criticality ranking or classification has the same basic context

as the "Levels of Essentiality" criteria for design, materials
control and traceability in submarine pressure boundaries (Refer-
ence 8).
2.5 APPLICATIONS OF CRITICALITY RANKING
The numerical value of the criticality ranking orde.s the com-

ponents by the degree to which they are expected to create pro-
blems. A high ranking number indicates that the particular mode
of the component needs special attention in the design and, if
12-15
it cannot be reduced, particular attention paid to the component

in manufacture and use. In this way the failure mode analysis
may be used to -ort out the problems involved in a development
program to focus attention on those of the greatest importance.
There isn't one of use who has not been faced with the problem
of a program with too little money and too little time to do the
job. The analytical technique presented gives early, realistic
discrimination criteria which provide greatest assurance the pro-
gram will meet its rpqui-ements with the most effective money
expenditure. Given criical items, failure modes, and criticality
ranking the components designer becomeE concerned with their
application in many areas.
Criticality ranking should be used to establish which items should

be first to receixýu re'iew. It should be used to establish the
specifi- areaF of investiqation in a design review. The review
should emphnas-.z where possible "fail safe" operation for cri-
tical mode-,. Where this is not possible redundancy, override
controls, and/or failure sensing devices should be incorporated.
Since no proaram i. infonitely funded it becomes apparent that
the "totem r la" established by criticality ranking provides
technical and minagement judgment criteria for where best to
spend prcgram money.
The designer in y use critical items to establish which supplier

specifications should have moLe stringent than normal require-
ments for design, monitoring, and test imposed. Since effectively,
the components will undergo very little change once the supplier
has delivered an approved part to the system, it is imperative
that the design reflect minimum critical failure mode probability.
Additionally, the suj'plior test program should reflect stringent
consideration of these cha:acteristics. Such test programs should
analyze the effects ef combined environmentai and critical opera-
tional stresses on the hardware in order that the interaction of
environments on the hardware will be properly investigated.
Criticality ra.xking is an excellent discriminahion cLiitcrion in

that it will give the best return for traceabeity per dollar
invested. It program m~ney is too short to provide traceability
on all critical items, the criticality ranking index should be
u .ed. For instance only tlose items wi.h a criticality ranking
in the upper lG% mighL be 1iiade traceable.
Screening spe-ifications can be established by the designer to

assure that any components classed as critical entering the plant
will be given a prescribed test or inspection for particular
12-16
weakness. Th- items to be screened should be selected from the

total critical items lis , c- if program money is limited, more
discriminating selection c a be made from the criticality rank-
ing. The characteristics to be inspected should bc taken from
the failure effect analysis.
Finally, the component designer should establish that the failure

reporting system which exists in his co~npany, specifically re-
ports failures on all critical items as such. He should also see
that the reporting system stipulates the specific mode in which
the component failed. The critical items list should be used to
establish which items will receive special expedited attention
in the failure reporting and corrective action system. Provision
should be incorporated into the reporting system for directly
identifying on the report those failure modes which have been
established by failure effect a..alysis as c itical. With this
type of information plus the normal rezlab' lity statistical in-
formation surrounding failures and failurE: anslysis, we can go
back to the reliability model and spec fi illy report In critical
areas what has in fact happened. This p- v iles for a much more
expedited and meaningful analysis.
3. REDUCING EFFECTS OF FAILURE
Failure Modes and Effects Analysis is a desiqn analysis tool used

by design and reliability engineers to measure the probabilities
of losses associated with failures in a system desiqn.
After the failure mode and effect analysis has been completed,
specific items should be summarized to indicate where redesign
would improve the reliability through consideration of physical
phenomena associated with the potential failure. The redesign
may include additional margins of safety, change of materials,
process controls, environmental control, or specialized testing
to inhibit or control that particular mode of failure.
In order to provide a basis for loss reduction task-, the de-

signei systematically ranks the failures in tei.• of heir pro-
babilities of failure and their associated losses. Action is
taken to prevent the occurrence of high loss failures. HIign loss
failures are attacked by the following schemes:
1. Schemes to prevent component failures. These s-hemeF in-

volve:
a. Redesign which accomplishes one or more of the following:

12-17
1) Reduce the cause of failure

2) Design around failure mode
3) Reduce the effect of failure
b. Modify maintenance schedules or instructions
2. Schemes to prevent the propagation of failure effects.

These schemes involve:
a. Monitoring to detect component failures whose effects

may cause a loss event, and give suitable warning.
b. Counteraction which accomplishes one or more of the

following:
1) Nullifies the effects or conditions leading to loss

events or protects agains them. (This includes
crew escape, for example).
2) Controls )r deactives components, systems, etc., so

as to halt qeneration or propagation of harmful
effects.
I) Activates backup or standby units or systems to

restore interrupted functions.
4) Replaces failed components if practicable
4. SUMMARY
The y•, erall;" accepted definition of reliability implies the

assginment of a function or set of ta, ks for tl e equipment and
as',oci,. ed perzronnel to perform. Also implied is the definition
of a failure state or mode for each task, so that +he probability
of a ;y.tem being in one or the other of two exclusive states,
success - failure after some period ot time, may be estimated.
¶,,echanical reliability is much more a conditional probability
tuan we are used to considerino it for elect-ronics. The condition
aipplied ib the prooability of system failure given chat component
failure occurs. Failure modes and effects analysis is the meth-
c)dical evaluation of this condition. The future path of relia-
bility anal 'sis will include studies in depth on the physics of
fa-luic (9) u-sing techitiques such as the Failure Modes & Effects
Analysis t- improve our capability of reliable uesign.
I 12-18
REFERENCES
1. Study of Maintenance Cost Optimization and Reliability of

Shipboard Machinery, Bazovskv, MacFarlane & Wunderman
S(AD 283428)
S2. Failure Analysis Dt:sign Review, General Electric Report

R60FPD476-1., March 1961
3. The Physical Basis of Failures, R. P. Hanland, General

Electric Co., 3 April 1959
4. Chance and .Wearout Failure Rates, I. Bazovsky, United Control

Corp., March 10160
5. Some Reliability Aspects of System Design, F. Moskowitz &

J. McLean, IRE Convention Record Vol. 4
6. Accelr-ated ;' 1, T
TP+ing, A. D. Pettinlat, -ADC and
R. L. McLauqhlin, RCA
7. An Organized Approach to Achleving Ultra-Reliability in P':o-

pulsior Systems, D. Bloom and H. N. Kitman, Douglas Report
#$149, ATAA Propulsion Meeting, Cleveland, Ohio, May 1964
8. Mlcrial Identification System, BuShips Instruction 4410.17
9. Physics of fiilure in Electronics, ',oldberg and Vaccaro

(AP 434329)
*
13-1
Chapter 13
DESIGN FOR RELIABILITY AND MAINTAINABILITY

Page
1. BASIC RELIABLE DESIGN 13- 4
1.1 Simplification Techniques 13- 5
1.2 Standardization 13- 7
1.2.1 Standard Values 13- 7
1.2.2 Standard Part- 13- 7
1.2.3 Standard Components 13- 7
1.2.4 Standard Systems Subsystems & Major
Components 13- 8
1.2.5 Standard Design Methods 13- 9
1.2.6 Standard Analysis Methods 13- 9
1.2.7 Drafting Standards 13- 9
1.2.8 The Military Standards System i5-10
1.3 Stress/Strength Design 13-10
1.3.1 Derating 13-10
1.3.2 Rcliability Margin 13-10
1.3.3 Stress/Strength Testing L3-11
1.4 Toierance Evaluation 13-12
1.4.1 Worst-Case Tolerance Analysis 13-12
1.4.2 Statistical Tolerance Analysis 13-13
1.4.3 Marginal Checking 13-19
1.5 Failure Rate Prediction 1>3-21
1.5.1 "Generic" Data in Design 13-21
1•5.2 Source Data for Design 13-22
1.5., Tost Data 13-22
1.6 Hluan Engineering 13-22
1.7 Failure Cause & Effect Avoidance 13-23
1.8 Preventive Maintenance 13-23
1.3 Producibility 13-24
I.q.1 Procurability 13-24
1.9.2 Manufacturability 13-24
1.9.3 Testability 13-24
1.10 Supplier Evaluation & Control 13-24
2. RELIABILITY IMPROVEMENT 13-25

2.1 Evaluation Tests 13-26
2.2 Local Environment Control 13-27
2.2.1 Temperature 13-27
2.2.2 Humidity 13-27
2.2.3 Radiation 13-29
2.3 Failure Prefiction Devices 13-29
2.3.1 Temperature 13-29
2.3.2 Sound 13-29
2.4 >nn¾
2.., 21u Vu,.c t i)f( .1?'(iofldanCV, 13-33

O.5.r 00I I ] d: 1 i¾. I 3- 3 3
2.5.3 Override:, 13-33

2.5.4 Stressed Redundancy 13-3 3
2.5.5 Sequential Redundancy 13-335i-
2.5.6 Redundancy Lex -1 13-35
2.5.7 Parts Redundancy Confiquration 13-37
2.5.8 Coi-secquences of Redundancy 13-37
2.6 Parts Im-rovement 13-39
3. MAIN'TAINABILTTY DESTGN,
3.1 Simplificat ilon 13-40
3.2 Standardization Desig:z 13-40
3.3 Modular Des ign 13-40
3.4 Ad14 ustments 13 -40
3.5 Failure Effect Provis.i.on 13-.40
3.6 Accessibilitry 13-40
3.7 Safety 13-41
3.8 Evaluation Tests 13-41
3.9 Identification 13-41
3.10 Total Maintenance Policy 1-1-41
3.11 Failure Detection & Isolation Devices 13-41
4. RETERENCES 13--42
13-3
AA Chapter 13
DESIGN FOR RELIABILITY AND MAINTAINABILITY
The requirement for very high reliability in weapons systems and

critical systems aboard ship runs into two roadblocks -- cost of
achievement and time required for development. In establishing
the minimum acceptable reliability, the only realistic initial
basis is the amount of risk (that the system will not work when
required) that the opwrational commander is willing to accept.
Once the risk is established, then the decision to proceed with
the development -- or cancel it -- will be made on the basis of
priority of need, cost and time. If the acceptable risk is too
costly or takes too long to get, it may be desirable to trade re-
liability for other per fcrmance capability.
As we ha%,e pointed out before, the efficient way of achieving

required reliability is in the initial design. If tLis can be
done, i' eliminates many of the costs and delays associated with
improving the design to meet the requirements after production
starts and many of the costs of problems associated with unrelia-
bility of the equipment in operational use (ownership costs).
Reliability can be improved by the designer before the equipment

is constructed, before the design is released. This chapter will
discuss the accepted approaches the designer can use to achieve
the reliability requirement once he has ascertained that it will
not otherwise be met in the design. Here are the steps involved:
1. Verify Stated Requirements: Seldom does the bald quantitative

statement of required reliability and/or maintainability actually
convey the picture needed by the design engineer. There must be
thorough discussion of what, physically and specif-ically, is
meant by the numbers. Such discussion usually results in further
definition, if not actual change of the stated requirement.
2. Define Unacceptability: A reliability requirement has no

meaning until a very clean answer is .obtained to the question
"What, exactly, constitutes a failure?" This is particularly
difficult, and important, regarding the slow degradation of per-,
formance found in most systems. How much can a certain perform-
ance value, say accuracy, oegrade before it is judged a failure?
Often it is far more logical to use broader effectiveness criteria,
such as "fire-power" (1) instead of the black and white success or
failure. The same comments can be made about maintainability,
4 i.e., "What, exactly, constitutes excessive downtime?" And "Why?"
13-4
3. Dcsign for Required Reliability: When the requirement (and

meaning of failure) is understood, the designer proceeds with
tentative design, maintaining a current record of the status of
predicted reliability achievement but weighing each decision he
must make against the effect that the alternative selected will
have on the reliability, in the same way that he does weight, per-
formance capability, cost and delivery. His objective must be
to find the optimum combination of performance capability, weight,
cost, delivery and reliability that meets his functional require-
ment. Excess cvpability over that minimum requirement must be
weighed against consequences in terms of the constraints of cost,-
delivery, etc. If the tentative design for functional capability
fails to achieve the required reliability. The -ecial techniques
covered in this chapter should be applied to thb "nalysis.
4. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Once the design is complete to

the extent of specifying major components in detail, a rough cost-
effectiveness analysis should be made. Using the techniques of
chapter 26, and estimating the cost and time to design and manu-
facture for the tentative reliability and maintainability require-
ment values of MTBF and MTTR are aelected to optimize the cost
effectiveness relationship,
5. Modification and Recycle: As the design progresses to more

detailed component level, decisions will be made affecting the
iaeliability and maintainability. These must be evaluated against
their effects on total c6st and per forma, i-eq-ir an -modi
-- fying
the requirements as necessary to optimize the cost-effectiveness
achieved.
1. BASIC RELIABLE DESIGN
As a result of many years and cycles of product design, manufac-

ture, operational experience, and .consequent design improvement,
most contractors have built up a comprehensive set of standard
practices. These practices assure "good" design by the traditional
criteria.
"•ut the criteria have changed. Military product complexity has

made the previous st'ardards of reliability unacceptable. The
loss of system effectiveness, the excessive maintenance cost,
and the unavailability Qfbaintenance skills have demanded new
reliability criteria.
So in addition to the 'cstablished standard "good" engineering

practices, which are beyond our scope here, basic reliable design,
13-5
demands the additional formalized practices, many of which are

extensions of standard "good" engineering practices, outlined in
this section. These are the techniques to be applied to every
design to a reliability requirement.
1.1 SIMPLIFICATION TECHNIQUES
Hardly anybody doubts that the way to get real reliability is to

make it simple. Like an ash tray. Yet often it will not occnr to
some com~uter people that a slide rule, or a pencil and paper,
may be adequate and more reliable for some tasks than a computer.
Or to system designers that a iydraulic or mechanical system may
be much simpler and more reliz.ble for some tasks than an electrical
system. Or vice versa.
The average design engineer can get preoccupied with elegance.

He has been so encouraged to dream of new ways to get more Der-
formance capalility, without much regard to reliability or cost,
that complexity is accepted as inevitable. But it isn't.
For many yearEs now the "value analysis" techniques have enjoyed
growing recognIti.on and acceptance, and they have produ,::ed re-
markable cost reductions. GeneraLly the procedure is to put a
team to work on a released (in manufacture) design, with leader-
ship and instructions (2) through the "information, creative,
evaluation, investigation, and reporting" phases. True value
analysis, where adequate performance, including Reliability, i.s
maintained by a simpler or less expensive equipment, is not the
same as "cost reduction" which may accept reduced performance or
even reduced reliability to achieve cost savingsf.
Virtually all such analyses have been applied to existing designs,

to reduce manufacturing cost through substantial simplification.
But inany times a substantial potential cut -.n manufacturing cost
would be offset by an increased logistic and maintenance cost, 30
the customer cannot approve it. The real objective to the user
is not manufacturing cost reduction, but total cost-effectiVeness
improvement. And reliability is a major effectiveness element'*'
Many, if not most, such analyses result in reliability improve-

ment, usually as a byproduct of simplification. So i~t becomes
obvious that the same techniques can be used for deliIberate re-
liability improvement. Following is a typical "value-engineering"
phase description, but modified to achieve optimal reliability:
Information Phase: Obtain full information on the design require-

ments, distinguishing the mandatory from merely desirable, and
13-6
analyse relative to realistic needs and constraints. Specifically

inclitcde reliability and maintainability, obtain full information
on the proposed or released design, including predicted reliability
and maintainability, and acquisition (design & manufacture) and
ownership (operation and maintenance) costs, using the best avail-
able sources.
Determine the basic and secondary functions of the design, using

verb-noun definitions ("transmit torque", "protect surface",
"conduct current", etc.) Segregate portions of functions into
sequence.
Creative Phase: Use the "brainstorming" technique (3) to list

all possible alternative ways of performing .the required functions
defined above. Avoid negative ("It won't work") judgment while
generating as many simple and direct ideas as possible, and re-
cording them. Group action is necessary for triggering ideas in
each other.
Evaluation Phase: Evaluate each of the above ideas on the basis

of effectiveness, or the best reliability and/or availability
that satisfies functional performance requirements. Then evaluate
each for total cost of design, manufacture, operation, logistics,
and maintenance over the system useful lifetime. Consult with
specialists, suppliers, and the customer as necessary. Don't re-
invent something already available, if the available one is adequate.
Finally reconstruct the list in decreasing order of apparent ratio

of effectiveness to total cost, using quantit'ative evaluations
where feasible. Such ordering decisions are usually meaningful
olily when comparisons can be made.
Investigation-Phase: using the above basic and secondary functions,

determine the reliability, maintainability, and total cost of each.
Compare these with target values obtained from other applications
of the same function. Consider all standard components available.
Work on specific9, not *•.noralities. Select the best one or two
ideas on the basis of the detailed analysis.
Reporting Phase: Provide a concise report for design use and

documentation, including all data sources, analyses, and logic
leading to the selection.
Reference (2) provides a checklist to indicate some approaches

for value engineering ideas.
Above all, there is far greater advantage in application of these

13-7
techniques long before release to manufacture, after which change

becomes an order of magnitude or two more costly. They can be
used by conceptual, system, and component design engineers on
purcly paper designs.
1.2 STANDARDIZATTON
There is a place in research and development for new ideas, but

once the state of the art is advanced, the developme'nt should be
based on system effectiveness. Many design engineeru have resisted
standardization, on the ground that it restricts their freedom
for exercise of unbridled creativity and "progress" to new things.
Now that we have altered the objective from "new things" to "things
that keep working", such resistance amounts to poor engineering.
But unless such standards are kept vigilantly up to date with

advancing state of the art, they can discourage initiative for
new developments. They must be constantly reviewed to add new
standards. In the case of :new physical hardware standards, very
thorough reliability verification must precede their establish-
ment prior to withdrawal (for new design) of obsolete standards.
The American Standards Association (4) has been establ.Lshed for
national approval of standards sources and for distributicon of
mnany standards. Now let's review those pertinent to our needs.
1.2.1 Standard Values: There is often quite substantial econ-

omic and reliability benefit in the establishment of standard
sizes and values to be used by all contractors and the government
to mutual advantage. Chapter 18 provides some detailed examples
for parts. Another very familiar example is screw sizes.
Bat the same principle can apply at aity level. We have largely
standardized desk heights at 29". Automobile Widths are fairly
standard. Electrical power systems operate at quite standard
voltages and frequencies. The result is higher quantities,-and
better testing of any one standard design, thus better reliability.
1.2.2 Standard Parts: The establishment of standard- parts

designs can provide a manufacturers cost r.ýduction, higher relia-
bility, contractors cost reduction, ownership cost reduction,
better operational data, and better control of tolerance limits.
Dretails are given in chapter 18.
1.2.3 Stanaard Components: (such as regulator valves or ampli-"
fier circuits) can be dither selected from available supplier
products or developed by the design engineer, for wide use across
a range of higher-level designs. MIL STD 242E provides standard
13-8
components for electronics use.
The above considerations for parts apply equally well to components,

though there are fewer such standards and they are more complex.
Many companies maintain a file of thoroughly-proven circuits,
which may be either used directly or modified to avoid the unre-
liability and cost of complete reinvention. But, sadly, the amount
of such reinvention in the U. S. must be staggering, for sheer lack
of communication and other reasons.
1.2.4 Standard Systems, Subsystems and Major Components (such

as a hydraulic servo system), made up of components, can likewise
be established and used across many higher-level systems. The
Air Force has established a "standard launch %rehicle" for this
reason. Reliability improvement always results.
1.2.5 Standard Design Methods (such as hull girder strength) can
be established for mandatory use by design engineers. Over a
period of more than 100 years, by reiterative sequential correc-
tion and improvement of design as errors and problems are identi-
fied in actual operational use, many-technologies have developed
standard "rules" codes", specifications, etc. tiat are very
widely accepted. Basically they are empirical rules that result
in high quality, reliability, and safety.
Competition eventually prevents them from approaching overdesign,

except to the extent that they sometimes lag state-of-the-art
material technology. Nevertheless; adherence to such rules and
codes does assure "high" reliability and safety, but does not
necessarily achieve the best or optimum value of reliability in
4
relation to acquisetion and ownership cost. Here are three
examples.
Rules for Building and Cl2assifyinq Steel Vesels (5) is Ln excel-

lent compendium of rutles, containing the following subjectst
a. Rules for Construction & Classification of Steel Vessels

b. Rules for Construction & Classification of Machinery
c. Rules for Inspection and Testing of Materials
d. Rules for Fire Pumps and Fire Extinguishing Systems
e. Rules for Surveys after Construction
f. Tables of Scantlings
g. Tables of Equipment
h. Load Line Markings
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (6) has the objective of -
providing "reasonably certain protection of life & property, and
13-9
to provide a margin of deterioration "(wearout reliability)" in

service so as to give a reasonably long "(reliability)" safe period
of usefulneis. Advancements have been recognized. Interpretations
are published in the magazine Mechanical Engineering as "Code
Cases". The major sections are
1. Power Boilers
2. Material Specifications
4. Low-Pressure Heating Boilers
7. Suggested Rules for Care of Power Boilers
8. Unfired Pressure Vessels
9. Welding Qualifications
National Electrical Safety Code (7) applies to; ground installations
rather than shipboard, and is legally binding in most U.J S. muni-
cipalities. It is approved by the American Standards Association
(4) as an American Standard. Decisions are made by sectional com-
mittees, and approved by the American Standards Association. Its,
content is :
1. Rules for the installation and maintenance of electrical

supply stations.
2. Rules for the installation ahd maintenance of electric
supply and communication lines.
3. Rules for the installation and maintenaace of electric
utilization equipment (conductors, fuses, circuit breakers,
motors & machinery, storage batteries, transformers,
lighting, appliances, cranes, elevators, telephone appar-
atus).
4. Rules for the operation of ,iac.ric equipment and lines.
5. Rules for radio installation.
1.2.6 Standard Analysis Methods (such as reliability prediction)

can be established for applicable use by design and reliability
engineers. Such .methods are covered in other chapters of this
course. Some government agencies and contractors h',ve attempted,
to establish specifications and mandatozy analysis techniquesa -
that work nicely for some limited scope of problem, but whiich do
not work for many other problems. Analysis standardization" is
useful to the extent that its applicability limitatiow aref
recognized.
1.2.7 Drafting Standards help to assure that drawings and ¾
specifications are consistent, legible, and complete, thus mini. ,
mizing human error and consequent system unreliability.
F
13-10
1.2.8 Theilita- r Stanards. SterM (Mil-Std) provides nany

stan('ards for computati on, analvsis ind manacgernent. For the
major reliability an( maintainability -ý!tunda:ds, see Chapter 17.
1.3 STRESS/STRENGTH DESIGN
The classical and completely valid approach to desiun is to give

every part enough strength to handle the worst stress it will
encounter. Hundreds of books such as Mi]-I{bk-5 (10) are avail-
able providing data on the strength of materials, and somr- of
these provide limited data on strength degradation with time,
resulting fron fatigue.
But when we come to design for a specified reliability, the

traditional 6Ad common use of "safety factors" ar, 9 "safety margins"
is inadequate. We have to design ir!such a way that w- can at
least roughly predict either (aW, the MTBF of the design in
operational use, or failing that (b) the probability that stress
will not exceed strength. At least three approaches have been
developed:
1.3.1 Derating: Intuitively every design engineer feels that

reliability is improved by using parts rated much higher than the
expected stress. That is, he "derates" the parts tor his appli-
cation. Tt is equivalent to increasing the safety factor".
Unfortunately this practic.. also increases cost. weight, and
volume. If operational experience shows no failures, he never
knows how muc.,, if any, unnecessary cost, weight z-d volume he
has incurred. We are all aware of such examples of "overdesiqn".
Nevertheless, judicious derating is a powerful aid to reliability.
Parts derating is covered in Chapter 18.
1.3.2 Reliability M~argin: In the absence of adequate failure

rate data, which absence is common in mechanical and structural
fields to date, a second approach is available. Robert TD'-ser
i.z~ j ..... t i.,
-, . Kececioglu recently published
a technical summa-y ('0C Mf the techniques, with many references.
The method is covered in detail in Chapter 7.
Nearly all design involves many assumptions to avoid unjustifi-

able volume of analysis or test cost. The outlined approach
permits design to predictable reliability, b't does not insure
against design errors of assumption, analysis, omission, etc.
Verification is mandatory if high reliability is to be achiev d.
Possible activities in the verification area should include:
1. Conduct independent 'Leliability Margin analysis: An

13-11
independent reliability analysis of the design, by

analysts other than those who conducted the design pre-
diction, pays div4.ends. A fresh viewpoint, alternative
analytical methods, etc., nearly always turn up details
worth ch3nging before the design is too far committed to
manufacture.
2. Conduct tests to failure for critical margins: When the

above design approach is used, probably all critical
margins have become well-known to the design engineer.
Listing the first dozen or two of these in the order of
increasing Reliability Margin, he can then estimate what
a series of simple tests to failure for each would in-
volve in cost and time. Or it may be feasible and more
conclusive to design fewer tests to failure of a higher
system level to achieve the required verification. Ten
lunar Excursion Module prototypes, for example, will be
used for such tests to failure.
3. Modify the design and/rr material: Independent analysis

and test to failuru are of course worthless unt 4 .1 their
lessons are translated to design improvement. Surprisingly,
this is sometimes resiste4.
1.3.3 Stress/Strength Testing! When distributicrt data is not

obtainable for the above analytical approach, yet the design
reliability in a critical matter, it may be necessary to coniuct
experimental tests. Tests to determine stress distribution in a
prototype are fairly straightforward and non-destructive, using
instrumentation such as strain gages, plastic models and polarized
light, etc. To the extent that such tests can simulate the
manufacturing variances, operational environment, external
stresses, and time effects, the results can be quite dependable.
But tests of strength distribution are much more difficult,

expensive, and time consuming. If the design engineer can identify
specific local areas of critical doubt, a series of comparatively
simple tests can be designed, wherein stress is repeatedly in-
creased until failure occurs, providing a rough strength distri-
bution curve for the local area. On the other hand it may be more
convincing, if not more economical to test an entire prototype in
the saone manner, so that all interactions are accounted for,
repairing failures each time they occur. Of course as strength
inadequacies are thus brought to light, the design is changed to
get required strength.
Such stress/strength testing should not be confused with simple

12-12
"overstress' testing, which determines only that, the des in does
not fail at some specified stress abov:- the operational leyel.

"Overstress tescing does not generally determine strength.
1.4 TOLERANCE E,'ALUATIGN
In ouanti' manufactvre, all parts characteristics have statistical

distributions. That is, any one characteristic (such as iength -r
resiFtance) has a nominal or mean value, and a variance above and
below it. We call the extre-te values of the variance 'tolerances
These distribiutions are basically affected by manufacturing lo
ana by techniques for selection of close-tolerance parts out of
wide-tolerance lots.
-n addition to such manufacturing variance there is application

variance regardless of quantity. That is, there are distributions
of each characteristic resulting from envirorunent (temperature, etc.)
stress (pressure, voltage, etc.), and tiume (cold flow, drift, aginq,
ctc.). Such distributions or tolerances must be added to the manu-
factur-nq distributions or tolerances in order to determine the
real operational distribution.
A design Lis never complete until the design engineer has made sure
that the distributions or tolerances cannot combine in such a way
as to interferc with the intended function. In a complex circuit,
mechanism, or structure it is necessar-y to co..s ider the overall
effect of the expected range cf manufacturing v-riance, operational
environment and all stresses, and the effect of time. Three
qeneral types of evaluation are used for this -urpose-
1.4.1 Worst-Case Tolerance Analysis: For maximum producibility

and reliability the design c-igineer often atteupts to design the
equipi'- it to perform ptoperly witn all parts simultaneously at their
tolerance limits, and in such a direction as to produce the greatest
deviation of nominal performance. For relatively 4imple anfigura-
tions this is usually easy to do, and quit- effective.
But for the more complex mechanisms and circuits, such an attempt
will often fail because even the best and highest precision parts
will not have small enough tolerances. In other cases the tolerance
problem may be so solved, but at the expense of complicating the
mechanism or circuit to the extent that overall reliability suffers.
Some standard computer programs are available for such worst-case

analysis -f complex systems But it siould be kept in mind that
worst-cast tnalysis com.putes a situation which will probably never
occur, ano which therefore leads to tighter toler-nces, higher
man act,,ir ,Iv C.s t an,, '>~ae reia~bility thian are

real 1 y needed. T-he c~siin 11 bie extremel1vy i:iiable. but not
costefe
ci l.
_4.42 'Statistical Tolerance nalvs. Fo)rtunately the prob-

abl-iiity that all the iParts will exist at t.,leir maximu.mr tolerances
-i.-n.ltancou.s lv is \'erv r emote. Let us inv.est ioate the manner in
wh i cf the iniividua'L parts tolerances affll t the over-all toler-
ance. Thi-s effect of indiv ika 1 tc lerance rums the has is f-,. the
statistical approach to circuit xdesirqn. The followingý m-aterial
is fro-m reference (11) which is an ab~stract of detail. procedures
ir ref-_,encý (8). See als;: reference~s (112, 13, 14).
Tt is well k,--w,.n that many production parts have a normai1 or

Gaussian frequenc-y distribuition as illustrated in the follo-wing
example. Suppose that measurent-ents were !,iaCde of the values ot a
larg.e quantity of capacitors of the same nomina' value and +10%
tolerance. Plottin~i vertically, the numnber of7 capacitors in each
1%int~erval of capacitance will usu lly result in a h2istoaram
si-ilar to the one shown in Floure313 4.7s the quantity of capaci-.
tors measured is increased and thle capacitance intLerval is narrowed,
the i,-,.výeope of the Inistograrr will form a normal distriblLution
cu'rve as shown. Th'is curve is svmnmetrical about the average and
asympt~otic at the base.
The total area under -the curve rernrescn-ta: all the '-apacitors. The
area bo)unded by +c covers 6.%of the total area; that is, 66.3%
Oil the capacitors are in'-luded by 4a About 95.5% of the capacitors
are included by +-2a and 99.7% are included by +3a. The manufactur-
ing tolerance will usually correspond to +3v or qreater, depending
upon the degree of production control; that. is, 0.3% or less of
the parts usually will be out of tolerance. of course, additional
variations in capacitance will result when the capacitors are sub-
ject-ed to conditions of operation and envi~ronment.
Even when individual part~s values are no.-t normally distributed,

their associatzed circuit output variaitions will be nearly normally
distr-ibut-ed because of combination efferts,
It I's important that engineers design hardwaro that A~eets tolerance

specifications in a very high percentage of the equipmnents built,
bo~t~h froan production and reliability standpoints. To illustrate
with an oversimplified example, cc, -:.der a circuit ýhich, in pro-
duaction, must meet a tolera~nce of 97 to 103 volts output (Figure
13-15A~. If the actual design allows production to meet this specifi-i
cation to the 3-sigma limits of a typical normal distribution as
shown in rigure 11..dS(A), the're are only 3 oiiL of 1,000 circuits
1314
-- -- - - -
IAE
CI") _ _ __3
slu ozquuOI~ll
13-15
14J
00
-a)
C,13
~s-pun jo iaqwnu o)A-plall~

I
i3-16
ich require parts changes t Swh

m eet the specification.
In many instances, however, designs have allowed production to

meet the specification only to the 1-sigma limits, as :Thovn in
Figure 13-15(B), whence 100 tires as many circuits (31.7%)
require costly parts changes involving special selection to meet
the specification. This results in a nearly rectangular diF;tri-
bution. With this distribution, there are, of course, many more
circuits near the specification limits than in the case of Ficiure
13-15(A).
If severe environments and operating conditions allow only equip-

ments using those circuits measuring between 98 and 102 volts on
the production line to "hit the target", about 30% of the equip-
ments using the circuits of Figure 13-15(B) would fail to do their
job, compared to only 4% failing with the circuits of Figure 13. 15(A).
Thus, much higher reliability results in the latter case, even
though the circuits met the specification in both cases. From
this example, it is easy to see why we are striving for designs
to meet at ].east the 3-sigma limits for their tolerances without
rework, both from production and reliability standpoints.
Let us now see, with the aid of the following examples, how
tolerances combine to meet the foregoing objectives.
Examp•le 1: Series Resistance Tolerance: When parts values

having a normal frequency distribution ar. c_'mbined, the
resultant value will exhibit a tolerance advantage. If' three
such resistors (3,000 ohms, 2,000 ohms, and 1,000 ohms) each
of +10% tolerance are connected in series, the total
re.;istance expected will be:
RS = 6,000 + /3002+ 200=+ i00• 6,000 t 374 ohms - 6,000 1 6.2%
This will be the combined value with the same probability

that each resistor range is ±10%; thdt is, if the tolerance
of each resistor is ±10% in 99.9% of the cases, the sum will
be 6,000 ± 374 ohms in 99.9% of the cases. If more resistors
are combined, the over.-all tolerance improvement will be
greater.
Combined tolerance = ts -- /t+ t<+ t_ + .,,.tn
where t1 , t2 , etc., are the individual tolerances, each of

which must contain the same number of sigmas. The r-esulting
combined tolerance will also contain this same number of
standard deviatiins. That is, if
3,1
St
13-17
t= AcT , t:2 ý A02 Ietc. where A is some constant.
then
t Ac
Sum sum
Thus, it is seen that the equation for ts above is derived
from the more b-isic equation
2 2 + C 2
It is preferable, wherever possible, to express a result as

a sum of values to utilize the mathematics of probability
more easily. In many cases, this can be done by using the
logarithms of values which are to be multiplic-1 or divided
and by using the reciprocal of values which cxmbinr in the
same manner as parallel resistances.
Ex2amle 2: 7-Staqe I-F Amplifier Gain Variations. Let us

check a 7-stage i-f amplifier for gain limits, where each
stage uses the same tube type with a bogey transconductance
of 5,000 microhms and a 1-kilohim composition load resistor
(very lightly loaded). The tube and resistor variations used
are those given in reference (8), wherein the * values are
the 3-sigma Limits for normal distributions centered about
the values preceding them.
For Lowest Expected Gain:
Tube Contribution:
(q., low by 21% `C5%)
9m = 5,000 (0.79 - 0.15) = 3,950 t 750
Gain per stage (nominal rj) = gmr 1 = 3.95 ± 0.75 = 11.9 ± 1.7 db
Tube and Resistor Contribution:
r, low by 8.5% i 6.7% contributes a decrease of 0.77 db
± 0.64 db
Then gain perstage 11.9 db - 0.77 db ± 1.7 db ± 0.64 db
- 11.13 ± I72+ 0.642 db

13-18
7-stage gain = 7 x 11.13 , /7(1.72+ 0.64 2 )db = 77.9 + 4.8 db
For Highest Expected Gain:
Tube Contributio.n:
(gm high by 15% ± 15%)
gm = S,000 (].15 ± 0.15) = 5,750 + 750
Gain perstage (nominal r , ) = gmr = 5.75 ± 0.75 = 15.2 + 1.1 db
Tube and Resistor Contribution:
r, high by 12% ± 5.4% contributes an increase of 1 db ± 0.4 db
Then gain perstage = 15.2 + 1 ± 1.1 ± 0.4 db = 16.2
± 11.12 ±- 0.4' db
7-stage gain = 7 x 16.2 t I!7(1.1' ± 0.4 2 )db = 113.4 ± 3.1 db
Therefore, the gain of this amplif er under typical production

and operating conditions is expect id to lie between 73.1 db
and 116.5 db. During the past several years in which i-f
strips have been in production at Mctorola, this gain varia-
tion has been shown.
Through use of these principles, other more complex circuits
have been successfully investigated to determine whether or
not they had adequate safety margins to meet their required
tolerances. This approach has been valuable not only in
avoiding production of unreliable equi-ment, but also in
avoiding the wasted breadboak-ding of circ.its which are in-
capable of performing consistently within required limits.
Reference (8) provides some electronic [art variance data updated

to March 1963. Some parts tolerance dati is provided in chapter
18.
The design engineer can adjust part tolerances (distributions)

until the probability of acceptable component performance is at
least equal to required component reliabili:y. Rigorous such
analysis can be very complex, often requiring a computer. But
it leads to actually needed part tolerances, minimum manufac-
turing cost, and required reliability. The design will approach
the correct reliability needed for best cost-effectiveness, but
.|
13-19
not necessarily the hiqhest possible reliability.
1.4.3 Marginal Checkjna has been developed (reference 15) to

(a) make graphically clear, in an explic-t quantitative way, what
tolerance a given circuit has to varitiJons in its components,
and (b) provide a method, usable in the later systems phase, of
preventive maintenance that will adequately core with the pro-
blems of Ureventive maintenance that will adequately cope with
the problems of component deterioration. Such a method has been
extensively used in the design phases of large real-time control
s-ystems, as well as in day- Ly-ddy operation of such systems.
This section discusses the use of marginal checking in the design

phase. The allowable variation of a component is determined as
fici•r•n of a qolected circuit parameter, usually a supply
voltage. This measure the margins or circuit p0 e in
terms of the marginal-checking parameter.
In practice, the tolerance of one of the components in the

circuit is plotted against the variation in this marginal-checking
parameter, as illustrated in Figure 13-20. The intersection of
mean-value and normal marginal-checking parameter lines near the
center of the parabola indicates the operating point of the
circuit - normal voltage on the circuit and normal value of the
components. By considering the supply voltage as the marginal-
checking parameter and lowering it, a point is plotted on the
contour line where the circuit fails to perform. This failure
can be defined as the poirt at which the function of the circuit
deviates from that pre- ibed in the specification. In an
oscillator, for instance, the point at which the frequency shifts
out of tolerance can be considered failure; in a flip-flop, the
point at which some standard pulse fails to switch the position
may be failure.
Changing the tolerance on the component by .ome factor such as

10 per cent marginal-checking voltage will result in a different
failure point, such as Point 2 on the curve. Raising the toler-
ance of the component 10 per cent, another failure point, Point
3, can be plotted. Continuing this study, a contour represen-
ting the locus of the failure point of the circuit to tolerance
in componentry, as a function of some marginal-checking parameter,
can be drawn enclosing an area ot reliable operation. This sort
of study often results in finJing that the contour is not symme-
trical about the operating point, and that wide safety margins
occur on one side but very narrow margins occur on the cther.
It is interesting to note that such contours chanq- radically
4'<
I 3-21"
0 4-.
:74
E
z
'Al2
0 +
C> IIAI
13-21
with tht, type of circuit. In most cases, the contour would be a

Sclose-
l oop if the marginal-checking parameters c be varied 'ld
far enough without damaging the compr',onents- It i prnhhihy

evident tlhat plotting the curves and varying each of the com-
ponents in even a moderately complex circuit represents a rather
long and tedious study. how-wever the designer can hardly alford
to be ignorant of how much margin a circuit has before it will
fail. The acceptability of the circuit to the system car. be
based only on such knowledge.
On an experimental model or "breadboard" the effects of manufac-

turing variance, cold flow, drift, or aging can be simulated by
insertion of appropriate spacers or resistors, by altering
volt-ges or currents, etc. For example lowering electron tube
heater voltage simulates cathode deterioration, with correspon-
ding effect upon transconciuctance. Diode forward resistance may
be simulated by adding series resistors. Transistors having
tolerance limit values can be substituted to study the effects.
Brakes can oe douuea to stud: Lf, ef £t of wearout that leads to
fr ict ion.
To the extent that such tests can be conaucted under true opera-
tional environment and stress, they can be very useful. But the
analytical approaches are usually better able to fully account
for all manufacturing, environment, stress, and time factors, as
well as to provide derivative insight, and they are usually less
rOF- - I N),.
1.5 FAILURE RATE PREDICTION
When failure rate information is obtainable for any of the parts

or components comprising the tentative design, basic reliable
design demands that it be obtained and used as a tradeoff con-
sideratinn in each desioin decision.
1.5.1 "Generic" ":ita in Des ig'n: For a first approximation the

sources outlined in chapter 5 can be used to predict the designed
component failure rate. If the resulting prediction is an order
of magnitude higher (gay 5-to-l or 20-to-I) than the required
failure rate, then, in spite of "he data variability, the design
probably will have excessive failure rate. The designer then
has to do something to his desiion to get it down, and the list
of failure rates on his desiIn parts list will indicate where to
look for improvement.
For a particular design, a search of the reliability literature

will often turn up better data, particularly for parts and cor-
13-22
ý,onents not covered by the above sourres.
1.5.2 Source Piata for Design" Since the above generic data
tells the design engineer very little about the failure rates of
the specific parts or components he wa!, to use, he must get it
elsewhere. Some contractors have data collectirn systems that
collect failure mode, operating time or cycles, stress, and en-
vironment data on all parts and components they use. When the
accumulated time or cycles is great enough, such data will serve
very well.
Most parts and component manufacturers doing business withi the

military have no." had to collect such data on their own products,
from their own tests, from their customers, or from the military
users. Therefore a prime source of such data is tne manufacturer.
For competitive reasons he may refuse to publish -t, but it is
usually obtainable on a confidential or Informal bdsis, not to
be quoteu. Another way to get it is to ask for a quotation on
deli".ery of a number of parts that are guaranteed to meet the
specified reliability. ift the specified value is not realistic,
one will quickly find out what is.
Another source is the manufacturers customers who mav also be

less biased and more willing to provide it.
In any event, the contractors design engineer has to systemticallv

look for such specific data among such sources. It will not be
found in convenient handbooks.
1.5.3 Test Data: If satisfactory data cannot be obtained as

above, the contractor mdy need to conduct tests, or asK t•Le
suppliers tz' do it. See chapters 7 and 11. On the other hand
the reliability requirement may be so high that such t,-sts would
be too costly or take too long.
1.6 HUMAN FENGINEERING
All !yston ar hardware designs are operated by people, and

people make mistakes. Many such mistakes result in failure of
the system to perform its tunction. Thereforn human reliability
is just as important to system reliability as hardware reliabil-
ity, and often more so. The reliability of people, however, can
be remarkably influenced by the design engineer in many ways,
for which detailed treatment is given in chapters8 and 14.
13-23
1.7 FAILURE CAUSE & EFFECT AVOrDANCE
Chapter 12 provides the detailed techniques of P•::>ure Modes &

Effects analysis. This is a very powerful tool tli't works both
qualitatively and quantitatively. It provides remarkable visi-
bility to the design engiineer, so that he can design around
potential failures.
Each i-me a failure mode and its effect are established as above,
there are two avenues for potential reliability improvement. One
is to exar.ine what would cause the particular failure mode, and
to explore the possible ways that the design can be altered to
reduce or eliminate the cause without causinq some other failure
mode or effect. It works more frequently than might be imagined.
The other avenue is to examine the effects of each failure mode,

and to explore the possible ways that the design can be altered
to reduce or eliminate adverse effects without causing some other
failure mode or effect. This is the more com-mn',nly stated objec-
tive of such analybis.
1.8 PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE
'Whenever a part or component has a "wearout" failure rate

characteristic, m-aninq that attez some period of operaticn its
failure rate begins to ris-, obviously reliability is preserved
by timely preventive maintenance. Examples are (a) friction
interfaces such as cams, (b) members under hiqh fatigue stress,
,c) devices exposed to corrosion, etc.
The us'.ial experience with manuiacttuers recommended preventive

maintenance schedules, both in and outside the Navy, is that
they are not religiously followed. So failures occur. Theretore
if reliability is a prime objective, the contractors dpsign
engineer must make every effort to av-id the need for preventive
maintenance. Obviously this is not alwa ys possible, but all such
items must be included as failure modes in chapter 12. £
Where the need for preventive maintenance cannot be avoided, the V

design should provide for the lunqest possible period between
such maintenan:-e, and above all m-.st be consistent with the
overal!_ maintenance policy of section 4.9, the aveilability of
Skills, and accessibility as in section 4.6.
Finally, the technical manuals must emphatically call out the

schedule and importance of such maintenance to reliability, and
it's a ;ood idea to spot proinent labels like "Lube with xxx |
IIi
t
13-2
every 30 days" next to the fitting on the equipment itself.
Failure to ;dhere to preventive maiktenance schedules will always

reduce reliability.
1.9 PRODUC 5 ilITY
It is often alleged by contractors manufacturing departments,

sometimes with an element of truth, that "engineering is just
trying to design it so we can't make it." Or what might be
worse, "We'll make it that way regardless of cost or consequences."
The consequences are often unreliability. What are the elements
of producibility?
1.9.1 Procurabilit_: The t nmonest complaint is specification

of purchased components in such a way that they are obtainablc
from only one source. This places the proclirement penole at the
mercy of the supplier who can simply say "This is the best re-
liability ! can provide, but I can't guarantee what it is. Take
it cr leave it." Specification3 must be so written that thu
supplier knows what reliabili y he will have tc pro%,e to get
paid, and knows that one or two competitors can do it ii he does
not. Thus the reliability specification must be truly achiev-
able, verifiable, and competitive.
1.9.2 Manufactu:ability: A good design engineer must know the

machine tool capability of his factory, and the standaia parts
with which it has experience. Design within this capability and
experience permits the factory to very closely approach the
inherent design reliability.
Con ersely design requiring cormplex special tooling, special

parts, and exotic materials with which the factory has no
expcrience inevitably leads to poor reliability while the factory
learns how to deal with them. And the factory will not have
discovered a]l problems prior to delivery of the first product.
1.9.3 Testability: FrcqLu-.tly a design is such that it cannot

Oe adequately tested to some vital specification, an obvious
opportunity for unreliability. De:,-ign review (chapter 15) must
make sure that the expected assembly and test sequence is such
tha+- every speciticatior, can be tested. Of course this is
particularly true for reliability verification tests (chapter 11).
1.iO SUTPPLIER EVALUATION & CONTROL
The contractors design engineer is completely resp-int-ble for

13-25
seeing that his desiqn meats specifications in every respect.

Since a large part of most designs consists of components pro-
cured from suppliers, part of his jcb is seeing that they too
understand and can c-mcly with the reliability requirements.
Most contractors supplier survey systems evaluate the suppliers

"reliability program.", but do not evaluate the supplier design
engineers knowledge of reliability technology and the design
steps he is obliged to take on the specific design. Therefore
it is up to the contractors design engineer, with the assistance
of reliability engineers, to satisfy himself that the delivered
component will arrive with achieved and verified reliability.
There is no substitute for personal engineeriiig contact.
Detailed information on Fupplier Control will be found in

chapter 11".
2. RELIABILITY IMPROVE4ENT
W•hen "good" design practices are used,

and the above basic
reliable design techniques are used, the contractors design
engineer is often faced with the realization that his design
still does not have. adequate reliability. This section lists
the "strcng measures", usually expensive and time consuming,
that he can consider next.
Wlien the design is as simple as it can get, and its parts are of
the highest available reliability, but the predicted component
or system reliability is still far from the actual requirement,
what to do' Let's first list some things not to do, though they
are quite cunmonly encountered:
Do not let the contractor ignore the requirements, if it was de-

termined carefully via cost-effectiveness analysis at the next
and higher levels. It's just as important as a horsepower or
voltage requirement. If the higher reliability is in fact nut
achievable (seldom the case) then the analysis might show that
the maintainaoility requirement must be changed.
Do not let the contractor tell himself (or others) that "well
I'm very experienced in this field, and if this is the best I
can do, no one can ask for more." Someone can and had better,
if the system is to work as planned.
Do not let the contractor raise the predicted parts reliability

to make it come out right, gambling that the parts reliability
13-26
will be letter when it's built. Experience shows that typical

MTBF growth is only about 20% per year.
Do not ignore the potential advantage of Judicious redundancy,

whose reliability benefit can be phenomenal relative to the cost
and weight, if any, added.
Before embarking on the following programr, however, the designer

should seriously ask "Is this trip necessary?" He should go back
to the higher level source of the reliability specification,
explaining what is likely to be involved, to find out whether
the specification can be relaxed. Often as not it may be found
that the excess failure rate can be absorbed in some other part
of the system that now appears to have better than anticipated
reliability. Or sometimes he may find that the spc cification
was not .;o firm. after all, when the achievement cost and time
are considered.
2.1 EVALUATION TESTS
Perhaps the conmaonest approach to reliability improvement is the

construction of one or more models, prototypes, or "breadboards"
of the questionable portion of the design. Or the procurement
of a test quantity of components.
If stress/strength margin is the primary question, stresses are

measured under simulated load and environment, and strength
obtained by testing a number of units to failure. If tolerance
buildup is the question, a systematic worst-case simulation is
conducted. If human compatibility is the question, tests are
conducted using operators or maintenance people. If failure
effect is the question, failures are simulated. If producibil-
ity is the question, manufacture and assembly of the morlels will
show it.
If failure rate prediction is the question, it may or may not be

feasible to conduct life tests, depending upon mission time,
quantity cost, etc. "Accelerated" tests are frequently considered,
but unless a bona-fide correlation between operational and over-
stress can be proven. they are meaningless. For example trans-
istor failure rates at excessive temperatures can b- easily cor-
related to operational temperature, but this provides little or
no information about random failure rates for all causes at
operational temperature.
In all the above tests, the objective is to (a) determine pre-

cisely where and how it fails, (b) modify the desiqn to avoid
13-27
the cause or effect, and (c) recycle until the required reliabil-
ity is achieved (see chapter 11)
2.2 LOCAL ENVIRONMENT CONTROL
Often it becomnes apparent during design that the severe environ-

ment is about all that prevents achieving the required reliabil-
ity. The drsign engineer is faced with a choice between improv-
ing the component to wiý >stand the environment, or improving the
environment to satisfy the component. Such local environment
control nearly always adds 4eight, space and cost, so he has to
evaluate the tradeoff on the basis of cost-effectiveness.
Often ignored by the contractors design engineer is the harmful

effect of factory, transportation and installation environments,
as opposed to operational environment. Cross-country trucking
temperatures can get very high, and shock levels often far exceed
the operational specification. Obviously improved packaging and
special handling instructions mF " be necessary to preserve high
reliability.
Here are some examples of local environment control.
2 .2.1 Temperature: Figure 13-28 reproduced from reference (8)

shows the generalized effect of temperature on the failure rate
of electronic parts. Similar curves are available for many
specific electronic parts, and can be generated for many mechan-
ical parts. Thus to improve reliability the design engineer can
consider such provisions as freer convection, radiation fins,
forced air or water cooling, better heat source distribution,
reduction of heat generation, and even conventional refrigera-
tion. Of course as the means o. temperature control becomes
more complex, and its own reliability is taken into account, a
point of diminishing returns can be reached.
2.2.2 Humidity: High-impedance electronic circuits are

particularly sensitive to humidity, but low-impedancu transistor
circuits are seldom affected. Corrosion of mechanical and
electrical components is of course promoted by humidity. Control
can be effected by hermetic sealing, dessicants, air flow,
heaters, refrigieration, etc.
2.2.3 Vibration & Shock: General displacement of the vacuum

tube by semiconductors has greatly improved electronic circuit
reliability in vibration environment. Mechanisms are subject to
wearout unless designed for the vibration. Shock mounting can
be used to control the environment, if all possible excitation
-4
za
ZZ
00
H.LVHI R3)fLIV3 iA.LV'I3'H

13-29
Y frequencies are consiceted.
2.2.4 Radi<tion- Semiconductors are still very sensitive to

radiation, the effect beino a progressive deterioration. So are
people. The only z-ontrols are very heavy and bulky shields.
2 .3 FAILURE PREDICTION DEVICES:
Sometimes when there seems no feas~l]le way to improve reliability

of the components, and redundancy does not improve cost-effect-
iveness, ways can still, be found to detect an approaching failure
in time to head it off. The result is effective reliability
improvement. Here are some examples:
2.3.1 Temperature: We are all familiar with the widespread

use of temperature as a dependable indicator of trouble in
diesel engines, people, etc. Thermiometers and thermocouples are
designed into engine systems so that their operators can monitor
well-being and take steps to keep them from failing. Contacts
may be used to sound or flash alarm. Without such indicators
on manually-operated or maintained systems, they would be much
less reliable, and their failures more costly. Therefore the
lesson is to look for less-conventional places where temperature
monitoring can achieve still higher reliability.
2.3.2 Sound: Some mechanical systems telegraph incipient

failure to anyone attentive by increasing their operating sound
level (16). By spotting microphones at critical places and
periodically comparing sound level to a standard, one can record
the change from previous readings. If a previous correlation
has been established, the part can be replaced with one that
does not complain of poor health. Such provision can be designed
into the equipment to improve reliability.
2.3.3 Other Indicators: Similarly the design engineer should

consider whether substantial reliability improvement can be
achieved by monitoring pressure, humidity, vibration, etc.
Even time monitoring, fur wearout failure rate characteristics,
can be very useful.
2.4 COMPONENT INTEGRATION
The simplification techniques, such as value engineering,

achieve higher reliability via simplification usilig readily
,available components and materials. Component integration, a
close cousin, does it by deliberate multiple us- of common
pieces in such a way that the number of mechanical and chemical
interfaces is greatly reduced.
"' ,. .41i
13-30
Electronics: The prime example of such reliability improvement

is integrated ci.cuits wherein transistors, diodes, resistors,
and capacitors are all plated or evaporated onto an insulating
substrate, drastically reducing the number of soldered or welded
connections. The following is from reference (17):
The military effect on the progress of integrated circuits has

been twofold. First, new technology has developed, some through
the direct subsidy of military research and development, and
much more through the company-sponsored research stimulated by
this support. About $100 million of R & D expenditures escalated
from an initial Government expenditure of $2 million. The second
effect has been the military agencies' interest not only in using
integrated circuits but also in providing the market and the
motivation for suppliers to complete the development and establish
the production capability to supply this waiting market.
Military and space applications accounted for essentially the

entire integrated circuits market last year, and will use over
95 percent of the integrated circuits produced this year. Even
in 1970, these applications may well be using as high a propor-
tion as cc perccnt ý'f the circuits produced.
The "Dick Tracy wrist television set" characteristics of integrated

circuits are widely known, and there are tremendous size and
weight reductions in electronic equipment using these techniques.
In many applications, particularly those in which weight is
critical, these reductions are very important. This is not the
only attributu, however, that motivated military agencies to use
integrated circuits.
Reliability is the most important single factor. We have data

on two operating medium-sized computers that use integrated
circuits. The first is the Apollo guidance computer, designed
by MIT and built by Raytheon. It has accumulated 19 million
operating hours on its integrated circuits, in which time two
failures have occurred -- an initial failure, and the other a
failure, external to the package, that was caused by moving the
computer.
The second system, the MAGIC ., an airborne computer built by

the AC Spark Plug Computer Division, has accumulated 15-1/4
million hours with two failures. Fairchild's in-house life-test
program, with 33 million total operating hours, has had a total
of eight failures; of these, five accumulated during the first
6-2/3 million hours and only three occurred on more recent units
during the last 26-1/3 million hours.
13-31
These data are not extrapolated from accelerated tests, but are
actual, observed operational failure rates, and include early
production units in some cases. Considering the complexity of
the function performed by these circuits. the integrated circuit
equipment today is ten ti.-es more reliable than its discrete
component counterpart. As new failure modes, are identified and
eliminated, we may see substantial improvements in the reliabil-
ity figures. Extensive studies of this area is underway.
Today's integrated circuit, with minor exceptions, is just as

sensitive to nuclear radiation environments as were yesterday's
transistor equivalents. Tn some military and space applications,
this will place a serious limitation on integrated circuite that
uF- conventional transistors for the active elements.
The most liberal way to measure integrated circuit cost is to

neglect development expenditures and to consider the total
mission -- which includes initial cost, maintenance and repair,
spare parts, logistics, and delivery. For satellite applications,
with their premium on weight, integrated circuits are cheaper
to use than conventional circuits.
Prices of individual transistors supplied to military contractors

range from $3 to $5 in small quantity. In quantities of 50,000
or more, unit prices vary from 75 cents to $2, depending upon
transistor type. Tight screening and burn-in for higher relia-
bility will increase these. prices.
By comparison, if we consider only the transistors in an integrated

circuit, typical prices are about $4 per transistor in small
quantities; and in quaniitites of over 50,000 prices of $1.50 to
$1.75 are average. The reason for this lower cost is that the
silicon chip size of a typical 12-tiansistor circuit can be
smaller than that for the 2N1613 transistor.
Performance is another factor, and there are larqe areas of

electric equipment that cannot be equipped with integrated cir-
cuits. In general, the same limitations apply to integrated
circuits and transistors. For example, we cannot replace the
magnetron in the radar set, and it is difficult to make accurately
tuned circuits in integrated form.. However, many of the inte-
grated circuit limitations are being overcome rapidly.
In developing any new technology, schedule slippages are expected.

The electronic industry has a bad reputation in this area. There
are many cases where component manufacturers have commiitted them-
selves to a delivery schedule for integrated circuits and have not
13 -3?
met the oea 111 lo.
But as thie rjin,ýe .ct c ircuits available as off-the-shelf items is

expaný!-rl, thýe ic~s i :ners and manufacturers for the military market
will '_in:-i stand,, . ccmponents muchi more compatible with require-
ment~s. And1 as the components indus-.try gains experier.-e with
int-cir itcrl circ~iits of special design, manufacturing and delivery
schedules -,;ill be met on time.
Integrated circuits now satisfy many of the military and space

require-nents and there will be an increasing use of inuegrated
circuits "military systems. Today, the advanced Minut-man,
Apollo, Phoenix, anci all new military digital- computeis use
integrated circuits for the major part of their electronics
systems. With hiqhe'- reliabil~ty, lower cost, and better per-
forinance, man',' Missions once considered too imaginative have
become or are hecomrinqý both feasible and practical.
Hydraulic Systems: Rou-lhly, th-_ same principles have been used for
many years :or automatic transmissions and servos, where the
multiplicity of cylinclers, valvcc, pipes and connections are
rep Iack-1W
by comm~on castin.4 and far fewer paL t3. order of
magnitude re 1 action in the mechanical and chemical (curroqion)
interfaces orovides _,iqnificant reliability improvement.
Mechanicail stru.ctural :Des iqn: Trhe design engineer should look

for co-ý-iponent mnt eorati n opportunities via casting, forging,
Moldin 1, lati1nA', etc. Since the objective is reliability im-
prove-'.A~t And. o- total cost. redtuct ion, rather than just -tradi-
t iorna' I "n~ r in , cost reduct ion, thie des ion engi neer must
rec.a 1 t- old les o, th-umb) for such decis ions.
Rr-iun,;~.
cy I"t iou t mort- th.:±n one way t ,accomnplish a
unct I-' n oc
'~ Ciins! !ai lure ofthe primary means. We
N!. t (-.n S~ ~tc:~: s ik c use redaandancy except as a
last res-t r >ntnyi ISe -' ion" , etc. il.e such
%,.h
tae' -j 11-k 11C c-IfreCt ý.Sual ly they~ are nolt. 7here
are 71an%'. S *S ~ s r .;e. liberate redundancy provides
b t or It' -i'v t n* wi~th a totall cost reduction.
1. 3! ýI laok aprec i at ion byý les i~n eno ineers

it ." .. r' uniaC' can be nt roduced . if
A Po r c-r 1 io31 part h'-as low reIi abilIi ty, it do~es
notflt~~.:.,:1
: '11 -hatbacuuof that part, is the mos;t cost-
veffect i :te 'A<v to ate
I'm'u. Let 's rev iew the var ious approaches,
13-33
for which some detailed analyses are given in Chapter D.
2.5.1 Functional Redundancy: Whenever it is feasible to satis-

fy a required total function via multiplc components of smaller
capacity, such redundancy of the smaller components may get much
higher reliability without significantly increasing total cost
or weight. Considerations of flexibility of operation, consum-
ability, or sheer feasibility of capacity, often lead to the
same conclusinn.
Examples of functional redundancy are (a) a task force of ships

instead of one very large ship; (b) copilot, to take over both
jobs in emergency; (c) the shared-load fire control system shown
in Figure 13-34. The analysis (1) of such a fire control system
shows that the greatest Availability (A) improvement per unit
Acquisition Cost is obtainable in the radar.
2.5.2 Operational Mode: Many operational systems involve sub-

systems needed to perform different functions, but which can
pinchhit for each other, perhaps with -educed performance. An
example is radar and optical range and direction finding equip-
ment (18). They are each best for certain applications, but can
be used as backup for each other for limited ranges. At a higher
level one kind of ship can back up another in case of failure or
damage. At a lower level a double-reduction gear may be pro-
vided (19) to connect the ships gas turbine generator for direct
mechanical emergency propulsion.
2.5.3 Override: One man can monitor the action of many com-
ponents and, if they are designed for this capability, he can
"override" or compensate for component failure. This form of
red'indancy is so oxtremely common that we may not so recognize
it. Examples are automatic pilot override;, power steering
mechanical override. Even competent manaqg•ment provides such
Less
override redundancy to compensate for sub( -dinate failure.
common is provision :f automatic mechanicalrather than human,
override. But all possil'ilities should be weighed.
2.5.4 Stressed Redundancy: Wheii a particular component (or

part, subsystem, or system) is known to be relatively unreliable,
and no better component is obtainable for the required fuiction,
the dcsiqn enqineer may consider using two components in saich a
way that trhey are both operatinq, and therefore stressed. Often
it is called "parallel" redundancy, but this te,:', gets confused
w-ith parallel-vs-series c nfiguration.
Thus two pumps may be operated in parallel, either one cf which

13-34
F~n
>44
uL
00
z
can hancdle the load. Or t,-. n(,r, a I I' viva es i n ser ies,
where shut-o ff capabiI lty%must beass:.r-( Or foui resistors inA
series-parallel o)r in ",u id" Such re anda~icv h'j''l adds
weiqjht and cost , and cannot proviu.c e rý-liahililv -- ins -',ev-
able thru sequential Redundan,_ c.,escribeci below, -,ut hnas theA
distinct advant-ace of a,--oidino; the potert iol urinreliabi il y :of
automatic or manual switchin,: to "s~ares"
In a broad sense, streqq strenyIth desaiin (sect ion 2.4) to a high
I.
reliability marqin, Inolvinoj ces ion ,isi~n, more 7-iterial than is
necessary to handle the av.erao-e stress, is a r'- of stressed
redundancy. But the O-siurn enjifleer must realizt- that it is only
one of many such red'aidancl a iternatii"_Sa nd select the, mno.st
cost-e ffect ive.
2.5. 5 Sequent ial R<edundancy is ioerro''Is ion o t spare components

in such a was' that thiey are not stressed until Lriace into service,
so that loncqer effoctive lifr' can be expec-ted. often this is
called "standby" redundancy, which too eaii ets confused with
standby modes of operat ion in which many components, sorn-et.imes
all, are itresscd.
The effective reliability -lain, assumning instant switchinq with

10004, reliability, can be siQgnificant (20) as show.,n in Fiqure
13-16. Note that the pote-nt .. l gaiin. Cett, iorates as mission
time approaches the sinole-comr'onent YM-BF. And s-''it~china- is
never instant nor loO}> reliable.
Examples ot se-uent ial redund-incy are leo i rn.

Standby pumps are
0
co7mmonly provided1, not in operation, t, ",ack -the operatinci
p--iip. Cr it .i-a radio rec, ivoýrs are ot'e' hacked ..p with duplicate
rece iver's aut omat ioal1ly swthdonY1 %". '1( I euit~t n), i ie o)r s iqn alI
fails. Airport tower o)perators a.re bar-.ked uip with spare opera-
tors -.,ho onlyý fol,-low the atin
In'he broad sense cort ert ive 7Iai ntenarnce is actual iV seque-ntial
reduindancy, with much Ioroer t inie constants, and May he analysed
with the samne techniques. Skut a%.oAin it 'Il
te des ion eno_-ineers
job to- deternm'ine Whiat balance %4Isuchr, redundancy a lternat ives is
the Most effective.ýC
2. 5.6 Redundancy Le-e I Thi ic nct -i kin(- of redundancýy, the

level at which redundancy is used hasi muc-h i -pact upon the weight,
cost, and f~easibil~ity ot achievingi a uvnhigh -reliability.
Cons'-der a critical small' part whs ailuirc rate is 1000 'ail-
ures per million hcurs.ý S;i!;ce it is -ritical, it contributes
1000/1.0' hours to the failure rate ol the co,:rponent of which it
13-36
lo/1
ýZI
0-
A11I A
9 1 W'i1All
13-37
is a part, and to the next level subsystem, system, and opera-

tional system failure rates. Design action to mitigate or com-
pensate for it can be taken at any level. And sometimes it is
much easier or more cost-effective to compensate at sorie other
level.
Moreover the effective MTBF is vitally affected by the number of

"modules" into which the system can be divided, assuming a given
number of "spares" is ready for each of all modules (21). Figure 13-
38 shows that lower-level redundancy (more modules) is more effec-
tive, but not necessarily the most economical. One can divide
the relative MTBF values by number of spares (say 70/5 = 14,
or 25/3 = 8.3) to see that order of magnitude reliability im-
provement per "spare" is achievable.
Often redundancy is achieved at the system level, .such as the

multiplexing of two large computers (22), or backup of a vehicle
with another complete vehicle. For complex systems it is then
often found that the automatic switching systems become so complex
(and design is unproven) that their poor reliability prevents
significant improvement of overall reliability.
2.5.7 Parts Redundancy Configuraticn: Hundreds of references

are available analysing the reliability of parallel, series,
series-parallel, quad, and other configurations, for "open" and
"short" circuit. Many such arrangements are commonly used in
design, the "quad" being favored recently (23). The same princi-
ples apply to higher levels, but then complexity makes them diffi-
cult to apply. Such analyses will be found in Chapter 5.
The quad configuration uses four components in series parallel, as

in the example in Chapter 5, Figure 5-28. If the component were
a valve, failure of one valve in the "short" mode (failure to
stop the flow when required) would not cause system failure,
since the other three would effectively stop the flow. Likewise
failure of one valve in the "open" mode (failure to permit flow)
would not cause system failure since the opening of the other
three valves would permit flow. The quad combination, so used,
protects against single failure in either mode.
2.5.8 Consequences of Redundancy: The major disadvantages of

using redundancy to solve a reliability problem are weight, cost
and complexity. Usually, (but not always) providing back up
systems, parts or components adds the weight and cost of the
added components. Usually the added weight and cost is reduced
by application of the redundancy to the smaller sub-categories
of the systems (parts rather than asseir.ly). A more insidious
I q'4R~
13-38
rJ)l)
LOI
LOUl
A9I 3A.VC3
1,3-39
effect may he increased complexity, which may easily negate in

some instances the reliability improovement sought. For example,
"where a back-up system or component is energized] upon the
failure of the primary, the addition of sensing and activation
circuitry or mechanism may reduce the overall reliability below
the reliability of the primary system.
Again, where duplication of equipment is provided to improve

reliability, the cost of corrective maintenanre is not necessarily
""
hanged. The cost of preventive -aintenance may be essentiaily
doubled.
2.6 PAR.S IMPROV.EMENT
Once it seemed obvious that since system failures are caused by

parts failures, then the logical course would be to make the
parts more reliable. Several years and $10 million later we get
the MTBF of only a dozen or so Minuteman electronic parts up by
an order of magnitude. As General James R. Bridges said (24),
"I seriously doubt that we will ever fully meet reliability
requirements for space systems via the route of conventional
electronic parts improvement".
If the MTBF of all parts of a component could be ra4,ed by 10-to-I

(at great cost) so would the component MTBF be improveci 10-to-l.
But many applications demand 100-to-i or even 1000-to-I to become
adequately effective.
But it is one veii important method of achieving higher relia-

bility. The Minuteman parts program involves elaborate tolerance
control, unprecedented engineering and manufacturing controls,
extensive and costly testing and documentation programs, detailed
traceability identification, and special packaging and handling
procedures.
The contractors design engineer must therefore look for opportu-

nities for specific parts improvement achievable at reasonable
cost, or where the Minuteman cost levels may be justifiable.
3. MAINTAINABILITY DESIGN
Like reliability, the quantitative amount o ainability

needed in a design is determined by cost-effectiveness tradeoff
analyses. Once it is determined that the equipment must be re-
storable to operation within a given average or maximum time,
the problem then is how to design to achieve it. There are at
least eleven approaches that may be taken depending upon the
13-40
specific circumstances, and further details are given in Chapter

8. (See Reference 25).
3.1 SIMPLIFICATION
Simpler design are nearly always easier to maintain with lesser

skills in less time. See section 2.1.
3.2 STANDARDIZED DESIGN
As discussed section 2.2 of this chapter, standardization adds

to the experience with a specific design and its maintainability,
thus contributing to maintainability. Interchangeability further
improves maintainability.
3.3 MODULAR DESIGN
Design in sets of standard subassemblies or modules permits rapid

standardized diagnosis and rcplacement thereof, so that operation
can proceed while corrective maintenance is done on the bench.
Or the module may be designed for discard upon failure. On the
other hand modular design usually adds electrical or other
connections, which degrades reliability and adds acquisition
cost, so a tradeoff analysis is necessary.
3.4 ADJUSTMENTS
A design with the fewest possible needs for adjustment, alignment,

or calibration improves maintainability by reducing the required
restoration tirne and skill level.
3.5 FAILURE EFFECT PROVISION
Basic to all design for maintainability is the detailed study of

failure modes (conducted for reliability design and analysis)
and careful provision for maintenance resulting from such failure
effects.
3.6 ACCESSIBILITY
The word is often considered synonymous with Maintainability, but

is only one indispensable contributor. Obviously "human engineer-
ing" princijles must be used to provide good accessibility to
cri*ical components that may fail. Perbaps tho commonest
deficiency is desiqn, so that one or more other components must
be removed to get at the one that failed.
I (
13-41
3.7 SAFETY
Maintainability is impro%7ed by designing so that inadvertent

damage to one component cannot occur while working on another,
or by improper installation. A connector must only fit its mate,
among those handy.
3.8 EVALUATION TESTS
Just as for reliability, many situations cannot be evaluated

adequately via paper design and analysis. If the component
maintainability is critical (failure to restore in time fails
the mission) then mockup tests are imperative, with appropriate
design to resolve the problems thus orought to light. Fortunately
such tests are much easier and less costly than reliability
evaluation tests.
3.9 IDENTIFICATION
Much downtime is contributed by inadequate identification of

original components and their replacements, particularly when
replacements come from different suppliers, with a different
number, and look different.
3.10 TOTAL MAINTENANCE POLICY
The restoration time for any one component is of course depenc'ent

upon logistic axai~lability of a replacement or tools to repair,
and upon adequate skill availability. Conversely the total system
maintainability depends upon the intpqrated summation (not
arithmetic) of all component mairntainabilities. Thus maximum
system maintainability can be achieved only by considering all
tradeoffs and establishing a total maintenance policy for the
system design, but consistent with available or achievable
maintenance resources.
3.11 FAILURE DETECTION & ISOLATION DEVICES
Many systems and components can fail in such a manner that the
failure is not apparent until a later time when its consequences
show up. Computers can thus make costly mistakes. An oil port
to one bearing can become clogged. Thus maintainability of such
systems can be helped by adding critical failure detection devices,
such asoo¶puter check routines, or limit-contact thermometers for
bearings. For complex systems such devi-es to catch part failures
would be prohibitively expensive, so the detection is done at
higher levels. But this introduces the need for failure isolation
13-42
devices which, once a failure is known to have occurreO', help to

locate it precisely. These all contribute to desiqn maintain-
ability.
4. REFERENCES
(1) System Aspects, by M. M. Tall, September 1958, IRE Tran-

sactions on Reliability and Quality Control.
(2) Value Engineering Handbook H1ll, 29 March 1963, Office of

the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Installations and
Logistics), Washington 25, r. C.
(3) Applied Imagination, by Alex Osborn, 1953, Charles Scribner's

Sons, 597 5th Avenue, New York 17, New York.
(4) American Standards Price List and Index, American Standards

Association, lnc., 70 East 45th St., New York 17, New York.
(5) Rules for Building and Classing Steel Vessels, 1962, American
Bureau of Shipping, 45 Broad St., New York 4, New York.
(6) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, 1962, American Society for
Mechanical Engineers, 345 E. 47th St., New York 17, New York.
(7) National Electrical Safety Code, March 1948, National Bureau

of Standards Handbook H30, U. S. Dept. of Commerce.
(8) Reliability and Components Handbook, Motorila, Inc., Scotts-

dale, Arizona, by F. E. Dreste, et. al., Revised 3-1-63.
(9) Reliability Through Safety Mar5ss, by Robert Lusser,

October 1958, Astia AD-212-476.
'10) Designing a Specified Reliability Directly into a Component,

by Dimitri Kececioqlu and David Cormier, Juen 30, 1964,
SAE-ASME-AIAA Aerospace Reliability and Maintainability
Conference Proceedings, Page 546, Society of Autor•otive
Engineers, A85 Lexington Avenue, New York, New York.
(11) A Reliability Handbook for Design Engineers, by F. E. Dreste,

June 1958, Electrical Engineering, p. 508.
(12) Evaliation and Prediction of Circuit Performance by Statis-

tical Technigues, by J. Marimi, H. Brown, and R. W llihiis,
Arinc Monograph No. 5, February 14, 1958, Arinc Researc'h
Corporation, Wahsington D. C.
1.3-43
(13) A Second Statisticza Method for Analysing the Performance

Variation of Electronic Circuits, by Ralph Henrichs, Con-
vair San Diego report ZX-7-010, contract AF 04(645)-4.
(14) Statistical Methods in the Design and Development of

Electroni,, Systems, by L. S. Schwartz, Proceedings of the
IRE, May 1948.
(15) Designing for Reliability, by N. H. Taylor, 9 December 1955,

Massachusetts Institute of Technology report 102.
(16) Noise Monitoring Instruction Manual U413-63-049, General

Dynamics/Electric Boat, Groton, Connecticut, April 1963.
(17) Integrated Circuits in Military Equipment, by R. N. Noyce,

June 1964, IEEE Spectrum.
(18) Reliability Multi-Moded Systems, by H. I. Zagor, K. Curtin,

H. Gretinburg, April 1958, Electronic Industries.
(19) The Application of Reliability Engineering to the Integrated

Steam Power Plant, by R. D. Riddick, Jr., Proceedings of the
Conference on Advanced Marine Engineering Concepts for In-
creased Reliability, University of Michigan, page 348.
(20) Reliability Anatomy for System Design Engineers, by E. S.

Winlund, l'960 Conference Proceedings of the Fourth National
Convention on Military Electronics.
(21) Estimation of Duplex 2omputer Dependability from Simplex

Data, by J. Gold, Military Products Division, International
Business Mach ine,,.
(22) On Increasing the Operating Life of Unattended Machines,

by I. S. Reed aml i). E. Brimley, November 1962, Memorandum
RM-333-11PR, The Rand Corporation, Contract AF 49(638)-700.
(23) A Probabilistic Analysis of Redundant Networks, by J. D.

LaRue, 11)62 ASD-AFIT Reliability Seminar, Astia AD 285800.
(24) The Reliability Asjects of Space Programs, by James R.

Bridges, Director of Eiectronics, ODDR&E, 24 April 1963.
Second Manned Space Flight Meeting, Dallas.
(25) Maintainabilitj _Design Criteria Handbook for Designers of

" Shipboard Electronic Equipment, NAVSHIrS 94324, Federal.
"Electric Corp, Supt. of Documents, Washington, D. C.
I •
13-44
(26) Bureau of Ships Reliability Design Handbook, NAVSHIPS

94501, Federal Electric Corp., Supt. of Documents,
Washington, D. C.
14-1
SChapter 14
HUMAN FACTORS
1. MAN AS AN ELL2NENT 14- 2

1.1 Purpose of Man in the System 14- 3
1.2 Functions Performed 14- 4
1.3 Comparison of Capabilities 14- 7
1.4 Basic Techniques in Design 14.-10
2. THE MAN-MACHINE INTERFACE 14-12

2.1 Display Design 14-12
2.2 Design of Controls 14-13
2.3 Reducing Human Error 14-15
3. EVALUATION OF MAN IN THE SYSTEM 14-17

3.1 Human Factors Engineering Testing 14-18
3.1.1 Identifyinq and Describino Human Performance 14-18
3.1.2 Performance Testing 14-19
"3.1.3 Identification of Critical Human Operations 14-19
3.1.4 Selection of Critical Operations 14-19
3.1.5 Specification of Parameters 14-21)
3.1.6 Prediction of Parametric Values 14-20
3.2 Confirmation of Predictions Thro'ugh Testing 14-20
3.2.1 Adequacy of Test Data 14-21
3.2.2 Test Implementation 14-21
3.3 Extension of Current Failure Reportinq Proceduresl4-22
3.4 Human Reliability 14-22
4. CONCLUSION 14-23
5. REFERENCES 14-26
q|
4I
14-2
Chapter 14
HIIP1AN FACTORS
A basic assumption of the system devý!lopment point of view is

that mnan can be cons idered as one of the major components of a
total system. This view is opposed to the notion that man simp1'ý
plans, buys, develops, and uses a system once it is buiilt. Any
reasonably complex system requires a true interaction b'-tween
man and the other parts of the system, -which may be machines, other
men, or combinations of these. Some way must therefore be found
for thinkinq about the 1'anctions of machines and the functions
of men within a ftamework which makes possible -cth relation of
these two kinds of functions to corumon goals -- that is, to
system goals. Even in a system as familiar and as relatively
simple as the automobile, it is easy to see that the goal of
transporting passengers over roads requires not only the func-
tions of the machine itself but als-~ a considerable variety of
human functions per formed by the operator, as well as auxiliary
functions performed by zuch people as traffic policemen and'
fill'ing-station attend4ants. The design of a system which is to
be sciccessful in achieving some socially delfined purpose requires
thoroo,-h and crontinued Considlera-tion of the interacting functions
of both men and machines.
Tn this chapter -w.e will attempt tu eeo three basic areas.

(a) The pro~per use of man in the systemi, based on, his capabi-.1
ities and deficiencies; lb) TIhe _nknon bu ocet ffeto
the reliability of the sy~stem-, -of uosinc mani as a subsystem or
Component; (c) Methods of intecirat in, man int, the sv--tem.
The 'H~uman Engineerin,' cisp-eoCts of huma_-n fact -.rs, cdeali~n.:. t

des i.in oi 1,ardware Ifor covpa tililitv with pe;o-ple, i-s no-t co%;ered
in this chapter. The criteria tor dosiq~n and analtvsis of such
-operability" and (human) 'm~tinblt"will 11befo-ond i~n
chapter S, oince it is O~ften associa~ted ~ihhar-d1ware maintain-
ability. But the ilentical princIpies apply to desilqn for oper-
ability. Chapter 8 7ilso references the principal 'han'.ibooks on
Human Fnou IneŽr inq, -which has a very s i~ni iclant i:mo;act on rel ia-
bility, but is beyond the scope of this course.
1.MAIN AS AN ELFMI. %7
'What we p~ropose to do in this chapter i's to desc.ribe soine of thte

funct ions of man and to sh>~~ tI-,os cxin be re ie othe
fanct ions of the machine enviro.-nmnent in which, ma-, _s placed as
14-3
part )f a sy,,stem. 've shall attempt to do this by developing and

usi-nrv' a 1lan ~uop± Ki relates irlo)ut for the human being to) hi.s
~ ~
it ,ihintrbeos ~ ~ -, (ut an input to som other portion of
syt
5'e em. 1rn ethetr words, in dlealing with man's functions, we
sall be icientifyi~nc the k .ncis of trans format ion wnich an input
11ero 'S in order to, be c flected as a human ou*tput.
1.1 'R~-iC)F MýAN IN THESYSTEM
A -vstem is d(veiopecl to fulfill some human purpose. or Intended

e. s ,_urpos e may be to protect against enemy military attack
rtohalrass o-r destro~y an enemy in wartime. But systems, of
co)urs(e, are noý_t -on fin,,ii to military enterpr ises. They may have
:isýtin-tlv civilian social pu1rpo~ses, such as th-ose, of an airport-
t:-i trnsearat
t onsystem, a mail-sorting systom, a check-
nsa SyteC7,
S Any Sy-ste"m. is defined in terms of its purpose.
1o r toý)- :u I i11 a pu r oo)s e, a syvstem must. meet certain stan-

.. r(!_- SIs ttem dev,,elopers ha-e boo known to take the poin--t of
vie%\ t` 'at it only the hard,.warUe subsystem can be made to run
sin )speci ally, prepirtJ test loc-aticn) , so)mehowý, humran
Aihthe proper c.oa-racteristics will be found and "fitted
'ntý, te sys tem.* Su(-, :I vi ow place-s too much dependence on the
a.n,te ý,f'1IM-3 talents_ý ýwn on the availability of so'itable man-
IIý .\cll a,,s on tmc .\tent of human auaptabiiity. On many
S~ r, s t,)i s r e It.r i ct o d \ ietor 0fSyVStem"1S , anld svst em develop.-
t I t a ai I ures Ibi ekdowns , cos tlIv rmof
cr0. ret ro-
a,I 4in* (1yen to0 V ste abanonmnt. No svs ten
*t't iI i~t~ beJr.. to )p(:rate w i t, in a t ýta1 s elti 1 ,
t' t n
""oiides'mm hino s' stem (-an trA\I% 1.e saie t --. bt
t tKInt 1 s )operit i;,l ef fectivenoss s ,sxt,!
!(,t",e £o,vst(e is ti it w.hich in 'l . lderat ion
I +e rr ~ ' (r itO'.r thN n, o~r oi har-Jw r ulb, 1'i
In~ i 'ti.icture i's* p d Is A' a at a anns
a ~r1e
~ c iniv isertrans the)1crai Z.Uec
ia.na 1 , _,h i ci is ý1iso] 3'0 i as

r rcadin,:, a co' ut
i
~' .' i a~n i 1,-)scowe W~vel)ke .Ti
ftOm , 'O he
~"the humain op, rctoto and tran'zfurmt I_ into
ns- -f switchevs, theo movinq o* co'ntrol
A 'w- VTnose in turn anrtecontrol s,1n, ls h Ic h
Man's t a ne ý,t er intot o e systems :it max, poinrts and3

'0U ir
Ui. ai
" ways, Fr
1 th ermore t he d s F. I of i n tormat Ion;
14-4
the controls to which the individual responis, and the mechanisms

which provide the transformations for these components of the
system are of considerable variety. Accordinglv, we need to
recognize at once that the qeneralized picture, while it indicates
man's position as a system component, does riot provide the means
for a detailed analysis of the variety Df human functions. It
would be a mistake to think that because man typically "occupies
a space" between machine displays and controls, his functioning
can be related in a constant se- of ways to such inputs and out-
-'uts. The fact is, neither thc input nor the output by them-
selves will tell us the nature of man's functioning. For there
are different kinds of transformations which may be performed
(by the human nervous sys+-t) in turning inputs into outputs.
1.2 FUNCTIONS PERFORMED
Suppose that a system has available an oscilloscope as a basic

unit for display. *jn the face of this scope appears a 60-cycle
wave form ihiLh can be adjusted in amplitude to a particular
size, the required size being given by tw-o fine horizontal lines
on a transparent overlay placed against the tube face. Let us
assume that the system requi-es c.he amplitude of the wave to be
determined within very close tolerances before further cperation
of the system can take place. Following this, what happens is
that an external signal distorts the form of the wave, and it is
the human operator's task to "report" the nature of these
distortions by pushing one of five buttons. If taere is an
amplitude distortion (vertical displacement from the overlay
markers), he pusnes button 1; if there is a .requency distortion
(horizontal displacemeent from other markers), he pushes button 2;
if there are additional frequeicies present (irregular wave
2attern), he pushes button 1; and so on.
Now, saving certain details for later consideration, let us

consider the difference between what the operator does in "getting
the equipment rea iy to operate" and what he does in "operating."
Actually, he is utilizing two different functions in the two
cases, even though the display may be the same in both.
In placing the equipment into proper operating condition, the

human operator is making use of the function of sensinq. That
is to.say, he is using his visual receptors, nervous system, and
effectors simply to "report" (to a machine, typically) +he
presence or absence of a difference in physical energy. :n this
case, the physical difference being reported is the coincidence
of two points (o- small areas) each of which lies along a narrow
band of liqht (a "line") which makes an abrupt gradient of
14-5
intens istv with its surrinoinois. The operator is exercising a

fonction called visual acuit, 1i r "rt icular name for one of his
sensing functions•
ft may be noted, however, that the operator is able to do much

more than this, even within the e(,uitmnent-readying stage of
operation we are considering. He is perfectly capable, foz
example, of making an output which reports the amplitude of the
wave along s:me scale such as millimeeters or volts. He is able
t. tell us the color of the wave form, to esti.nate whether it
is bright enough, or whether it has a regular Fppearance, and
many other things. Why does he not do all t..,se thin",- in this
situation? There is no mystery tc this question at all: he
does not simply because we have not told him to (or perhaps told
him not to)" But this means we m'st recognize that there is
.--ore to the matter of input than simply the presence of a display.
In oarder to get the output recquired by the system, the operator
murt be provided with a set of instractions.
One basic purpose ol -hese instructions, we are now able to see,

is to determine which functions "higher up" than sensing are to
be shunted out. The combination of the oscilloscope display and
the instructions is what determines the output that will be made.
-The instructions say to the operator, in effect: "Report
coincidence becween a set of lines. Do not report their shape,
or size, or brightness, or regularity, or meaning, or anything
else." Thus, it is apparent that the effect of presentation of
the oscilloscope display plus a particular set of instructions
is to put into operation a particular kind of human function,
sen sig, and to shunt out other Inds of functions of which the
human operator is capable.
Now let us contrast this lementary kind of behavior with what

occurs when the equipment is being operated rather than merely
turned on. In this case the human operator must function -n
Quite a different way. He must provide five different output
responses (press one of five buttons) whenever a particular kind
of deformation uf the sine wave appears, whether it is a change
in the horizontal dimension produced by variation in frequency,
in the vertical dimension (amplitude), or in one of several
other types. In other words he must identify five different
classes of patterns appearing on the scope.
When the operator is engaged i.n this function cf identifying,

has the internal mechanism for senriig been shunted out? Of
course it ha:; not, because the r-'hvs1cl differences which deter-
mine the existence of cla-ssc of sti:muli to which the operator
14-6
responds must be sensed in order for identification to take

place. Thus we see that, on the input end, human functions have
a hierarchical arrangement. The use of a function like identi-
fying requires that a function lower in the hierarchy, sensin,
be put in operation as well.
Again, however, we can see that certain even higher functions

have indeed been shunted out when we ask for identification. For
example, the operator may be capable of telling us that a deforma-
tion of the sine wave in the ve:-tical dimension "means" a change
in amplitude. But we have not asked him that; we merely asked
him to press a button indicating the presence of a particular
class of change in wave shape. Or again, he may be capable of
interpreting this kind of change as indicating the presence of a
type of remote signal received at the other end of the system.
Again we see that one of the primary effects of instruc~ions is
to keep the human being functioning at the proper level and to
shunt out other, higher-level functions.
Another internal mechanism must be added at this level, too, and

that is memory. For we know that without some kind of long-term
storage of representation- of the five different changes in wave
shapes, the achievement of five different ouLputs would be
impossible. Instructions alone will not do the job. To be sure,
we can describe to the individual what he is expected to do, by
means of instructions, but he will nevertheless not be able to
do it by this means alone. He must have an internal means of
matching the external display to one of five classes in order
that he can make five different responses, as required in our
example. This means he must have previously acquired the
"representative shapes" in his memory, by means of learning
preceding the occasion when he tackles the job of operating his
equipment. And this provides the basic reason for training, as
well as for the crucial part it plays in the system development
process.
Now, this description of two examples of human functioning has not

involved very high-powered psychology; we are well aware of that.
We have, in fact, been describing the functions of sensing the
perceiving, which have been studies by psychologists for many
years. But the purpose of our account has not been to review
basic principles. Rather, it has been to show that the funda-
mental operations in describing the functions of a man's
behavior are the operations of a design engineer in describing a
machine. Psychologists make the same kinds of inferences about
human behavior as designers do of machines, and they are based
upon the same kinds of objectively defined operations. It should
14-7
therefore be quite easy for the designer to understand the nature

of human functions, provi ½ed he learns what input conditions
must be met and what the output achieves (as an input to the next
unit of the system). In olir further delineation of human functions,
we shall find it useful to refer back to the conceptions developed
in these relatively Aimple examples.
1.3 COMPARISON OF CAPABILITIES
The relationship beLween men and machines may be clarified by

listing some of the functions in which men surpass present day
machines and some of the functions in which present day machines
surpass men. Men excel in their ability to:
1. Sense or detect minimum amounts of visual or acoustic

energy
2. Perceive patterns of 'ight, sound, or odors
3. Improvise and use fiexible procedures
4. ?tore large amounts of information over long periods
and to recall relevant facts at appropriate times
5. Reason inductively, and
6. Exercise judgment
Machines excel in their ability to:
1. Respond rapidly to control signals

2. Apply great force smoothly and precisely
3. Perform repetitive routine tasks relV bility
4. Store information briefly and erase completely
5. Reason deductively, including ability for computation,
and
6. Handle highly compLex operations--many tasks at once
This summary of the functional superiorities of both men and

machines perhaps indicates why there i6 a growing belief among
e: 3ineers that we should go to systems of increasing automati-
city. Nevertheless, man's super;,;cfty in adapting to changing
demands is one of the fundamental reaaons why much can be gained
from including human elements in a system. It appears likely
that for the predictable future the human being will continue to
be an integral part of all mechanical or electronics systems,
in their operation and maintenance. Therefore it is important
that sound decisions be r" de about his duties--what they sl-ould
be and how they should be performed. (Figure 14-8)
We use the term computer in a general sense to identify machines

Z that accept signals or data and take specif.'z, action programmed
ii
14-8
0*~ 0qb
0~$4
ho -
0 0
0 ~ 0
4. - ;-4 d-
IV c.u > c
zz
UU
00
o 40
ala
0 00
> 00
0H04 0 MU
$4
0.
zQ
0 0
00
5 g
Us
14-9
into the i'achine. In this sense, automatic boiler feed control

systems and voltajce regulators are examples of computers. While
the more compic-x computers are primarily electronic in nature,
the application of human capabilities in the design is fully as
pertinent in many mechanical systems.
The most important espect in which men excel computers is in the

acccssibility of the items in stora--. Men can apf at a single
memory in many different ways; in particular, they can recover
memories on the basis cf similarity alone. Computers, by
contrast, have no such efficient c-oss-indexing. If they did, it
would be possible to write programs which rely on the computer to
locate and produce any item in memory without specific instruc-
tion concerning where that item is. At present, no such procedure
is possible.
A major virtue of men is that they have a high tolerance for

ambiguity, vagueness, and uncertainty. Men are able to detect
what other men mean though the smog of what they say, and they
customarily do so and behave accordingly. Such tolerance for
ambiguity is based on a life--lonr history of experience with
ambiguity and on the ability to argue Zy analogy from one's own
purposes to those of other people. Neither of these character-
istics seem likely, to be available for computers in any near
future. So long as computers cannot tolerate and exploit
ambiguity, they cannot be given major executive responsibilities
unsupervised; social control is usually based on vague mandates
which permit wide but not unlimited latitude in interpretation
(for example, platforms of political parties). This means t,4at
man-machine systems will necessarily continue to have men with
veto power over computer-generated decisions, rather than vice
versa.
One r-eason why men are good at tolerating and exploiting ambigu-
ity is that they can effectively translate uncertainty into
"probability--another task in which men far excel computers.
Consider the statement, "Before you go to bed tonight, you will
consume a bottle of be.•er." Presumably that statement is neither
impossible nor certain. A computer could probably go no farther;
a man can attach a number to the statement which represents his
evaluation of its probability of being correct. Such numbers
are, it turns out, excellent guides to action; men can accurately
translate uncertainty into probability. Computers, on the other
hand, are far superior to men in taking probabilities and pay-
i 4 offs and computing from them the best course of action in
accordance with rules set down by man. These considerations
suggest that a military-information processing system which must
14-10
cope with relatively unreliable data (such as a sonar systemi

might profitably use human operators as transducers for proba-
bilities. These probabilities could be entered into a computer,
which would then compute the optimal course of action in the
light of them. No such system now exists, but it seems entirely
possible that they might be one ten years from now.
In a very important sense men are far more reliable than computers.
It has already been pointed out that computers make far fewer
mistakes than men. But in general the mistakes computers make
either remain unchecked or stop the computer completely. Man, on
the other hand, can detect his own mistakes and spontaneously
work out a plan to correct them or remedy their effects. Further-
more, once he has learned how to perform a task correctly, man
does not repeat and repeat the same error, as will a computer
with a broken part. In short, if a little allowance is made for
the approxLmate nature of human reliability, man is far more
reliable than any computer yet invented, or any likely to be
invented in the near futnire.
1.4 BASIC TECHNIQUES IN DESIGN
1. Allocation of functions among men and computer should

consider the best skills of each. It is seldom wise to allocate
to the computer everything the designer knows how to nechanize,
and to parcel out among the system operators whatever is teft
over.
2. If possible, the computer should be about, 80 per cent used;

if it has too much unused time or capacity, either a smaller
computer should be used instead or tasks tor which it is less
than ideally suited (such as long-term memory) should be jiven to
it. Computers do not profit from rest periods, other than the
necessary halts for maintenance and repair; men do. On the other
hand, tasks change, and a little flexibility is therefore desirable.
3. Provision of one sort or another must be made for system

function during computer malfunction. This often implies either
a second computer or a manual back-up system. In some cases, ot
course, no meaningful provision is possible or worthwhile.
4. Operator jobs should not be homogeneous in difficulty. Some

jobs should require a relatively high ¼evel of ability and train-
ing; others should not. This reduces tht: requirement for hiqh-IQ
operators and provides for a career structure within the system.
5. Man-to-man co-mnunications should be carefully evaluated. Tn

14-11
general, human outputs should go into the computer. Thp process

of man-to-man communication is often so clumsy and imprecise
that the system is sometimes better off if two functions performed
by different men are separated by a function performed by the
computer. This principle is controversial; some experts insist
that a great deal of informal man-to-man communication is both
necessary and desirable.
6. Man should function as aids to the computer in sensing,

extrapolating, and decision making. The idea of using men as
back-up systems for computer functions is very widely applied;
most manned space vehicle designs are designed that way. There is
some question whether in many applications it might not be cheap-
er and just as effective to have the man perform the function in
the first place.
7. If at all possible, the computer rather than a man should

have primary responsibility for maintaining vigilance and detecting
when, after a period of inactivity, some system action is required.
8. A number of specific tasks which must be performed in most

information processing systems are usually allotted to men
because they use man's best skills. The functions of detection
and identification have already been discussed; they exploit
human pattern-recognition ability and ability to cope with
uncertainty. Another common flinction is goal-setting for searches.
Computers very often solve problems by means of directed serrch
through a very large set of possible solutions. Searches should
usually be guided by hypotheses con.e-'ning the most fruitful
pl,. es to search first.
9. Yet another important human function in computerized systems

is censorship. Men monitor the outpost of c.)mputers, with
responsibility to veto computer actions when it seems appropriate
to do so. Unfortunately, as systems get more complicated and their
tasks become nore demanding, it will be more and more difficult
for men to ce'isor system output c ffecti-ely. They cannot
assimilate enough information to be sure whether the system is
right or wrong, except in the case of gross malfunction. More
important, systems can seldom tolerate the response of doing
nothing, :nd men often cannot accumulate the information in time
to supply alternatives to the computer's recommendced course of
action.
10. It will continue to he true that systems which include

computers exist to serve human purposes, so system goal-setting
will continue to be a human function, the most important human
14-12
function in the system. However, that function will be performed

mostly by the designers f the system and those who write the
computer program; the nature of system design pretty completely
determines the goals which 4 t can effectively further.
2. THE MAN-MACHINE INTERFACE
Having stated some general principles applicable to the deslgn of

hulan tasks, we can turn our attention to the ways in which design
is actually made concrete within the system development process.
It is apparent that the human operator, whether functioning as at:
information processor, a decision maker, or both, occupies a
position as a link between two other portions of the system. This
means that he: a) responds to the precedina unit's output as his
input and b) by his action provides an input to the next unit.
When provi2ed by a machine, the configuration of output events
that constitute input to the human operator is generally called
a dis . The physical oLjects which he operates (particularly
with his hands and feet', in order to provide an input to the
next unit in the chain are called controls. Obviously, the way
the human operator must function within the system wil' be
determined by the natare of these displays and controls. Accord-
ing ly, considerations of effoctive design for the man-machine
configuration usually result in decisions concerning the physical
characteristics of these aspcects of equipment.
2.1 DISPLAY DLSICN
The goal of display design is to provide the operator with

usable information 0,ermane to his task within the systt;t. . One
can usually begin with th, assumption that the system has at the
outset the basic means o! acquiring all the in format ion th..t
miqht conceivably be usefu l. But once the intformati.on is
attained, how and in what manner should it be, distributed amon,
and presented to , the huiman el,,ements of tthe s\,stemr Tihe prob-
1cmts caln be d ef i led or.-ewhat mnore speci 0 ifical 1';. The var iab Ies
ot interest in the lesiqn .,f displays have been cassitied in
the fol lowino way.s:
1 Readability, leqibititv. Obviously the operator must be

able to he-ar or see or in scm, i-i ,,th way s e= the, s j miIi, l ino
provided for his use. lie must also be aNl( to seise i if feronces
among, i fc r'nt s iona is; -. ariables concerni no; 1othl the display
proper IndI the vi(wino or sensing enviroment ()or examp i e

ill],rminadtion) come within this clas. 4
2. Sensor%,v mrdaliti. The question raised by this category,:

14-13
concerns which sensory mode should be employed to convey various

kinds of information.
3. Multiparametric or combined displays. Here are included

questions of what and how many different kinds of informaticn can
be incorporated within a single display and how this is to be
accomplished most effectively.
4. Display coding. This category implies questions as to the

language form or the kind of symbols to be employed in presenting
information.
5. Filtering. Questions of this class concern ways of pre-

selecting information inputs so as to simplify the interpretation
task.
6. Clutter and noise. Included in this category are problems

pertaining to the elimination of false or masking signals in the
display.
2.2 DESIGN OF CONTROLS
The ruling concepts in control design should be order, coherence,

and organization. Rather than flexibility or changeability, one
wants control devices to have the properties of being orderly
and consistent in their operation and action consequences. From
the standpoint of the human operator, perhaps predictability may
be thought of as the most desirable characteristic.
The layout of control panels and consoles is a good place to

begin consideration of control design problems. The basic
technique for the designer consists in analyzing the task. lte
task analysis provides a map of what the operator is supposed to
do in carryout out his job, Traditionally -he analysis is a
description of isolated actions in sequence. For relatively
simple tasks (for example, mechanical assembly) the classic
"therblig" of industrial engineering is appropriate. With
increasing operational complexity, as well as the necessity to
develop equipment for tasks which are almost entirely novel,
newer techniques are needed. By whatever means obtained,
however, an analytic map of the task is essential.
Just as the system as a whole may be functionally organized

according to operations, the control layout can be so organized.
Functional grouping, ease of access, differentiahtlity of sub-
operations, and the like then come into play as criteria for
console design. Unfortunately, the criteria are not always (in
14-4
the controls to which the individual responds, and the mechanisms

which provide the transformations for these components of the
system are of considerable variety. Accordingly, we need to
recognize at once that the generaliz'.d picture, while it indicates
man's position as a system component, does not provide the means
for a detailed analysis of the variety of human functions. It
would be a mistake to think that because man typically "occupies
a space" between machine displays and controls, his functioning
can be related in a constant set of ways to such inputs and out-
Vo puts. The fact is, neither the input nor the output by them-
selves will tell us the nature of man's functioning. For there
are different kinds of transformations which may be performed
(by the human nervous system) in turning inputs into ouitputs.
1.2 FUNCTIONS PERFORMED
Suppose that a system has available an oscilloscope as. a basic

unit for display. On the face of this scope appears a 60-cycle
wave form which can be adjusted in amplitude to a particular
size, the required size being given by two fine horizontal lines
on a transparent overlay placed against the tube face. Let us
assume that the system requires the amplitude of the wave to be
determined within very close toleraaces before further operation
of the system can take place. Following this, what happens is
that an external signal distorts the form of the wave, and it is
the human operator's task to "report" the nature of these
distortions by pushing one of five buttons. If there is an
amplitude distortion (vertical displacement from the overlay
markers), he pushes button 1; if there is a frequency distortion
(horizontal displacement from other markers), he pushes button 2;
if there are additional frequencies present (irregular wave
pattern), he pushes button 3; and so on.
Now, saving certain details for later consideration, let us

consider the difference between what the operator does in "getting
the equipment ready to operate" and what he does in "operating."
Actually, he is utilizing two different functions in the two
cases, even though the display may be the same in both.
In placing the equipment into proper operating condition, the

F, human operator is making use of the function of sensing. That
is to-say, he is using his visual receptors, nervous system, and
effectors simply to "report" (to a machine, typically) the
presence or absence of a difference in physical energy. In this
case, the physical difference being reported is the coincidence
of two points (or small areas) each of which lies along a narrow
band of light (a "line") which makes an abrupt grad.lent of
14-15
6. DisplayLcompatibility. In the total configuration of displays

and controls makinq up the operator station, display control
-r --an,~'mn shudb orrelative; that is, controls cloverning
the process being displayed sho)uld be _In proximity to their
related display. Display format and cori~ent- should be dimension-
ally similar to control location and direction of action.
As our previous discussion has sugjest-ed, it is often not

possible to follow all these rules -.'ith equal vigor. The d, gn
of controls and control layouts is, of course, a matter of
practical compromise, as is true of -other aspects of eaui~pmt.nt
desig4n. Nevertheless, this set of :-inciples represents the
factors that are based on empiri: i findings of studAies of humarn
funct ioTIinq, which can success fully be brought to bear on design
aecis ion having the aim. -f optimal system effectiveness.
2 .3 REDUCING; HUMAN ERROR
On the w<h-le, our discussion of desig4n problems has been carried

ouý.t in the Conttux.t of human functioning3, and particularly in
co-nsideration, of the ways of eliminatinq the kinds of function-
irw that result in error. The analysis of possihil-ties of
oreratoA.r error leads to the conclusion that its cav.ses may often
be identified as dpficienciies in equipment design-, whether of
di~splays, controls, or thle ex-rected interactions betw'een these
two types of t..lements. Tne in format ,on ootaine(d from. sucoý
lnascs is exhibitec1 in summuarv from in F ~i'U. e 14-1t&Ž. I ~ 1
notedi th -It m~anv of these dffrtispro'ide the possibiliity Of
correct,,,r by means of eq~i.-t)er.t des ion I r exxrplc, .inclear
re" ~ras
h e'r .-,t h i wul ap c ar to1) he a v o idab 1.e b%- t'h e
p ro v sio -f e~iternali instructionls, possib'v by means of Job
ais (reamle, inappropriate fn.ilIter ing e) In stil
other intacs tapastat correct ive act ion would,_ talke the
t: r i o tr a ini no to ve unk"er t akc n a ft r the equijent con fiqura-
t I or has been determined (f'or example, a,-ti on-control r- -ition-
ships no.t unders tood by,, the Cteater)
It so>fe-is eintfr~orn the fiqure thatr t'here art- a numibtr of

ways of iprev entino , 7n.inimi zincm or redui'inq the del.E~ter iou4.
e ffects ýf -rerat')r m istake-;, -whun one recognizes that suk:oý
er -s~"A", 1A. Unluirstc. ul as m~itters of' inatdeq~uate furict iu
of0 human iformati mon-:rcism and dec;is ion-ack'nq act ivaviis
In many cas"~,, the avoi-dance 1-.f !faulty human fu_.nct i o.ni nq can be
svecil i.c-ll\ related to tlhe des . qn of vquiiix-nt _.isplayw and
cor~anrr
1'-m art icular ly to; the extent to -whìch they le fimie,
Sensible lhu!man tasks. If o"ne lokbeyo.ndý thest p~rinci ples
(-aract av-h 2.)h- can fo-resee the plx.ss ibi ity c f a sy'StceAi'a c
1
14 - 1
:r. --
-
- - - -
p - -.
1. -
0 . 4 --
- C - - -
z P1
- -
£
H
C
cC
'-I) C
Zr
C
C C)
- - C)
C) Co
Co Co
C)
C) -S -)
o C) C) -
-C - E
,C) C) 0
2 -
C) '-
C)
-4 C) C) 0
o ,
C) C Co a a
04 .-
C) o
C)
F-
14-17
-theorvcf human performance, for which currently acceptable

categories of human functioning provide only the bare framework.
3. EVALUATION OF MAN IN THE SYSTMN
It has been pointed out earlier that engineering specialists

utilize tests as a practical way of reducing uncertainty and
providinq feecdback about compcnen•, subsystem, or system
performance. It is a means whereby information is obtained about
the validity of design decisions. It is also a way to advance
the state of the art by a tria_. and error approach when a more
rigorous scientific approach is not feasible, as in the time and
cost envi.ronment surrounding development programs. The wide use
of engineering test programs has also led to the development of
standard tests, standard test procedures, and improved test
instruxnentations which permit more elegant, more pertinent, and
more economical testing. For example, over 300 flight tests
wcre run on the V2 to achieve desirable performance character-
istics, The Sergeant missile, which was later developed by many
of the same individuals who developed the V2, performea adequate-
ly afLer approximately 50 flight tests.
Testing has also uncovered facts that were not or could not be
fcoreseen bv pretest logical analyses. For example, on one
program there were a number of tests which ended with the missiles
breaking up in mid-air. It was only after sufficient testing
that the reason for disintegration was identified as analytically
unexpected torsional bending stress. As a result, current missile
programs collect data on this parameter as a matter of course.
Engineering test activities, briefly, include: (a) ma,':ing

predictions about the performance of the system (or of some
subsystem or component), these predictions being usually based
upon interpolation or extrapolation of established data; (b)
designing tests to confirm predictions; (c) instrumenting the
test area and vehicle in order to acquire pertinent data for the
evaluation of the Predictions; (d) evaluating and comparing ,
predicted performance with actual performance; and (e) employing
the results of test as the basis for analysis of the discrepan-
cies between predictions and empirical results ard to modify the
model from which the predictions were made, or the systemn, or
both.
It should be pointed out that there is a difference in intent and

in criteria between the type of "testing" that is involved in an
4 engineering development program and the type of "testing" that
is involved in traditional research experimentation. The
14-18
engineer ing test progra, has as its primary concern the ,chieve-
merit of an "adequate" system whr. r decuate' is defined as a
svstem that meets design objectives. In this context, one is
not primarily concerned with determining "good" design or
"optimism" design, or with collectinq basic data, but only with
the question, "Does the system meet required and predicted per-
formance criteria?' It is assumed that the designer and design
management are concerned with providing the best design possible,
and that they make use o• available experimental data. Thus,
tests must answer th question, "Does the design, which is
assumed to be the best that the designer could produce at the
time the design decision was made, meet the design requirements?';
An example in human engineering terms would be a tracking opera-
tion in which the operator is required to track twc objects within
certain time and accuracy limits. The human engineer would
provide the "best" information he had at his disposal at the
time a decision to include such an operation was required. The
purpose of human engineering test, then, would be to determine
whether operators do indeed perform within the specified i
and not whether the design that was recommended turns ,
the optimum design for the- circumstances under is.<
finally used.
3.1 HUMAN FACTORS ENGINEERING 'T'%Y1,ING
Performance testing and ma.function reporting attempt to provide

workable ways of arriving at -,uantifyin, the effects of the man
on the system. Most malfunction data collection systems are
already nkino some attempt to obtain data on human-initiated
malfunctions. COrnsecuently, the following approach is based on
modification .'r extension of existing malfunction data collec-
tion svytems.
3.1.1I _dtcntifying and Describing Human Performance: The

cachievo'vm•_nt of adequate over-all system performance within the
clustraints of given dollars and time is the primary task of a
e.
system development program. However, the s ze and complexity
of modern weapon systems make it necessary to subdivide the
system and its develonpmental task into manageable parts upon
which can be brouqht to h-ar the varied capabilities of many
individuals and groups. The parts or subsystem entities that
are most familiar are the equipment "packages" in the form of
subsystems, components, or their smallest "bits and v-eces."
These provide the equipment desi(4ner with discrete entities that
can be separately analyzed and designed within the context of
the system as a whole, and for which performance predictions can
be made and tested. Alone or in various assemblages, these
14-19
hardware entities are used as the primary vehicles for test

,design, test data collection and analysis, and any subsequent
system modifications.
From the viewpoint that man participates in weapcn system

functions through the operations he performs, it appears
appropriate to use the operation as the entity that is the human
factors engineering equivalent of the hardware designer's
"black box.'
3.1.2 Performance Testing: In order to develop a human

factors engineering test prc ram, a numrber of problems have to
be considered. ThE approach to human factors engineerinq
performance testing proposed here considers th-e followina:
1. Identification and selection of critical human

operations.
,-f'41cation of pertinent parameters of these
3, Prediction of the values of these parameters.

4. Confirmation through test of predicted parameter
values.
5. Adequacy of test data.
6. Test implementation.
.3.1.3 Identification of Critical Hr~csn Operations: Critical

operations as a subcategory of all hucian operations can be
defined as those which, if not performed in accordance with
estimated design values, will most likely have large effects
on a system's performance or cost.
3.1.4 Selection of Critical Operat'ons: For systematic

consideration, the operations that humans perform in a system can
be organized and presented in the form of block diagrams. Each
operation must be considered and a decision made as to whether
i aoperation is to be included for evaluation in the test
program. A typical priority list would consider such factors as:
(a) Past Performance: If the man or man-machine operation is

in all essential aspects similar to man or man-machine operation.
of previously evaluated weapon systems, this previous experience
would be important in determining the necessity for including a
test of the operation in the test program. Past malfunction
experience can provide a useful guide in this regard.
(b) Value Loss: The estimated amount of time, accuracy, or

cost penalty that may result from an operation that is performed
t•
1-4-20
imper fect ly is another factor that must be considered in deter-

miini, t"e test priority of that operation. The priority for
inc].u.bi ,n in t].,, t,%st: progjram is highest for these operations
which hav the ureatcst estimated time, accuracy, or cost )enal-y
associatec. with them.
(c) Test and Evaluation Cost: Since the tests of man or man-
machine operations are tests of components and subsystems of tne
over-all weapon system, tests of these components and subsystems
can often be included in over-all system or subsystem tests.
3.1.5 Specification of Farameters: Once a selection has been

made of the critical human operations of the weapon system that
are to be subiected to performance testing, these operations
must be described in an appropriate way. This mT.ns the opera-
tions parameters must be selected and specified in a way which
adecuatel•" Jescribes the operations and specifies the criteria
t-o be applied so that the operations -ire measurable in test and
so that the?" arc subject to modification for system improvement.
3.l.6 Prediction of Parametric Values- After the important

parameters associated with the critical operations to be tested
have been .>eci ijed, the values that these parameters may be
expected to assume are predicted. There are few formulas avail-
able which will allow the calculation of exactly how fast or
how accurately a man will perform a certain operation in a given
situation.
If no formal r semiformal model of an operation is established,

then a tester would be forced to take data over the entire range
of each parameter and for combinations of parameters. Good test
design is thie art ,f predicting (hypothesizing) in such a manner
that with a minimum of effort a maximum of critical information
can be derived.
No matter what model or method is used to aid in predicting

operat.)r per formance, the model or method must account for the
value that a particular parameter may take under certain con-
ditions.
2.2 CONFIRMATIOCN OF PREDICTIONS THROUGH TESTING
Models thit are used to predict operator performance can be

confirmd only thr,•uq,.h` tests. The need for such confirmation
is inversL.ly proportical to the confidence which can be placed
in the, predlictive model. Thus, in evaluating a system, it would
be reqardo as unnecessary to pro.ve through tesi The validity of
14-22
3.3 EX"ENSION OF CURFENT FAILURE REPORTING PROCEDURE"
For malfunction data to be useful in the improvement of system

performance, they must be sufficient for identifying the human
factors involved in the reported failure events. By identifying
these factorýs, the data make it possible to recreate the dynamics
of the situation in which a failure has occurred and to determine,
analytically or physically, what may have caused it and what
steps to take to prevent its recurrence. To do this, the data
conce• ing the individual failure must:
1. Identify the failed item.

2. Described the sýnptoms by which the failure was identified.
3. Provide a means for describing the dynamic interactions of
personnel with the failed item, with other parts of the
system and with the system's environment.
4. Provide information concerning the past experience of the
individual failed item that might be pertinent to the
failure -vent.
5. Record the skill level, or ratinq of the technician
diagnosing the failure and making the restoration.
3.4 HUMAN RELIABILITY
The Personnel Subsystem concept emphasizes the development of

human performance. Human reliability can be compared t2 hardware
reliability in the system reliability program. Human performance,
like hardware performance, must satisfy the pcrformance require-
ments of the system.
In aerospace systems we are approaching an interchangeability

for man similar to that which exists for hariware. From the
performance aspect man has become a relatively standardized com-
ponent in the system. He must function within a given range of
tolerance to satisfy systei,. requirements. Conseqiently, every
individual or group of individuals in the system ,lust be capable
of providing the reqiirod performuance. Personnel variability
and interchangeability directly affect the operational capabil-
ity of the system. Variabil~ty of thle human component must be
either minimized or have onl,, negligible effect on system per-
formance if the potential system capability is to be fully
realized.
The previous tendencies for system development to be primarily

concerned with only hardware developnent or with the assumption
that hardware test data adequately evaluate the Personnel Sub- lp
system have made it extremely difficult to empirically identify
14--23
human errors and the effects of haman variabilit,' on the system.

However, some information on the amount of human etrror does
exist. For example, the Shapero (3) Studýy indicated a range
from 20 to 53 percent for human-initiated malfunctions. An ana-
lysis of (00 recent rocket engine Failure and ConsumP ion Reports
showed that 35% of the failure reports indicated equioment
damage or malfunction directly attributable to human interaction
with the equipment during maintenance, checkout, and, transport.
Up to 40% of dil missile holds, postponements, and failures are
caused by h man error. The pablished studies involved a further
analysis or r an, ysis of data previously co1LcctLd rather than
the more positive effort to actually collect and classify
Personnel Subsystem data as an Lntegral part of the failure-
"_ata reportinq system. If such an analysis can be performed by
a group of individuals in retrospect, it should be equally pos-
sibl, to perform the analysis at the time the data is originally
collected -- providing methods and techniques are adequate for
ýJentif i-_ huran initiated failure on the failure-data reports.
Con-,inin.-j human reliability to the effects of human performance

structuz as t-e co-cept but does not solve the reliability pro-
blem. liuman reliability is not easily predicted nor controlled.
Human failure is not identical. to equipment tailure. People are
not- fixed components. After human performince has once been
establ.-'hed human f-ilures tend to be intermittent. Usually the
indivir' ,al who fails to perform a specitic tajk at a spccific
time wi. i perform the tisk correctly tiie next time. Intermittent
human failure plagues the operational sit iat ion. Ituman perform-
ance is affected I. many complex factors such as motivation,
stress, and ratigue. These complex factors are difficult (but
not impossible) to predict and control. |_
4. CONCLUS ION
Although no' generally recognized, the birth of the new era,

symbolized by the term man-machint. systems, occurred when the
tcchnoloists produced the autonmatic trackirtg and fire control or
an laying radars. This was quickly followed by the second
technoguyical. innovation, high speed olectronics computers.
With these machines we had devices which could replicate the
logic process whi-h heretofore had been the exclusive domain of
man.
With the ;nvasion by the machine into the logic process, the
relativ roles of man and machine have undergone a subtie but
ronetheless fundamental change. No longer can we regard man as
It
14-24
an entity apart from the system -- an entity operates, main-

(n,
tains or controls the machine. Rather he is exylicitly a part ý)f
the system contributing those capabilities which are uniqiiely
his. Th". ii. •, -ry at least we now have man-machine systems
with the man as igned those tasks which he can do most -ffective-
ly and efficiently and the machine assigned tho.e tasks which it
can do most effectively and efficiently.
Man is subject to the machine even as the machine is tr) hiTn,

through the interactions which take place in today's -omplex
systems. Certainly man's judgment must prevail and in a sense
can be considered to control since the machine does not possess
intellect. However, we must not lose sight. of the fact iat
even this "man-only" nttribute can be and is influenced to a
remarkable e):tent today by the met nod of processing and manner
of display of the pr cessed data `y the machine.
Within the context of our philoo)phical concept Human Factors

Engineering is a very bro:d ar( a of concern encompassing diver
disciplines in the behavior -l cionces, physiology, anthropo-
metrics and psychometrics. I an applied Engineering sense it
includes the area which we reer to as Personnel Managomcn- nd
Training. Actually, one can co7 zeive of the Personnel and
Training people as being the producers of the ma,,-modules for
our systems. It is to them that our systems engineers lock fo.
the man in the systems. It is to them also that the systems
engineers look for the descriptive specifications of +he man
available for incorporation into the system.
Herein lies the problem. While there is a positive e. ort to

provide quality control in processing the product ana n selec-
tion of the raw material input, the random nature ()t the oriqins
of the raw material poses real difficulties. AS d rtsult, des-
criptive specifications are given in very broad parameters.
This situation is aggravated by our lack of real unders'anding

as to how and why this raw material, man, functions. Neithei do
we have the attendant measuring systems for this functioninj.,
We point with pride to the fine tolerances to which we can pro-=
duce machine-elements. We measure them ith micron exactness.
'
Then we ask the system designer to combine, them with man-elements

which we describe as an average man with an 8th grade mcntalilty.
What precision! What an exquisitely define. measurement scale'
-- •nd management says, "Give us systems effoctiveness."
In order to reach the design goal we must rirs. learn far more
than we now know about how and why a man functions. We mus-t
11-2 5
learn how to measure the parameters wh i ch Aesrri_!A thus, R'inctin

We must acquire the capability to describe ::c ' ~t ov o
tions of man*-functions are (or potenlt icail ,. -irc) in ir , a,-i>1 '
inventory tog ether with the distributirons o)f tnese funct ions.
Until we are able to provide adequate man parameters to u'o
systems designers, the probabilities of true systeýms effective-
ness will continue to be quite low and hiiqh syste-iefet -srs
will be more accidental -than calculated. T(, S y,4to' etfc-ti %-C
ness, I submit, is the situation today. Thi . - i f tst.:
ý 10i a
myriad of reports (2).
These reports use such terms as 'too c- a ICato

1, -('i ion~
'inadequate training'", "'abo-c the bieads (,fýuur:,_c 1' -. be
maintained'', ctc. The- , if
youi will, are -- o't .
demonstrat~e our inability to f it thl, iV-i I~l
-InC .an-:7,,'duhIs to
the system. In almost every case, we ir,- abLec t:. p~rnv'"'J com)r-
bination of man-modules and machinc-modules tnat nie function
effect ively. More often than not. me ascrib the di fferw be-
tween the successes and fatilures to such thUirwzs 05 1-.uri ip
luck or, in -.ome cases, a unique set of ci-Tstoe. In Any
case, one effective system case is eviden.-e tkUat thU's e' c-an ' -t
work effectively.
Quanti7ing the man function then bec-),nes, t~he rp'.' -robcm 'L,
systems effectiveness effort. Ihaldocedo
bit ho Mw Para-
meters in System Support? To me, the solI t icis qciKte olr.r
Fir.; t , management. and .. e xpliicit ly Armed [0r'orcs Nlanictie nt - -
nust admit to not beinq the fount ýf knpKa i.n the As;a 1 '''p
rid t valuation of the mian- tunot ioni.
If we are to resolve the problemi, wc mut rta '

rtudy and analysis of the man parat:et or,-, in *yst tp f it er 'A
Moan that which we current ly lhaveo undol We

,':'is , -1 *1_
g,,, in our understanding aon ta- owi~rL~no'n o-t Qu Tin e "r t " 'ry
We must initiate and su1pport o'f forts jA sricnt : t ic ic-ikAA

wil: lead to an understand inqi an:1ui'r.tn a! tý ! ifl- tki
that we possess for the qvar , the electr-n i e 4'' 'Un. t t* i c
acid.
To this end, a numher of projects are unui-erw'' in tào Na'o.- In

an attemTpt to resolc-e the problem, the Bureau ofI5t ihc-sc-. cort d
by the O ffice of NavalI Material has init iatc.S. .a 'rc etC1 ll
TR VM. TRIMh is an acronym for Traininq Requi remnt sin form. tion
Management. TRIM is a systematic approach ta* the i tic-at, n, -
'-ecerding c-nd col lect ion oit train i n requirements data*.win

pers ~nnel resource data in terms of traininki. Perhap-s t-he most :
signi-tic-ant aspect of TRIM is that it S d 4 Si IT1 (-0C-C-pt t alK Mito7
14-26
account the gross nature of existingo mcasures of man param,ett rs.

As a result the matrices in th'2 sy-;tem have been *.'esigneri to
provide for ultimat Iv mr ret nco measures 'ithout necessitatin
a new data system.
A second Navy project, which I'd like to cite, Js the effort unoer
the sponsorship ut the Chief of Naval Personnel referred to as
the New Developments Human Factors Program. This is a rather
broad-gauged effort to define the oroblem and provide solution.
in the personnel managnemnt and training, or if you will, pro-
duction processes for our man-modules.
However, the vast bulk of our military systems must -se the so-
called averace man. Further, highly specialized ano very
expensive artificial envirornments are simply not economically
feasible for them.
Therefore, we must learn more about how and w-hy this avera-ie
man performs. We must learn how to measure and predclt thlis
performance. These measures and these predict iwns ma,.' then be
used by the system des igner as the descri.ttive parameters ,f the
man in the svstem. The... and onlv then can we hove t " e-e
overall systems effe-ti-'vness in our military sstem-is.
RE :'ER NC 1S
I1 Psychoio, i cal Princ iples in Svstom Dovelovment, B. >.

Holt Rinehart an] Winston, New Yorl..
2. Man Parumeteis in System 5eu-port, Cdr. K. M. Snr:,,nt, 7:N,

Eleventh Nat ijnal Confrence
t A:red }' es '._.na eenntAs.
:,ept. 1 64
3. Human En, ineorini F'-t in and Mal funt ion i C in

Weapon Svstem Test, iPro A. vhaper,, J.' ,
L port , K. Schakc fr To_, t ' rtti' C,
AF-33 (*61tK)] ••
4. :1{,uran Fri,' ineeriln,%. I, •; .~,tl and A a y i < r • ,, i •

Finqincerino BLbi 'ra , , ev ', ' t -
Wash iqt•n, P. C
5. Personnel Subsyut em ReI i Iit v for Aeros 1. em ,s

.Majest.y, AF Ballistic Sss ern5. ."iv., Proc. o1 IA5 Ae,-,Sp. ,
Sys't o! Re 1iab i it~v Sym%7pos ium, Sa lt Lake City, "t,11, A-r i 1
1962.
Chapter 1:5
DESTICN rE
1. PHASES OF DES TO:N R17,r7fEW 15-

1. 1 Conceptual Phase oif' Desion1-
1.2 Preliminary Des-p,;n I15,-4
1.3 Formal Dcs icn R e v ie154
1.4 Final Des'Tn 1-
1.5 Alteration or Correctlions i 5- i.
2. CHECKLISTS %l
2.1 Data Packaqe Cl.ecklist 51
2.2 General PsnChcliSt151
2. 3 Structural Fati-lue Chicklis6t 15-14
2.4 Hurman Factors Checklist 151
2.5 D ev e 1o p- ent of Checkli-sts 15I~
3. CO,'VERAG;E OF DESIGN Rl1XIEW 1-1 '
3.'1 Maintainabilit-v 51
3.2 Parts Control 15-
3ý.3 Manu tact u~r i!mi Procesýs Enij in-.ers 5-
3.4 ReliaLi;.+.v 'En lirieers1-2
3. &~ltvControl Fr,,il nerc
4. EFFLCTIVV-N1SS 15-2
15-2
Chapter 15
DESIGN REVIEW
The objective of design review is mature design the first time.

We are trying to accelerate the brainchild's growth and learning
rate, and to know when and whether it can reliably stand on its
own feet.
We want to help the design engineer to "think of everything."

While this may be humanly impossible when he is yo'.rg. working
alone or without discipline, we can come very close to "every-
thing" with systematic assistance and guidance.
We also want to make sure that the very best available brains
Fre applied to the design. By brains we mean both competence
and experience. Most engineers realize that they do not know
everything about their area of design. The very fact that they
are designing implies the need to cr,-ate new and untried things.
But young engineers often cannot appreciate what they do not yet
know. So we must find ways to make the knowledge of experienced
engineers not only handily available to the design engineer, but
also invariably and systematically used.
Also it is desirable to subject the design to the different view-

points arising from experience in different fields or disciplines.
An expert in one field can repeatedly miss a flaw that is obvious
to the expert in another.
Achievement of this objective will of course protect the Bureau

and fleet from the cost and delay of preventable errors, protect
the contractor from much Bureau unhappiness, and protect the
contractors community from degenerate employment resulting from
consequent loss of business.
The manner in which design reviews are conducted differs mainly

in degree of formalization. A conversation between a designer
and a friend in another code may very well accomplish the main
purpose of a design review. On the other hand requiring that an
engineer complete detailed design review questionnaires solely
to justify his design decisions does not usually accomplish any
purpose. Formality should probably be confined to formal re-
quirements of scheduled events (review, report, follow-up) and
content of the reviews but not extended to fc, •'at for those
events.
It must be remembered that a design review deals with people as

15-3
well as with an inanimate product. A review is not an inquisition

and is, in fact, nearly always best conducted as a presentatLon
by the responsible engineers to the review group. Many contrac-
tors have found that good engineers welcome it as an opportunity
to demonstrate capability before their peers~and contemporaries.
1. PHASES OF DESIGN REVIEW
Four phases of design review are rep.dily identifiable.
1.1 CONCEPTUAL PHASE OF DESIGN
During conceptual design, the designer will want to take advan-

tage of all of the previous experience and information that he
can possibly make available to himself. Some of the types of
information that he will want to consider are (a) what is the
experience of similar equipment; (b) the failure reports on un-
satisfactory conditions of similar designs7 and (c) test inform-
ation and technical engineering papers reporting on experience
of other designers even to the extent of examining designs in
other industries.
During this phase, numbers of different ideas are generated,

modified, and discarded for various reasons. They should be
studied in a series of successive approximations before one is
selected for detailing. Many times after extensive layout and
initial detailing is started, or even when complete, a deficiency
will be uncovered which requires throwing the whole idea out and
star:.ing over. Sometimes a further look atone of the early
ideas previously discarded will offer a solution for final de-
sign. It is here that system modeling techniques are of greatest
value. The more complete the technical evaluation at the con-
ceptual stage, the more probable that time will ultimately be
saved, and the design will survive. Initial dependability re-
quirements are established and apportioned for compliance at
this stage.
Once the. designer '.aas gathered all of his information described

above, he will want to review it prior to proceeding on to the
next phase of design. To most effectively accomplish this, he
will need to hold a discussion with many participants from whom
he has gathered the information during the conceptual design.
During the conceptual design stage, Design Reviews usually con-

sist of informal meetings held between the designer,, his immed-
iate supervisor, the section chief, and possibly with participa-
tion a&t higher levels of the organization when the importance of
the design warrants.
15-4
At the start of a difficult or major development program, it may

be desirable to extend the scope of and participation in these
meetings by conducting formal, fully documented meetings utiliz-
ing the services of other well qualified members of the Crgani-
zation or outside consultants in certain specialties. Such
mectings are generally called Formal Design Reviews.
Informal meetings generally are brainstorming sessions for the

purpose of generating new ideas and to help the designer to
develop an awareness of various problems, as well as to solidify
design ideas. From these reviews, the designer develops suf-
ficient confidence to proceed further into the Preliminary design
phase.
1.2 PRELIMINARY DESIGN
Once the conceptual design review has been completed, the next
step is the preliminary design. A layout is now required to
determine how to install or assemble equipment into its parti-
cular area. To accomplish this, the designer lays out the parti-
cular area as near to full scale as post le. To assist the
designer in visualizing how various designs will appear in a
third dimension and also as an effective coordination tool with
other system designers working on different functions, a mock-up
should be utilized. The chief designer of an aircraft company
referred to this as "a three dimensional layout for the designer."
The mock-up at this particular stage should be very flexible in
order that the designer can quickly get different ideas mocked
up and be able to investigate many possibilities in a design for
a given period of time.
The informal reviews continue on through the preliminary design

phase to assist the designer in meeting milestones, staying
within the budget, and arriving at a balanced design. When the
preliminary design is complete, a Formal Design Review is held.
1.3 FORMAL DESIGN REVIEW
A great deal of organization and technical effort is necessary

to provide the basic framework necessary for successful design
reviews. Several principles have proven to be important regard-
less of specific program details:
a. The efficiency of design reviews is a direct function of

the effectiveness of the communication techniques used
between project, personnel, designers, reliability, com-
petent specialists? etc.
S. . I.
15-5
b. Design reviews must be conducted in accordance with pro-

gram milestone schedules and specific ground rules. A
checklist or its equivalent must be used to assure adequate
consideration of elements such as reliabil.ty vs. reliabil-
ity requirements, and maintainability vs. maintainability
requirements.
c. Design reviews must be to the point, brief, must not drift

away from the topic under consideration, must be confined
to essential personnel, must not include "interested"
personnel.
d. Design reviews must make provis'on for corrective action.F

to be identified and monitored.
e. Design reviews must be adequately funded and data must be

recorded to assure that the results can be evaluated at
some future date.
Every project, every design for. that matter, is evaluatid with

regard to its ultimate function, reliability, and maintainability.
Whenever one cirxi.t is selected over another or A part or a
packaging configuration is chosen, the engineer has weighed some
trade-offs and has made a decisiorf as to the adequacy of one
design versus another.
When actions such as these are performed on the basis of minimum
information or is the result of empirical techniques which have
evolved through '!he years there is a strong possibility for the
creation of inadequate designs, costly errors and incompatibility
as various segments of an equipment are integrated. Through
design reviews we are able to assure ourselves of a uniform high
quality of designs, even though hundreds of personnel are involved.
The standards remain in the hands of a very few people. Even
though most design reviews do not have the authority to reject a
design, their influence is felt very strongly in the adherence to
these- standards.
Mutual exchange of technical information is of great advantage to

program efficiency in product design. This cross-fertilization
of design techniques through the medium of a design review improve
the capability of all engineering personnel participating. The
properly organized design review program utilizes the available
capacity of specialists in an optimum fasbion.
Contractually there are many difficulties most of which must be

"overcome in order to perform in accordance with contractual re-
I V
15-6
quirements. Design reviews are almost a necessity in dealing with

subcontractors or associate contractors, particularly for the prime
or the lead contractor. The monitoring of design reviews is difficult
and yet in order to have an integrated weapon system it must be
done. Few companies are willing to Pend copies of their design
reviews outside their organizations. This is tantamount to tell-
ing the competitor what kind of problems they have. it is a
private problem and this difficultmust be overcome when partici-
pating as a subcontractor or a co-contractor.
The primes must review the subcontractor and frequently must con-
duct a design review of the subcontractor's product themselves.
For maximum system worth the design and the reliability efforts
of all orgInizations must be compatible. The activities of com-
panies with widely varying policies and design approaches must
be integrated. In this type of effort. the responsibility of the
prime contractor is to coordinate, sat...àrdize designs, finishes,
parts, components, reporting methods and frequently control the
level of the engineers used on the job.
A subject which will come under frequent discussion is Bureau

personnel attendance at contractor design reviews. The arguments
presented in the preceding paragraph apply to this case too.
Bureau engineers must realize that their attendance will tend to
limit the free exchange of information and the open expression
of divergent opinions on the part of contractor personnel. This
will very likely result in the design review program being com-
pletely ineffective. However, cises may arise in which the Bureau
has had a direct contact with the design process and is hence in
a position to contribute significantly to the design review pro-
cess. In such cases Bureau participation can be justified and
is warranted. A good ground rule to be followed could be:
attendance as an "interested party or "observer" should be dis-
couraged, attendance as an active participant should be encouraged.
But if, as one service has done, the Bureau wants to renegotiate
contract dollars bc•cause of design effort scrapped as result of
Design Review, £urth,.!r reviews with Bureau participation will be
sheer white-wash.
The primary difference in the informal meetings and the Formal

Design Review is that the Formal Review formulates more definite
decisions. Also, aspects outside of Eigineering are reviewed
by specialists in Manufacturing, Tcoling, Planning, Logistics,
Purchasing, Facilities, and Quality Assurance. This provides the
Designer with assurance that his design is progressing along
practical lines. It is to provide assurance that the design can
be (a) ,ianufactured econouically, (b) the ciuipment which has te

be obtained outside of the •. -mpany cain bt p.Irchased, (c) the design
carl be serviced, (f) can 1e tested in production and -t- Peceivijng,
and (e) can be provided with a yuality Assurance P-rogram. uuring
this review the infcrmation will be documented and maintained as
* permanent reco'-d. ilie various ,pecialists mentioned ab.ove form
a Dec;gn Review Board. This Board is on call by its chairman.
If an effective job is to be done, it makes little difference

where in the organization the design review board members report.
The essential requirements are that the board, as such, must:
a. Report to a manager other than those whose designs are

reviewed. No one can effectively audit his own work.
Thus it may be established within the design assurance
(relate-" to engineering) area or thc product assurance
(reliability, quality, etc.) organization under general
management. Or, it may be located within a design ass'irance
(relidbility, etc.) organization in Engineering, if
separated from design respc-.ihllity.
b. Report high enough to attract and satisfy truly experienced

enqincers as review chairmen and participants.
c. Have top-calibre men. Review chairmen must be technicdily

experienced, diplomatic, able to rc )gnize "snow", tough
when the oacasion needs it, and wicly respected. Men of
this cali!.2, are available in most ,-"'': hu+- *11,
command excullent salaries.
A general FLOW-DIAGRAM is shown in Figure 15-8 for a Design

Review System. When the Formal Reviews are complete, the desiqner
can now accomplish several steps toward completing his design and
providing for the manufacturing of the design. Some of these
steps are (u) write advanced material orders for both material
and parts; (b) release intormation for a mock-up; (c) write some
of the test plans and procedures; (d) order new facilities that
may be required for manufacturing and tests;, ke) provide _.nform-
ation to Program Evaluation and Review Technique (PERT, I (f) in-
form other designers who are depending on the progress of the
design with up-dated information.
1.4 W"TNAL DESIGN
With Prelimina:fy Reviews now completed, the designer can proceed

to the rinal design phase which will develop the details required
to make the comnponents subsystems or system.
r. U
I~~J F
K I
~Fx
D
La w4 E .
W u Q,
Cr r
bb .t M
I-t
~cd
*-4 ~ -Cd
lizr~e, t
z
ci)iI
L
'Pa ra * i .,r i~nrc: e

f ,r a cs s3r te ebyr a
data packaqe .,n the cesi'in aprxi ateiy twl weeks prior t-ý the
Final Desiqn Review of the design. Yhis enables members of the
board to become familiar with the design prior to the meeting
and to formulate cormnents on the design to present at the Design
R eTc-e major input to the data package must come from the
designer. Two important benefits accrue at this point. (a) the
designer must make a ýather thorough review of his design in the
process of preparing titis material and (b) board members who have
made prior input to the designer during the design process will
check thc validity of interpretacion by the designer and the
correctness of the information transmitted.
The Design Review Board should be headed by an experienced chair-

man. He calls the meeting, and conducts it. He asks the design
engineer to describe the reasoning behind his design, and parti-
cularly behind unusual features and potential trouble areas.
He then asks for team attention sequentially to each agenda item.

:!Te runs through previously-selected items of the pertinent check-
lists, inviting comment. When design "soft-spots" are detected,
he leads the discussion to bring out all viewpoints. He then
expresses the team concensus of opinion, adjusts it until accep-
table all, around, and records it. Dissent, if any (it is rare if
the team is competent), is recorded.
When a change is recommended, the design engineer is asked what

action he will take. In most instances, he can respond on the
spot. But if necessary, the engineer may take up to ten days
to get more information, and is required then to respond.
The formal meeting is then closed, an,! report issued. The

report specified -
1. Areas of outstanding design.

2. What changes are recommended.
3. Why each change is reccxme -.
4. Who is askec to make each cnange.
S. When each change should be comrieed.
One of the most effective techniques for following up action on

recommended changes is a Corrective Action Log. This names the
department and individual responsible, the design identification,
the action to be taken, the status of the action, the scheduled
completion date, and the estimated completion date. An audit
group controls this log, reissues it weekly, and makes sure t at
names stay on the list until, action is completed by all concerned.
Ii
15-10
When action drags, a marked copy is sent to the suapervisor of

the mar. %.ho should act.
When the final layout has been completed, a Formal Design Review
is conducted in the same manner ai described for the preliminary
design but the review is oriented more toward the design details
rather than the system conception. An agenda is again used. A
much more specific review can now be made. This review assists
the designer with information with which to evaluate and direct
the detailed implementation of the design. That is, the review
can consider parts applications, tolerance analysis, Reliability
and Maintainability prediction vs. requirements, emphasis of
certain dimensions, the need of production tests, the type of
material processing, the assembly sequence, the areas of Quality
Engineering emphasis and the schedule required on various parts
for tests. Also, certain deviations from the customer's speci-
fications may be required. In order to avoid delay when equip-
ment is completed, deviation requests must be submitted early
for customer approval.
The designer then proceeds to direct the completion of the design.

Variations determined in the drawing-of the details need to be
noted on the layout as well as the part number of the detail.
Also, a notation of the analytical record and reports is noted
on the layout. Experiences have shown the well documented layc.nt
is invaluable when failures occur and corrective action is sought.
The layout provides a central source of information and this
enables the designer to quickly evaluate the background and saves
much time arriving at a solution to a failure.
Final Design Review is now in order to evaluate the design, with

the assistance of all of the knowledge possible prior to its
final use. A checklist gives an idea of the considerations which
must be made at this time. The various specialists on the Design
Review Board assist the designer materially in providing inform-
ation which finally can be best evaluated by the designer who
knows the very "heart-beat" of the design. With this detailed
information supplied by the Design Board, he can now make the
final evaluation of the end itene. This is the last opportunity
for the designer to assure that his design will be successful as
originally released.
1.5 ALTERATION OR CORRECTIONS
When design changes are needed after initial release, design re-
view is of equal, if not more, significance than at previous times.
The plan alterations, revisions and fixes are the indication of
hiddbn problems. Because of their nature they require the most
15-i1
rigorous attention in design review for permanency of adequate

solution. They are also the most costly in time and dollars,
since they represent 're-do" of both design and finished manu-
facture, as well as requiring field changes and logistic cost if
delivered.
In this area, the pressures on the desig~ner to hurry' the fix,
obviate the onus of mistakes, release new material, r ecover froum
schedule delinruencies, etc., creates an environment that leans
more to "get it fixed and out at any cost" than to considerations
of the reliability; i.e., permanent adequacy of the fix. These•
pressures lead to relaxation of taking technical advantage of
the lessons learned. Formal Review of the design must*be re-
quired for _an design change.
2. CHECKLISTS
Two types of checklist~s are used in conducting design reviews:
(a) a design review checklist for use in preparation •of the da'ta
package, agenada, and reports, and (b) technical lists for paxti-
cular types of analyses. The comipleted agenda serves as a .
checklist for the design review meeting and the report. -
The following paragraphs give examples of each.
201 DATA PACKAGE CHECKLIST "

1. List all required functions of the component, system. or pro-
blem, including allowable performance ranges, variab~ilit-ies, and
parametric variations.
2. List all environmental conditions by magnir•e~ and frequency, \

including transients which the component must withstand• in:test-&,
ing and curing service life. , •,•
3. List all materials to be used in the system, compon~erat• ... •o'02*
part, with the properties of each under the environmental coTI.[!
ditions expected. List the variability of these prope*••::rties..i :
4. Outline complete test plan including requirements for ai:ny•*

special test equipment. L •*
2 .2 GEN~ERAL DES IGN CIHECKLIST . . .. ••

Review all basic
SI~~. p~rameters included in the data package,,
.. •.......
fort ...
correctness and completeness. •
15-.12
2. Ean-,ine f he sobI:i Js i 1". ý,rt~

Crec t
issions fon, ;arlh fuflct-i on I or:in -,n e
des i q-n. E~stabIi sh1- th e f easi 1)i 1 t, ', h theACS e S!: C-I'i
-ar ailt in rianu f acture anJO( fi ne tl' e level of >r -3
that must ine qonerat-O 'to- a.3sure th at the v.ar i ab it is i ton

limnits.
3.Nte a-,' capablAlities, featuores, accoracie or steljJ

4
te-sts which are beyon'd the s -ate-of-the art or beyoric t 'one-
t~ional capabilities ouf the desicfn fac-i'litiu-s.
4. Examine the design approach to determine if thle si-, 1 oplet

posibl means fo btaiin th 'eured function has bteen è-
veloped. Reliability var 1es inv,,ersely wiJthl sorne tpowe fth
number of parts us4!cý.
5. Determine if proven (by test or sim-ilar ap-,licat. -n hitorv~)

components and parts have been used wherever feasible.
6. _eck the st-ress analysi2s (includinq structural) 3

conmone- - or part , and determine criJt icaI lai ng a~nd pmms bl
failuto modes. Look for points of stress conc-entrat';n orin-
tensifications, and other pos-sible weak lines (-ncludinq. li I t ing,
parameters to continuity of performance) . Look for load comncen-
trations due to externally appl ied shock; and for noise contr _--
but ions .
-7. h coor
resistive strengths (and any est-blished allow,-
ables) of each ma-terial, witih the calculated load stresses;
expected. Indicate the ranges of variability.
8. Examine t~he possibility, and the effects of detlection undher

load, of coach component, or part, on the: performance required
from it function. Estimate external shock effects and resonant
vibrations on pet formance and life expectancy,.
9~. Determine the compatibility of the material and finishes .wi~h

eac' other, in a_-ssembly, under the expected environments. If
data is net available, estimate testing requirements.
10. Consider- the pos;sibility and effects of predictable wear

on the maximum allowable tolerances, as related to the per form-
ance factors of the com-)onents.
11. Consider the possibility and the effects of adverse to-ler-

ance build"-' )n each part, iry'luding the effects of thermal ex-
pansion, vi ation, and differential shock excursions.
ti
15-13
.Consider the p'o"ucihi Iity !f each component or part under

the manufacturing ccnditions iýn which ýt will be built.
13. Consider the related aspects of accessibility, repairability,

m'aintainabilitý (including lubrication) and operability under
field conditions with the variabilities of skill and morale of
personnel.
14, Consider the convenience, special tools and accuracy te-

cjuired for operational adjustments and control instrumentation,
fror,,m a human factors standpoint.
15. Consider the effects of associated random casualty and

permanent shock effects on the performance characteristics of
the total system.
16. Consider the compatibility of the components and parts with

each other and with supporting services in the system.
17. Consider the installation criteria (handling, alignment,

etc.) for the system, component or part in the overall arrange-
ment.
18. Review the overall evaluation, summarize and conclude,

noting:
a. The possible design deficiencies, including contract or

specification dcficiencies or conflicts.
b. The probable and possible modes of failure and the effect

of these or both the component and overall system.
c. The tests deemed necessary to establish data for final

reliability assurance.
d. Any inspection procedures oither routine or special,

which would help uncover most likely manufacturing and
assembly errors.
e. The test deemed necessary to fully evaluate performance

vs. design, failure modes, and overload coaiditions.
f. For parallel components ýr other ccmponents that can fail

without causing a detectable system malfunction, list the
periodic inspection procedures that will monitor these poten-
tial failure points.
15-14
g.The criteria (incc dinc time) f'c,- meiodic 1,r-ev'entiA,'

maintenance and repair.
h. The important operational cautions :hich

.. shý,_ould be included
in instruction books and! maintenance manuals.
i. Review life expectancy data and associated parametric

criteria for failure vs. tiTme. List sugqested service lfe
periods to component overhar'l or replacement.
j. Review all data developed and failuro/timve information on

similar components. Estimate a mean time to first failure
and/or the safety margins available to assure compliance with
contract requirements.
K. The devel •ped information on probable life expectancies

assuming adeuiat-e mai-utenarce and repa.ir performance. Esta-
blish le..el of essentially and list all inputs for establ<'-h-
ing confidence in predictions.
1. List agreed actions to be taken by functional ine depart-

:r;ents in connection with deficiencies, errors, or inadequate
methods/procedures. Establish conmitments and follow-up.
m. Write a factual report.
2.3 STRUCTURAL FATIGUE CHECKLIST
1. Was major attention qiven to actual stresses, especially at

stress concentrations, rather than to the nominal average stresses?
2. Did you visualize how load is transferred from one part or

section to another in a structure and/or the distortions that
occur during loadinq, to help locate the points of high stress?
3. Were gradual changes in section and symmetry of the design

used according to such design criteria as shown in Section XX of
the Design Manual?
4. Was careful attention given to location of joints and type

of joints used? (Joints are one of the most frequent sources of
fatigue weakness.)
5. Were symmetrical ý,_ints used wherevet po)ssible?
6. Were suitable means used to stiffen unsy~mnetrical joints so

that secondary flexing is reduced to a minimum;
15-15
7. Did you desiqn joints so that all parts will participate

equally, and that there will not be an undesirable load transfer
to an adjacent part?
P. Did yc, Avcid opon 'n-1P and loosely filled ones?
9. Waz preference given in the design to butt jctints, as detailed

in the Design Manual, Section IV, Chapter 5?
10. Did you give preference to redundant-type structures where

this type ot structure is possible?
11. Was careful attention given to fathlcation details to im-

prove fatigue life?
12. Were the proper surface finishes chosen?
13. Was suitable protection against corrosio.- provided?
14. Was attention given to the geometry of a welded joint in-

cluding such factors as smoothness, undercutting, cracks, exces-
sive porosity, spatter, and symmetry?
15. Did you design for accessibility for inspection of important

ten3ion joints?
16. Was the addition of secondary brackets, fittings, handles,

steps, bosses, grooves, and openings at locations of high stress
avoided?
17. Is part material compatible with its function and loading?
18. Is the type of construction best suited for the loading

conditions including sonic fatigue?
19. Are the unsu-pported panel sizes small enough to resist sonic
fatigue'?
20. has maxiram simplicity been achieved consistent with sonic

fatigue?
21. Is "ie part/assembly sensitive to fatigue from ground hand-

ling an vibration to be encountered?
22. Are there any unnecessary joints and splices?
23. Are there any possibilities of chain reaction-type failures

which can be prevented?
15-16
24. uo the fastener selections best satisfy all load ,O-ii•j}-

ments?
25. Are fastener bolt si ze2s and toIerances copatible with pr t

functions ?
26. Has the proper bolt torque b-iei specified?
27. Have retaining or locking rings been elioLinated where

possib] e?
28. Have the heat treat steels been considered for hvyorogen
embr itt lement ?
29. Has Design Manual plating practice been adopted?
30. Has ample clearance been allowed for strucLural deflection

of adiacent partg?
31. Has effect of structural deflectiun of one part on others

attached to it been considered?
32. Have thermal stresses and differential thermal expansion

been considered?
33. Have the following sources of stress concentration bee:n

eliminated?
a. Sharp corner and fillet radii?
b. Eccentric load paths?
c. Abrupt section changez?
d. Stiffeners terminating in middl of unsupported panels?
e. Clip axigies attached to web only?
f. Steel stamp part numbering in areas of high stress?
34. Is secondary structure, wl:ch ic rl-idly attached to primaly

structure, designed to carry the loads induced in it by deflec-
tion of the primary structure?
35. Has the primary structure beern revbewed for adv.rs- load
distribution caused by secondary structure?
15-17
2.4 kjMAN FACTORS CHECKLIST
i~o Has the best allocation of function between man and machine
been deterainr-nd?
2. Have te controls and indicators been designed and arranged

with body me-s-,arement limitations duly considered?
3. Has the location of indicators and controls been balanced

against the need for adjustment?
4. Has consideration been given to the use the operator will

make of each instrument, control, and equiment and as to how its
location i,,ill aid in the performance of the task with the most
accuracy and least fatigue?
5. Has the tyipe of response he must make been determined?
•. Will present design interfere with his ability to continue

receiving the information he needs?
7. Is speed :-f operation critical?
8. Is accuracy of reading or setting critical?
V. Have the job 3perations been simplified to present to the

operator the fewest possible motions, the nature sequence of
motions and only pertinent information, in order to minimize the
chance of foilure under stress?
10. May adjustments and alignment be accomplished by an average

technician?
11. Has consideration been given to the operators pavchological

and environmental conditions during the operation of the equip-
ment?
12. Have th' different kinds of illumination been considered?
13. Have glare hazarls been eliminated, such as brightly polished

tbezels, glossy enamel finishes, or highly reflective instrument
covers?
14. Have the static dimensional data for cabinets, racks and
consoles been used in the design with the dynamic dimensional
statistics of the huiman operator in mind?
15-18
15. Are vertically mounted visual displays 50 to 70 inches above

the floor when they are to be viewed for a standing position?
16. Has a 30-inch seat-to-eye height reference beea used to

locate visual displays for a seated operator and has the chair
height been specified along with the console dimensions?
17. For a comfortable display mounting angle, has the following

rule been used: 60 degrees from horizontal for seated operator
position, 45 degrees for a combina,-ion position of sitting or
standing and 30 degrees for a standing position?
18. Has a 28-inch arm reach, measured from the operator's

shoulder, been used as a limiting figure for the placement of
controls which are to be used often?
19. Have the controls been locdted near the display which they
affect when this does not conflict with other manipulatory re-
quirements?
20. Have the controlz been arranged sequentially with respect

to be expected or required order of operation?
21. Do arrangement and layouts stress the importance of balanc-

ing the workload or do they force one hand to perform too many
tasks while the other hand is idle?
22. Considering functional requirements, is the panel layout as

simple as practicable.
23. Are interdependent functions so arranged that adjustment

and troubleshooting are amenable to logical, straight forware
procedures?
24. Do visual displays occupy central areas and controls occupy

peripheral areas whenever possible to avoid hand and aim inter-
ference with visual tasks?
2.5 DEVEJ11MENT OF CHECKLISTS
It is apparent that the checklists should be prepared by the man

or group most competent in the specialty. In the conduct of the
mietings a complete agenda should Lo used to assure nothing is
omitted. Points of no ccnsequcnce cLn be summarily di3cussed
and disposed of. The technical checklist should be prepared by
an experienced specialist who contributes his knowledge of tl"-
pattern -,f error he has discerned in his experience with a wide
15-19
variety of designs.
The technical checklists should be furnished to the designer in

the very early stages of design. They should be devised for con-
venient use during the design phase and should be required to be
submitted to his supervisor with the completed design, along with
analyses and other documentation.
3. COVERAGE OF DESIGN REVIEW
It is obviously impractical and inefficient to conduct separate

revie,;s of Reliability, Maintainability, Producibility, Testa-
bility and the dozens of other disciplines. The design review
should comprehend all of the factors that make a good design.
in the paragraphs that follow, some of the aspects will be covered.
3.1 MAINTAInABILITY
One of the major areas of review is the maintainability of the
product. The design must be subject to review by those who plan,
design and have the responsibility for support of the weapon
during its operational life. This is accomplished primarily by
a maintenance engineering analysis of the end article, systems
and components thereof by a group external to the design enqin-
eering department.
Suiccessful implementa on of a competent maintenance engineering

analysis (MEA) requires management support, proper funding, pro-
per planning and most important, personnel with the proper back-
ground and training. The MEA changes recommended must be con-
sidere3 from all aspects including necessary tradeoffs of cost,
weight, performance and misiion accomplishment. Thus the MEA
must be a part of the design review.
To be effective, the MEA should be initiated during the proposal

stage and carried forward during drawing layout, drawing release,
parts manufacture, and assembly and test of comporents and the
end article.
The maintenance analyst must know the maintenance level at which

each bit, piece, part, component, system or end article will be
serviced, repaired or overhauled. The analyst must establish the
detailed maintenance tasks required to maintain the end article
in, or return it to a mission ready status. The analyst must
justify the tools and test equipment required to Accomplish each
task. He must source code the parts required to accomplish each
15-20
task and assign procureient factors as to quantities required.

He must be able to identify any new special skills required to
perform the tasks and determine that such skills will be avail-
able at the using activity. He must determine that the necessary
technical instructions will be available to the man performing
the task.
3.2 PARTS CONTROL
One of the major causes of unreliability is the use of unreliable

parts. The designer has a penchant for using new and novel ideas
based on apparently outstanding performance capabilities seen in
reports or advertising without verification of the actual per-
formance r f the part. Since parts, just like systems muist be
developed, the bugs eliminated and the design matured to reliable
operation, such innovations, more often than not, create relia-
bility problems. Parts specialists study the actual data on
parts utilization to determine the degree of maturiuy of many
parts, and can provide records of actual successful applications
of the parts in many systems. Such a record of satisfactory use
provides soi,1 e reabonable assurance of success in similar applica-
tions. Wh.ere no evidence of successful use can be found the
use of tae part is suspect. The parts specialist, in addition
to being available for informatioi, on past uses, should review
the parts proposed to identify such suspect applications.
3.3 MANUFACTURING PROCESS ENGINEERS
While the designer is the expert on the requirements of the final

product, he is not necessarily expert in the manufacturing pro-
cesses necessary or useful in achieving such requirements. The
c-apability of the manufacturing tools and machines is the pro-
vince of production engineers. These latter can discover areas
in the design that cannot be built within the tolerances assigned
using equipment available in the plant. They can propose changes
in the specifications and drawing which, if acceptable, will
permit accomplishment with available tools, better inspection or
less expensive manufacture. Their day in court at a design
review frequently improves the producibility of the product with-
out degrauing (and often improving) performance and reliability.
j.4 RELIABILITY ENGINEERS
The position of the Reliability Engineer is that of the critic.

The designer is primarily orientei toward seeing that the design
will work, whereas the critic, or ,,eliability Engineer, is attemp-
ting to ferret out those areas which would cause the design not
15-21
to ou'.erate, the indication of its unreliabilit\.
By systematic approaches of the mathematical model, failure

etfect analysis, an- criticality lists, the designer can be
materially assisted in arriving at the portions of his design
that he must concentrate on in order to arri-e at a balanced and
reliable design. In a complex system, this always is a difficult
assessment for the designer to make without the servi-es of the
service type of organizations. Since the mathematical model is
a systematic functional diagrammning of components as they fit
into subsystems and syFtems, this model can materially aid the
designer in having an overall feel for the complete system.
TiLis, in turn will help him in providing designs that will pro-
vide reliability for the total system rather than overdesign a
particular portion of it and thereby not improve the total relia-
bility.
3.5 QUALITY CONTROL ENGINEERS
The assurance that the manufactured article conforms to the

specifications is the province of Quality Control. Their parti-
cipation in dcsign reviews will assist the designer in making
sure that the required quality is specified and that the necessary
controls and inspections can be performeu to assure that tt is
achieved.
4. "I'FECTIVENESS
Fear of things not understood is often a constraint upon desi4n

review. Such fear turns gradually into appreciation once an
engineer realizes how much he has been helped; how he has been
protected from. the consequence ot mistakes. The poor enoinee-
may risk exposure of his inadequacies, but the good engineer
reaps the benef-t of expert appreciation of his capabilities.
Perhaps the greatest single benefit of design review is the

discipline of prep.iration for it. Analyses and tests are made
that otherwise might be omitted, checklists are checked and re-
checked, and there is more prior comimunication with the speciail-
ists. And this is the path of good design.
Design Review is a servic,' and audit for which manpower must be

budgeted. But the longer-term savi ngs can far offset this cost.
To the extent that design review helps get work don. right the
first time, it can minimize or eliminate overrun, improve profit,
and improve competitive position. Specifically:
15-22
1.- Tr a ini ng: The d iscioline orqan ized preparation for des ign
review, and participation therein, amc)unts to quicker on-the-job
training of young enqineers. Thus their learning curve is steeper,
with better efficiency and fewer costi T-hanges .
2. Speialists ý Fuller utilization )f specialist skills brings

earlier design adjustments, avoiding the cost of later chanqes.
3. Requirements Review: Critical examiination of customer stated

and unstated needs and constraints can (a) uncover unrealized
requirements that. otherwise cause schedule slippage and unbud.-
geted cost, (b) avoid wasted desigr effort and cost on non-esscn-
tials, and (c) avoid the boomierangý cost of personal "understanu-
ings" between company and customer personnel.
4. Preferred Componeoits: Many parts and assemblies are useful

across many prr( -cts. The selection and establishment of pre-
ferred components., for required design use where f-asible (a)
reduces procurement cost throu~jh hýigher volume, (b) redluces fac-
tor,., -field, and customer in-vento'-v cost, and (c) Improves re-
liability through better but le',s costly test and field informa-
ti on feeouback, and higqher reliatil."y reduces factory, field "And
cu-itomer costs. 7esi-,n review assures the use Of preferred com-
Fc-."ents 'wheri feasible.
Value'/Cog t The techni Hues of vleanals is" have lý-n(-

been used tor substantial cost re-luct ion a fter release. The
same t echni qoes can be used it all. levels of the design, hi erar chy
to better approach minimum or the requ ired' %--lues be fore thet-
fot
des iqn is laced ay.. rio id so thait t~he .-pportuni ty is !,c t . Also,
the cost-ef feet. t:eness txchaicues for systein evaat ion, Ia _i
upon "reliabilit-v" mc-deis , prov-ide a power ful tool fir vis ibt litý
of consOi dat~d e lects of pr,ýposeo_ cb an~es . Ft feet jvo cmesi-on
e
i~vi reul esthese an. Aves.
6. chan~sc To t he extcent tl' it the above techniques do. ect the

neea rind p-ith i r corcinat the ear liest poss iblte t im', during
des iqn. they caln sutst antijl-lv reduco the cost of djes iqn, des i:jrn
chanqes, -t-desiqn, ccenfusion, test , rework, scrap, ma- -intonanrce,
ý,nd fai~lure c::)nsequencv.
RF VFRENCES
1. ReIiab i I t y Considerat ions in Des ion Rev i e'., E lect ron ic

R-el i abili ty Fan(-., of EFTC Commit tee of AIA, Hugyhes k/C Co. ,
Culver Ci~ty, 17, April lP%2.
15- 23
2.Anailysis of Peliability *4menaoenment in Defense Industries,

Viýncent Brac:! a, L4-. Col . UTSAF , June 1l)(2.
3.Desi-,n Methods To(-ols an~d Documnentat-'.n to Assure Reliability,

W. W. Reaser, Dougl1as Ailrcraft Co., Inc. , AIAA Confefenc-e
F roceedinqs , A-rosý-ak Reliability and Mai nta inabi lity Co)n-
iference, Washington, D. C., Tune ?')-July 1, 1.964.
Maintai-nability Contiol in P-s iqn, Thomas R. 1Ir-'ffith,

Sikl-orsky A--rcraft Div., Uniteu Airci att Corp., AIAA Confer-
eýnce Procccodings, Aerospace Reliability and Maintainability
Contezence, WashinIton D. C., June 29-Ju,.ly 1, 1964.
5.Design Revie-w - The vThy and the HoRudolph S. Cazanjian

dfld Piehard M. Jacobs, Sylvania Electronic -Syste-ms, Proceed-
inqs, Seventh Naticnal SE'mpositwa on Reliability anc. uali'Ly
Control in Electronicjs, Philadelph~ia, Pa., January 9-l1,
6.Des icn Revitew, a PhilosoohýIy, Survey, and 1 olicv, by J. Y.

McC lure and E. S5. Winlunc-i, Procee:dings of the Ninth Nati~onoal
Sym~posiusn on Reliabi-lity ari u.lt Co-ntr-ol, January 23,
19)63, San ?:ranci-oco.
16-1
Chapter 16
FAILURE DIAGNOSIS
1. CAUSES OF FAILEJRES 16- 2

1.1 Basic Classifications 16- 2
1.2 Exceptions 16- 2
2. IDENTIFICATION Or CAUSES 16- 2

2.1 Frequency of Occurrence 16- 4
2.2 Circuit Analysis 16- 5
2.3 Failure Analysis 16- 5
2.4 Ex&rnple of Failure Analysis Report 16- 6
2.4.1 Coi ponent Identification 16- 6
2.4.2 History 16- 6
2.4.3 Analysis 16- 7
2.4.4 Conclusions 16- 8
2.4.5 Reccwunern.ded Correc" 1ve Action 16- 8
2.5 Corrective Action 16- 9
3. TLMING OF CORRECTIVE ACTION 16-11

3.1 Engineering Testing 16-11
3.2 Production 16-11
3.3 Operdtion by Customer 16-12
4. SUMMARY 16-12
4.1 Previous Lack of Interest 16-12
4.2 Recommended Requirements 16-12
4.3 Contractors Design Experience 16-13
5. REFERENCES 16-14
*i
Chaptt'r 1.6
FAILURE 'AGNOSIS
In spite c1 1i1--care with which the design is performed and the

production processes controlled, only an incurable optimist will
expect. a perfect product. As realists, we must admit that mil-
function will occur. To provide for elimination of defects during
the productinn and operational phase, every effort must be made to
identify weaknesses in the product as scon as they manifest them-
selves. One of the procram elements leading to identification of
weaknesses in the product, and eventual correction, is the failure
reporting and anaLysis effort.
1. CAUSES OF FAILURES
1.1 BASIC CLASSIFICATIONS
A malfunction of equipment may occur due to any one or a com-

bination of three basic causes:
(a) Weakness in the design;
(b) Error in manufacture, assembly, inspectie,. or testinq;
(c) Error by the operator 'r miaintenance mechanic.
1.2 EXCEPTIONS
In addition to) these thrue basic classes, two other types of mal-
function are reported. Secondarv failures are malfunctions caused
directly or indirectly by the malfunction of an associated part or
component. The failure should be charged as a primary failure to
the part or component whose intial malfunction caused the secondary
failure. in some cases - repo-t-d failure cannot be confirmed.
In many such cases the report of the failure was a kind of operator
error. Many things can cause an cper itor to report a failure and
repla-'e an unfailed item -- misrealuiny a dial, covering up some
mistake of his own, being misled by, noise or vibration initiated
somewhere else. It is important t ) rom<mber that not all reported
fai 1•ires are identi fiable or corr, ctible.
2. IDENTIFICATION OF CAUSES
bietX-,..jundation of a failur,:, diagn -sis and corrective action pro-

gram is an effective failure reporting sy.tem. (Figure 16-3).
Every failure, regardless of causs(.I, should be reported. One
16-3
IL T
~~II-
ýc I CDil
iLAJ ~ -~~JCC
Cl
I-~ ~
4 IC
01
U. 0
H aL
P4 i
-, - WI)
co 0 I
16-.4
procedure, found effective in industry, is to use the failure

report form as a requisition for new parts so that the drawing
of a part from stores automaticolly reports the expenditure.
When thiq system is used. obviously, some additional procedure
is re-ossary to obtain reports of failures repaired without
procurement of a new part. A report should be prepared at the
time of failure and should include at least the following:
(a) Identification of the failed part. (Part name, part

number, serial numbei, identification of next level of
assembly).
(b; Identification of replacement part.
(c) Operating life data on the failed part.
(d) Date and activity area when failure was discovered

(Manufacturing, test and operation).
(e) Failure symptoms. (Narrative or coded mode listing or

both).
(f) Cause of failure. (narrative or coded mechanism listirg

or both) .
(g) Action taken to restore system to operation (i.e., re-
placed part).
Data 'ollection systems are covered in detail in Chapter 9.
2.1 FREQUENCY ue UCCtJRRENCE
One of the indicat )rs in iAtiti ficati4,v of a problem area is the

excessive occurrence of failures. A large number of reported
failures on any particular part number should be investigated to
determine if a problem -xists. The first step is to identify the
assembly in which the failures are occurring. Ii a large number
of that part number are install d1 in different locations and if
the failures are occurring at different locations more or less
at random, the, part itself is suspect. If the failures are
ccurring at one or a few of the locations, the examination
.,
sh:uid be made of the system or assanblies in which the parts
are failing.
Even a few failures of i particular part in a particular assembly

should initiate an investigation.
16-5
2.2 CIRt'TIT ANALYSIS
A reliability problem can be identified from an excessive nmunber

of failures. Evc' a single failure can indicate a reliability
problem, however, when the circuit application is such that the
failure will prevent accomplishment of a required function, or
when safety of operating personnel may be involved.
When a problem area is identified, the application of the part

or parts should be re-evaluated. The circuit analysis or com-
ponent stress computation should be reviewed to re-establish the
designed stress levels ývoltages, pressures, etc.) and the im-
posed environment. The mechanism of failure, identified in the
failure report, should be evaluated against design parameters.
Where the failure appears improbable in light of the stress
margins used in the design, an extension of the analysis to
associated subsystems, possibly even measurement of the paramtclers
in the operating environment may be indicated. Where the cause
of failure cannot be identified from circuit or design analysis,
a failure analysis should be performed.
2.3 FAILURE ANALYSIS
Failure analysis is the determination of the cause of failut•c oi

equipment from test and inspection processes. Those component
malfunctions that are identified as problem areas, but not diagnosed
from re-evaluation of the design are taken to a testing laboratory.
In the laboratory, unless the nature of the failure is apparent
from inspection, the equipment is set up on test in an assembly
simulating its actual operational use. In the test assembly it
is operated to ascertain the nature of the malfunction, and to
verify that it is not operating as designed. Readings are taken
of significant parameters to define exactly how the equipment
operates.
Having verified the failure (or that no apparent malfunction is

occurring in the test set-up) the equipment is disassembled, in-
spectcd and measurements of important dimensions compared to the
drawings. Where indicated, chemical or metallurgical tests or
examinations are conducted. A.; a result of tests anzd examinations,
the analyst prepares a report covering:
(a) Previous history of failures of the part number including

causes of failure ascribed.
(b) Significance factors in the original report of failure

of this part, including actual and possible effects of the
4L,,
16-f,
failure.
(c) Mode of this failure, or report that failure cannot be

caused to recur.
(d) Cause of the failure, i.e., improper clearance, corrosion,

faulty soldering.
(e) Whether failure is classified as "design defect" or "not

in accordance with design specifications."
(f) Recommended corrective action.
Failure analysis should be continued until the cause and means

of correction are identified. This may require special instruct-
ions to ship every failed part to the laboratory, or trips by
analysts to the sites of failure, or assembly of "Tiger Teams"
of designers, technicians and laboratory people. Where the con-
sequences of failure are serious,special restrictions should be
placed on the use of the part until the problem is solved. Once
a fix is decided, the part should be kept under surveillance to
assure that the "fix" corrects the problem. Experience has shown
that all too often a first fix only corrected an obvious manu-
facturing defect leaving an underlying system design defect
still uncorrected.
2.4 EYX2MPLE OF FAILURE ANALYSIS REPORT
2.4.1 Component Identification
(a) FAR Number CT-- 9-24-146

Failure Report No. 925944
(b) Part Name ACCELEROMETER
(c) Manufacturer (xx .......... x)
(d) Part Nwmber KA-1006
(e) Serial C078B
(f) Next Assembly 55-11010
2.4.2 History
(a) The accelerometer reportedly faiied on April 19, 1963

at the Astronautics Standards Laboratory during or before
calibration when the lead wire to the accelerometer pickup

was found to be broken at the pin connector junction.
(b) The acceleromuu r senses vibraticn .n the booster ietti-

son track support areai. It is one of five accelerometers used
on Centaur upper-stage booster.
(c) The accelerometer consists of a piezoelectric sensing

head, and a transistorized amplifier. The sensing head is
connected to the amplifier by four feet of cable. The ranqe
of the accelerometer is + 30 gravities.
(d) Nineteen of these accelerometers reportedly failed,

according to Astronautics trend reports, for various reasons,
in the six months preceding April 19, 1963. Four reportedly
failed in the last 30 days of this period. Four accelerometers
were failure analyzed, but none failed in this mode.
(e) Failure of the accelerometer with a broken lead wire

would make the unit inoperative. Failure of this mode during
flight would not affect vehicle operation, but would prevent
the monitoring of vitration conditions during the mission.
2.4.3 Analysis
(a) Visual examination of the accelerometer pickup-confirmed

the reported tailure: t' e lead wire to the sensinq head pick-
up was severed at the plin connector junction. A section through
the pin connector's plastic jacket revealed the characteristics
of the pin connector junction for a view of the lead wire,
pin connector, plastic jacket, and the sensing; head.
(b) Microscopic examination of the pin connector showed the

center conductor of the coaxial cable lead was still soldered
to the center terminal of the conne-tor. The braid from the
coaxial cable shield was also still soldered to the crimpinQ
ring of the pin connector clamping around the cable.
(c) Clos.e examinat ion of the broken leaad wire revealed all
the shield w..ires were twisted and bunched (n one side of the
center conductor insilation, and they were broken off at
irreqular lengths. Tris %,would indicate tht, lead .irv ihad
been sub,,'cted to a twistingj motiion, resultinq in weakeninq
of the sli I-iinq • ,&lt,.
(d) The pin connector and coaxial cable adaptor fitting were
externally coated with a red sealing coxnpound, tendinq to re-
16-8
strict the free movement of the pin connector cap on the

housing. This condition permitted the housing and the attached
coaxial cable adapter to rotate while the pin connector vas
being secured tc the sens'ng head by the pin connector cap.
The only way to prevent the twisting of the coaxial cable,
and its cable adaptor on the pin connector during the connec-
tion of the pin connector to the sensing head, is to grasp
the plastic jacket surrounding the pin connector fitting.
Since this adaptor fitting has just a 3/16-inch diameter, and
1/2-inch length, it must be grasped carefully if a twisting
m..ement is to be prevented during connection.
(e) The pin connector fitting on the coaxial lead cable does
not have an adequate dtsign strength at the cable adaptor
fitting to withstand twisting or bending movement of the cable,
during the connecting process. Therefore, -he shieldinq sur-
rounding the center conductor will break when it is subjected
to these extraneous or excessive movements during connecting
or handling.
2.4.4 Conclusions
(a) The accelerometer failure: broken lead wire, was con-

firmed by visual examination. Microscopic examination of the
lead wire and the pin connector r2vealed the coaxial cable
lead had been ,bjectcd to a twisting motion that had weakened,
and then broke, the shield cable. The small center conducto•r
also brc'ke, due to fatigue failure, as a result of the twisting
movement to the cable.
(b) Failure was caused by a twisting action introduced into

the coaxial cable lead during connection of the pin connector
to the sensing head.
2.4.5 Recommended Corrective Action
(a) The Reliability Failure Analysis Group recommends tCe

following c-.rrective -cti:-n to prevent breakae d:LrMage to the
accelerometer coaxial lead cable during its connection into
the sensing head, and durircg handling before installdtton:
(a) Use extreme care, when usinQ the coaxial lead, not to
twist or stretch the shie'ding directly below the rubber
insulation.
(b) Grasp the plastic jacket s'Arrounding the pin connector

16-9
Sfitting firmly, when screwing the pin connector into the

sensing head.
(b) The Reliability Failure Analysis Group recommends the

following endor design corrective action to prevent breakage
damage to the accelerometer's coaxial lead cable, during
handling and installation on Astronautics missiles:
(a) Improve design of the pin connector adaptor so the

coaxial cable is given adequate support and is restrained
from excessive twisting and bending.
(b) Eliminate use of the red sealing compound on the

shank of the pin connector, thereby reducing the twisting
motion of the pin connector produced by the interference
with the compound while the connectcr cap is threaded onto
the sensing head.
2.5 CORRECTIVE ACTION
Once the cause of and responsibility for the malfunction has

been determined, positive steps must be taken to assure that the
infornmation is used to elLminate the problem and prevent re-
currence of the malfunctions (Figure 16-10). Responsibility
should be assigned to an individual in whatever group the a-tion
to be taken might lie. One useful technique is the maintenance
of a corrective action log as suggested in ChapLer 15. The
Corrective Action Log is a m&nagement report listing all known
reliability (and other) problems with recommended solutions and
names of persons responsible for carrying out the action. The
log is updated and published weekly (daily in some critical
operations). No entry is removed until an appropriate action
taken by the person responsible is accepted by the program
manager.
When a reliability problem of significance is identified due to

a malfunction or part failure, the problem should be logsed and
assigned either to the design group responsible, or to the
failure analysis group. The latter assignment is usually pre-
ferred, since malfunctions are commonly caused b," defec's in
manufacturina and/or operator error. The analyst should consult
witti t e designer and manufacturing personnel as necessary to
establish the facts. At this time, the re~ponsiibility is trans-
ferred to an "action" man in design or manufacturinq, with
recommendations as to possible solutions. The "action" man is
Snot bound to accept the recommendation of the analyst. His
responsibility is to provide an acceptable solution.
16-10
P0
Uu
cn E
>-
u u
CL
16-Ilil l
3. TIMING OF CORRECTIVE ACDION
Up to the present time, much of the emphasis associated with

failure reporting and corrective action has been placed on pro-
grams associated with production efforts and, to a somewhat less
extent, programs associated with field use by Lhe customer. This
is undoubtedly brought about by the fact that the need for
corrective action is most obvious, perhaps even an absolute
necessity, during this period. This is also the period during
which the most data is available on which to base corrective
action.
3.1 ENGINEERING TESTING
This normally is the first phase in the evolution of a system

which produces satisfactory test data. The system design has
progressed from the drawing stage to the mode), stage and the design
itself should be fairly firm. Test data should be reasonably re-
presentative of the final system. This data comes from testing at
all levels of equipment complexity, and is available from a number
cf types of testing such as environmental testing, reliability life
testing, performance testing, and acceptance testini.
The analysis of failed subassemblies or systems is carried to the

point of determining the basic component/part, connection, or
structural failure. This analysis is doctmented by a Failure
Analysis Peport. This report documents the failure data at the
component/part level and the Corrective action required.
4.2 PROD' T TION
Due to the nature ot the production phase of a prcqram, there is

an urgent need to obtain failure data and take any required
corrective action as rapidly as pcGsible.
If component/part failurc3 ire involved, an analysis of these

parts is ncrmally required in order to determine whether the
failure is a result of design or application, assembly, quality
control of parts as received, or an unsatisfactory type of com-
ponent. 'The request for this component fail<ie anaiysiz plus
the failure data and the initiation of cor<ctie ac+ion can all
be documented by using the Failure Analysis Report. All of the
approaches mentioned above for failure reportinq and corrective
action with regard to production have dea.t primarily with single
failures or a specific problem area. To determine any siynificcanr
trend in failures which may require additional corrective action,
a summary report of faillures is needed in order to determine
16-12
broad corrective action requirements and achievements.
3,3 OPERATION RY CUSTOMER
This is the final phase of system evolution and is the one toward
wh'ih all reliability efforts and corrective actions •re directed.
It is the system performance and reliability during this phase
which determines *he value of all prior reliability efforts and
corrective action programs. Further correction action beyond that
taken in the previously three phases can still be taken and is
often necessary but, as mentioned earl'-r, is accompanied by a
number of severe penalties.
4. SUMMARY
An important by-product of testing should be the discovery of

residual causes of unreliability and the resulting corrective
action to reduce or eliminate these causes. Experience has shown
that the key to corrective action is competent analysis of each
failure.
4.1 PREVIOUS LACK OF INTEREST
The need for failure analysis has been hampered by the fact that,
traditionally, test specifications have assumed that the buyer's
interest was limited to obtaining failure free devices that would
pass all specified tests with a failure rate of zero. It has
usually been stated or implied that if failures occurred, the
devices ceased being cf interest to the buyer and responsibility
for analysis and removal of the cause of failure was the private
concern of the contractor. The interest of the buyer would be
resumed after an improved device had be'.n su1ynitted and had
passed all tests.
4.2 RECOMMENDEu REQUIRLM4ENTS
This traditional treatment of failures occurring during test is

unacceptable for military equipment. The probability is high
that some failures will occur during earlier testing programs.
The buyer is vitally interested in the diagnosis of test-produced
failures and the nrocedure to be followed must be an inherent
part of the procurement specification. The following items are
proposed as mandatory specification requirements.
(1) Competent engineering faiijure diagnosis is mandatory for

all failures.
16-13
k2) To the extent possible, each failure ri.ust be assigned a

cause sucn as test instrumentat inn defect, test operator error,
part failure, part deteriorati1,n, circu._t toleractw failure due
to designer's failure to allow for normal part vari ations, etc.
(3) Where failure occurs in an equipment under te.t, the

pertinent damaging stresses must be carefullv measured and
recorded. As an example, if a capacitor fails, the possible
damaging circuit stress (voltage, o0 sometimes current) must
be measured and recorded. Furthermore, the possible damaging
external stresses (temperature, humidity, etc.) moust also be
measured and recorded.
(4) Where practicable, disassembly ana analysis must. be per-

formed on failed or deteriorated parts. A competent diagnosis
must be made in terms of specific design features and specific
workmanship, production engineering and inspection proc,.dures.
W-here applicable, the failure diagnosis shall include an analy-
sis of contributing causes such as inadequat• circuit design
(which will not, for example, tolerate normal part variations
plus expected part deteriorations).
(5) A fully descriptive report or report section must be

wrftten for each failure. The report must assign the cause
and responsibility and cover the diagnosis as outlined above.
Where appropriate, recommendations fe:- corrective action
should alho be included.
4.3 CONTRACTORS DESI3N EXPERIENCE
It should be mentioned that often the designer's knowledge is

virtually indispensable to adequate diagnosisý Thus the con-
tractor should be encouraged to maintain a nucleus of his appli-
cable design group intact for the duration of the reliability
tests, and to insure that this group is available for failure
diagnosis activity after start of operational use. It is
important that the failure diagnosis personnel be -easonably
free from undue pressure by the buyer and/or other jroups in the
contractor's organization that may tend to restrict the investi-
gations and produce inadequate diagnosis or even concealment of
true problems. Since most of this pressure results from efforts
to meet schedule and price commitments by the contractor, it may
be that some relief must be extended by the buyer in this regard
in order to gairn the desired results.
16-14
5. REFERENCES
(1) Proceedings of the Seventh National Saposium on Reliability

and Quality Control, Tanuary 9-11, 1961.
(2) AGREZ Re ort by the Advisoryrou on Reliability of Electronic

Equipment, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Re-
search and Engineering), 4 June 1957.
(3) Reliability Requirements for Shipboard and Ground Electronic

Equipment, MIL-R-22732.
1/-I •
Chapter 17
SPECIFICATIONS
Page
1. R&M SPECIFICATTOT' CONSIDERATIONS 17- 3
i.1 R&M Specification Experience 17- 4
1.2 Kinds of Specificalions 17- 5
2. SPECIFICATION LIST 17.- 5

2.1 Reliability Specifications and References l/- 6
2.2 Maintainability Specific-tions and References 07- 7
2.3 Ceneral Specifications and References 17- 7
2.4 Specification Chart 17- 8
3. SPECIFICATION ABSrI'ACTS 17-12

3.1 General Specificatio4i ADstiracts 17 -12
3.2 keliability Specifir-ticn Abstracts 17-19
3.2.1 Quantititive Requirements 17-19
3.2.2 Reliability Verification 17-20
3.2.3 Planning Tasks 17-26
3.2.4 Evaluation Tasks 17-28
3.2.5 Design Review 17-33
3.2.6 Parts Reliability 17-34
3.2.7 Supplier Control 17-36
3.2.8 Failure Data and Diagnosis 17-36
3.2.9 Supporting Activities 17-37
3.2.10 Monitoring and Review 17-38
3.3 Maintainability Specification Abstracts 17-39
3.3.1 MIL-M-23313A 17-39
3.3.2 WR-30 17-45
3.3.3 MIL-M-26512C 17 50
3.3.4 MIL-S-23603(WEP) 17-53
4. SUMMARY 17-56
5. REFERENCES 17-56
'I
17-2
Chapter 17
SPEC IFICATIONS
In contracting for systems and equipment, the "specification" is

a primary tool used to describe exactly what is required and the
ground rules under which it is to be developed. The Bureau is
interested in obtaining a product which will perform specified
functions under well-defined conditions, can be operated and
maintained, will withstand the rigors of handling, use and en-
vironment, and can be repaired on occasion. To obtain this re-
sult, the specification must describe in precise detail what is
wanted, and frequently how the contractor must perform some of
the work.
do specification can be really complete in itself. Section 2 of

standard specification format providds a listing of referenced
documents, frequently with the statement.
"The following specifications, standards, drawings and

publications, of the issue in effect on date of invitations
for bids, form a part of this specification."
Although this statement contractually invokes the additional re-

quirmnents fully, administration of such a requirement is not
automatic or invariant unless specific applicability details are
included in a requirement paragraph in the basic individual
system or equipment specification. This is so because (a) con-
tractors past experience is that many of the clauses apparently
invoked by reference have neither been required nor desired by
the customer, and (b) the conflicts between clauses in referenced
documents often preclude a clear understanding by the contractor
or inspector as to what is required.
The specification "tree" is a natural and logical system. It is

difficult to conceive how the procurement of complex systems and
equipment col,!, be done without it. But the weaknesses must be
recognized. The sheer 1b1ulk of rcferences, and their references
in turn ad infinitum, tends to obscure the meat. It is not un-
common for a few basic specifications to in turn pick up a total
of 3000 specifications. The referenced specifications almost
invariably contain rebtrictive clauses, alternates and limita-
tions. They nearly always contain material not applicable to
the procurement. Failure to define precisely what is wanted
hai led contractors to performance of work not desired by the
customer, and conversely, to contractor failure to perform
desired work.
17-3
1. R&M SPECIFTCATION CONSIDERATIONS
Reliability and maintainability are characteristics that cannot

ou determined by inseection. They can never be determined abso-
lutely in test programs. The samples tested represent only a
small portion of the systems built to the design. So in practice,
the customer must have some measure of visibility and control of
the contractors effort toward reliability and maintainability
quantitative requirements, as well as evaluation of his pro.gres-
sive achievenient of these requirements.
This visibility and control is established through the specifica-

tion imposed on the contractor, and it has become customary to
include all those tasks, tests and reports the contractor must
perform and submit for the customer to have visibility and con-
trol. At the same time, there is a growing feeling that there
is much "over-control", and hope that more incentive contracting
will permit simpler controls.
As mentioned above, there are few instances where a specification

will be applicable, in its entirety, to a particular program.
Most of the time one or more specification sections can be elim-
inated because they are not germane to the program, or because
"¶ their requirements are too severe or unrealistic. Specifications
are usually written to cover, in a general sense, the "worst case"
application of the equipments whose characteristics they govern.
For example, the ambient temperature rang may be quoted in a

specification as being from -54 0 C to 65 0 C. Equipment design to this
specification must perform equally well at the Equator as at the
North Pole. General purpose Military equipment may be required
to function at either of thcse locations and should be designed
to accommodate this wide latitude in ambient temperature.
Special purpose units which will function in a temperature con-
trolled environment, may find the temperiture extremes of such
a specification to be far in excess of what they will ever ex-
perience. In such cases the cognizant engineer should reduce
the requirements of tl,, specifie+-4on f)r the procurement in
quest'ton, which will generally reduce acquisition cost and im-
prove delivery.
Reliability and maintainability specifications follow a similar

pattern. Test programs specified for electronic systems are
normally based on the fact that they include large numbers of
identical parts. This fact controls the program requirements in
" several ways: (a) demonstration of achievement using a sequential
"" test plan is usually practical, (b) reliability to be expected from
17-4
parts from a particular supplier is rýlatively predictable, and

(c) assembly processes can usually be controlled by statistical
sampling.
Where these conditions apply, the basic programs recommended by

the AGREE report (1) provide a reasonable approach to the achieve-
ment ot acceptable reliability. Where these conditions do not
obtain, different approaches are usually required.
To obtain a system or equipment that ieets Bureau and fleet re-

liability and maintainability needs, (a) quantitative require-
ments for reliability and maintainability must be specified and
(b) means for assuring that the requirements have actually beer,
achieved must be established by the specification.
1.1 R&M SPECIFICATION EXPERIENCE
The specification of reliability requirements have in the past

followed one or more of the following patterns:
a) No mention of reliability or quality control in the specifi-

cation.
b) General statements, such as "Equipment shall have maximum

reliability", "The principle of reliability is paramount and no
compromise shall be made with other basic requirements of design",
or (MIL E 16400:3.1) "Reliability shall meet the needs of the
Naval Service."
c) Requirement for inspection during manufacture.
d) Requirements for qualification prior to award.
e) General life requirement, with or without specifying opera-

ting time to first major overhaul.
f) Specification of numerical Reliability "goals", not contra-

ctual requirements.
g) Specification of reliability requirements with verification

procedure.
h) Specifying that the contractor shall analyze the needs and

establish reliability requirements and verification criteria.
i) Specifying that various program tasks (prediction, testing,

dsign review, failure diagnosis) be pceformed.
17-5
1.2 KINDS OF SPECIFICATIONS
Specifications designed to achieve the required reliability and

maintainability design and development if a system or equipmeit,
or to assure that a procured equipment meets the requirement%,
can be separated into three groups:
a) Establishment of quantitative Goals.
b) Contracting for quantitative requirements and verification.
c) Contracting for tasks to be performed by the contractor.
In the first group, the quantitative goal is subject to other

requirements of the specification and contract. It has no con-
tractual standing. Meeting the goal is a matter of "good faith"
on the part of the contractor, subject to compromise with con-
tractual requirements, to lack of knowledge, understanding or
appreciation.
Contracting for quantitative reliability and maintainability,

with verification by "demonstration" or testing, provides the
Bureau with data to evaluate the equipment. In contractual
terms it requires the contractor to perform certain tests and
provide the data. The quantitative requirement is a performance
attribute of the specific system or equipment being procured.
It is appropriate to include it in the specification, along with
the use conditions and exact function of the product. The type
of test that can be Performed is peculiar to the system or
equipment, and should be defined to some degree in its specifi-
cation. The extent of testing is dependent upon the requirements
for a particular application and may vary from one procurement
to the next.
In the third group, the contract requires the performance of

specific tasks. The customer is buying efforts which are con-
sidexed to achieve or at least improve reliability and maintain-
ability, rather than any particular attribute of the system or
equipment. However, the specification of analytical tasks is
completely identifiable to the intended application of the spec-
ification, rather than a product attribuvte. xs such it should
not be included in the product specification.
2. SPECIFICATION LIST
The complexity of our specification system makes the intelligent
4!
17-6
selection of the "right" specification difficult and time-consum-

ing. To simplify the retrieval of specification requirements the
following list is provided.
2.1 RELIABILITY SPECIFICATIONS AND REFERENCES
These basic specifications, standards and references are utilized

in procurement of systems and equipment, to obtain required re-
liability.
MIL STD 785 - Reliability management of Department of Defense

Military Systems: This standard was developed to provide industry
with guidelines and procedures necessary for establishing and
implementing reliability programs on military systems. When
invoked it requires the contractor to establish and maintain an
effective and economical reliability assurance program, adjusted
to suit the type and phase of the procurement. See section 3.2
below.
MIL STD 441 - Reliability of Military Electronics Equipment:

This standard was developed to establish a procedure for the
development and design of electronics equipment to insure re-
quired inherent reliability. It gives a very general statement
of design principles and considerations to be applied.
MIL R 22732 - Reliability Requirement for Shipboard and Ground

Electronic Equipment: This specification piescribes the pro-
cedures for management of reliability assurance programs in the
development of shipboard and ground electronic equipment. When
invoked, it requires (a) knowledge of and application of prin-
ciples of design for reliability; (b) establishment of z relia-
bility assur-nce program; (c) verification of achieved reli3bil-
ity by testing as specified in the individual equipment specifi-
cation, or as proposed by the contractor if not specified; (d)
provides an alternate verification procedure by analysis and
prediction, when approved by the Bureau, when demonstration test-
ing is impossible or impractical. See section 3.2 below.
MIL STD 721 - Provides general definitions of terms for relia-

bility engineering.
MIL STP 756 - Reliability Prediction - Provides general predic-

tion procedure based on parts failure rates, with chart for
Electronic "active elements'.
4
MIL STD 105 - Provides sampling procedures and tables for in-
spectioL by attributes. This standard, with Technical Report
17-7
#10, ONR (Contract NONR-401 (143)), "Fac'ors and Procedures for

applying The MIL STD 105D Plans In Life and Reliability Inspec-
tion" may be used to design life and Reliability testing and
demonstration tlans.
MIL HDBK 217 - Reliability Stress and Failure Rate Data.
MIL HDBK H108 - Sampling Procedures for Reliability testing.

MIL STD 781 - Demonstration plans for Reliability.
NAVSHIPS 93820 - Handbook for the Prediction of Shipboard and
Shore Electronic Equipment Reliability.
NAVSHIPS 94501 - Bureau of Ships Reliability Design Handbook.
MIL STD 839(USAF) - Parts, with established reliability levels.
2.2 MAINTAINABILITY SPECIFICATIONS AND REFERENCES
These basic specifications, standards, and refernces are utilized

in procurement of systems and equipnent to obtain required main-
tainability and availability.:
MIL M 23313 - This specification was developed to prescribe

maintainability program requirements in the development cf ship-
board and shore electronic equipment. When invoked it requires
the contractor to (a) establish a maintainability assurance pro-
gram, (b) apply maiiLtainability criteria in the design, and (c)
report and evaluation of the achieved maintainability.
MIL STD 778 - Provides general definitions for maintainability

engineering.
MIL M 19562 - Provides instructions for the preparation of Main-

tenance Prints for Electronic Equipment.
NAVSHIPS 94324 - Maintainability Design Criteria Handbook for

Designers of Shipboard Electronic Equipment.
Maintainability Prediction Procedure for designers of Shipboard

Electronic equipment and systems. Report by Federal Electric
Corporatior, Contract NOBSR 75376.
2.3 GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS AND REFERENCES
These basic specifications, standaras and references, while they

are not primarily concerned with reliability and maintainability,
"are utilized with significant impact on reliability and maintain-
ability:
17-8
MIL E 16400 - Electronic Equipment, Naval Ship and Shore, General

Spccification: This specification (a) defines a basLc design
philosophy in development of Naval Electronics Equipment of util.-
izing the latest construction techniques with the objective of
incteasing reliability, making equipment easier to maintain and
reducing overall cos*, (b) invokes MIL R 22732B which requires a
reliability assurance program, including verification .:f relia-
bility, when specified in the individual equipment specification.
See section 3.1 below.
MIL STD 202 - Describes test methods, including environmental

and ovcrstress methods for the testing of Electronic and Electri-
cal components.
MIL STD 210 - Provides reference for probable climatic conditions

of the natural environment to which Military Equipment may be
exposed.
MIL STD 242 - Electronic Equipment parts (selected standards):

Provides standard dimensions, ratings, etc. Selecticn of parts
from this compilation does not constitute parts control in the
reliability sense.
MIL STD 446 - Establishes uniform environmental design require-

ments for use in development and procurement of Electronic Parts,
tubes anc solid state devices.
Suggestions for designers of Electronic Equipment (Booklet pre-

pared by USNEL).
MIL STD 8f)3 (USAF) - Human engineering criteria for aircraft,

missile, and space systems, ground support equipnent.
2.4 SPECT[FICATION CHART
vigures l?-9, 17-10 and 17-11 provide some perspective of the

variety ot tasks covered by reliability and maintainability
specs, and the differences of emphasis across various military
and NASA agencies. Although chapters 22 and 23 cortain the re-
cow, ended specification langu,-qe, the BuShips engineer should be
familiar with these other specifications that may contain Ian-
guage useful for specific situations.
17-9
In NNN -- ci NN1-4 : l
E- -
laN
I~I ~ - - N c 4be
17-10
-41 4
-4K
m~
C7 LO~ C'ý '
Zq 4Z~-r
1-4 0 aý c c 00t
14. . . . . . -
CN - Lo LnU) lInU
InV0
- '-
N -q LOI
M. .,) -ý -4D co
L'l C14
.. ~ ~~
. . .~ .
0~ 00 C
0or
00
,. 4 a
17-11
I Ir I
-> >
N m L
-4 -1-
K. a-
9n m -M M In
""I~ m m'toC, eIc
C4 -, m II.
co -0. .. .
C-
00. 0
C'C3
-Q-
17-12
3. SPECUIFCATION ABSTRACTS
3,1 GENERAL SPECIFICATION ABSTRACTS
In the procurement of an electronic systems specification MIL E

16400 (Navy) General Specification for Electronic Systems is
",sually invoked. The specification clauses relating to Reliabil-
ity are abstracted herewith, showing the 16400E section namber in
parentheses:
(1.1) Scope. - This specification covers the general require-

ments applicabie to the design and construztion of electronic
equipment and associated and auxiliary electronic apparatos furn-
ished as part of a complete system intended for Naval ship or
shore applications. The intent of this specification is to set
forth the ambient conditions within which equipment must operate
satisfactorily and reliably; the general material, the process
for selection and application of parts, and to detail the means
by which equipment as a whole will be tested to determine whether
it will so operate. Throughout the design and manufacture of the
equipment, maximum effort shall be made to attain the basic
design objectives in that -he equipment will meet the needs of
the Naval service. Requirements applicable to individual equip-
ments shall be as specified in the individual equipment specifi-
cation.
(1.1.1) Basic design philosophy. - The design philosophy of

Naval electronic equipment is to utilize the latest construc-
tion techniques with the objective of increasing reliability,
making the equipment easier to maintain and to reduce overall
cost. Manufacturers are encouraged to forward to cognizant
bureaus, ideas, proposals and suggestions that will result in
the foregoing onjective. Details of this basic design phil-
osophy are contained in applicable paragraphs of this speci-
fication. In addition, the complexity of modern elec tronics
systems and the close relationship between the design of the
equipment and the design of the ship make a closer liaison
between the shipbuilder and the equipment manufacturer de-
sirabLe. Even informal information wnich is timely, but not
completely firm is often of great mutual value. The Navy
encourages the early exchange of informal information netween
shipbuilders and equipment manufacturers.
(3.1) Design Objectives. - The basic design objectives are that

the equipment will meet the'needs of the Naval service and that
the final product will reflect the utmost in simplicity, have
maximun reliability consistent with the state of the art, and be
17-13
easy to install and maintain.
(3.1.2) Reliability - Equipment reliability studies continue

to verify that the majority of equipment failures can be
traced to the improper selection and application of the elec-
tronic parts. To assure that the equipment will meet the re-
quirements of Naval service, it is imperative that reliability
of operation be considered of prime importance in the design
and manufacture of the equipment. The contractor shall employ
all methods possible in the process of manufacture which will
assure quality and maximum reliability consistent with the
state of the art.
(3.1.2.3) For eureau of Ships equipment, quantitative re-

liability requirements, in terms of Mean Time Between Fail-
ures (MTBF), shall be that specified in the individual
equipment specification in accordance with Specification
MIL R 22732.
(3.1.2.3.1) A Bureau of Ships reliability assurance

program, which shall include the verification of relia-
bility requirements shall be established and maintained
when specifiei in the individual equipment specifica-
tion employing MIL R 22732 to the extent applicable.
(3.1.4) Ease of installation and maintenance. -
(3.1.4.1) Bureau of Ships. - The ec tpment shall be de-

signed so that it can be easily installed and maintained.
Maximum use shall be made of the design guides in NAVSHIPS
94324. Fault locaticn accessibility and serviceability
features which will lead to simplified -iintenance shall
be a prime consideration in the design (see 3.10.3 and
3.11.10).
(3.1.8) Failure reporting. - During research and development

and ser.ice test evaluation of ea,ýctronic equipment performed
by the contractor, prior to Gowteriment acceptance, the follow-
ing reporting is required:
(a) Each failure occurrence in which a part replacement

is involved shall be reported and forwarded to the
bureau or agency concerned using Bureau of ShJs form
"Electronic Equipment Failure/Replacement Report DD-
787 (Proposed) BuShips Report No. 10550-1.
(b) An electronic equipment'operatitig tire lo9 report

17-14
shall be completed and forwarded to the bureau of

agency concerned each month or upon completion of a
specified test, whichever is shorter using "Elcctronic
Equipment Operational Time Log, NAVSHIPS 4855" report-
ing form."
(6.4.2) Individual equipment specification. - An individual

equipment specification is the detail specification covering
a particular equipment.
(3.4.1) Selection of parts. - All parts used in the construc-

tion of Navy electronic equipment shall be in accordance with
the requirements specified herein. The selection of parts in
accordance with the following order is mandatory:
(a) MIL STD 242.
(b) Other Standards, Specifications and requirements

listed herein but not included in MIL STD 242.
(c) MIL STD 143.
All parts used except as covered in (a) and (b) will require
written approval in accordance with 3.4.1.2. Approval will
not be granted for the use of parts of special or novel design,
except as provided for in 3.4.5, where parts specified herein
are suitable and available. This restriction shall not be
construed as restricting the use of new or improved parts
which will enhance the overall equipment reliability.
(3.4.1.1) Standard parts. - Standard parts are those parts

specified in:
(a) MIL STD 242.
(b) Other standards, specifications and requirements

listed herein (where no se.ected standard has been
establi3hed in MIL STD 242 for that standard,
specification or requirement).
(3.4.1.2) Nonstandard parts. - Action of the approval of

nonstandard parts shall be in accordance with MIL STD 749.
Tubes, diodes and transistors are considered as parts (see
MIL STD 749). Written approval or disapproval of parts
will normally be taken within 60 days after requires is4
received by the Bureau or agency concerned.
I
17-15
(3.4.2) Design Application. - Parameters, such as nominal

ratings. tolerances, deratings, ambient temperatures, over-
load conditions, and the like, specified in individual part
specifications shall be applied when using the parts. Where
the parts used are not described by Military specifications,
limits set as a result of Government Laboratory tests estab-
lishing specific suitability for Naval service shall not be
exceeded. Particular attention is directed to the require-
ments for judicious choice of parts such that ratings, tol-
erances, and effects on circuit parameters after prolonged
use are carefully considered. Specifically, deterioration
due to permanent and substantial change of value(s) of a
given part after aging is one of the prime causes of parts
failure and circuit malfunctioning (see 6.6). Attention is
also directed to the necessity for considering the possible
degradation caused by temperature due to the nonjudicious
choice of parts location. It is obviously undesirable to
place many parts in the vicinity of items generating substan-
tial heat, such as transformers and tubes. Attention should
be directed to the cooling of cylindrically shaped parts by
use of "chimmey effect" by mounting in a vertical plane.
Where parts are stacked, the heat gradient and subsequent
"hot spot" of the upp-,r stack(s) should be given careful
cons ideration.
(3.6.6) Fasteners and assembly screws. - All external fasten-

ers and assembly screws which are manipulated, loosened, or
removed in normal procesbes of installation and maintenance
of equipment shall be of such as to provide strong contrast
with the color of the surface upon which they appear. Other
external fasteners and assembly screws shall be of the same
color as the surface upon which they appear. Metallic cou-
ples which will cause galvanic corrosion shall not be employed
to obtain contrasting color for Bureau of Ships contracts only.
(3.9.2) Preferred circuits. - In the interests of standard-

ization of circuits, use of the standard preferred parts, and
ultimately, the collection of circuit performance reliability
data, circuits shall be selected from Standard MIL STD 439,
where applicable.
(3.11.10) Accessibility. - The arrangement of parts shall be

such that replacement or adjustment of any part is possible
without removal of or damage to adjacent parts. All parts
shall be readily accessible for replacement or repair.
17-16
(3.13.4) Arrangement. - Controls shall be so arranged as to

facilit-te smooth and rapid manipulation. Indicators shall
be deqi,4ned and arrangei to insure readability under service
conditions. Locations of similar controls and indicators on
different panels shall correspond insofar as practicable.
(3.13.13) Time meters. - Time meters shall be provided for

electronic equipment to indicate elapsed time for both stand-
by and operaLion. The circuits to be monitored shall be as
specified in the individual equipment specification.
(3.14.4) Parts identification by reference designations

(symbol designations). - In order to facilitate maintenance,
each pirt assembled in a major unit and set :shall be identi-
fied by an appropriate reference designation in accordance
with Standard MIL STD 16.
(4.1.1) Quality control system. - The contractor shall pro-

vide and maintain a quality control system acceptable to the
Government for the supplies covered by the contract. The
system of quality control shall be in accordance with MIL Q
9858. The procedures outlined in MIL Q 9858 shall serve to
supplement and implement the design, performance and test
requirements of the individual equipment specification.
(4.3) Preproduction inspection. - Preproduction inspection shall

consist of all examination and testing necessary to determine
compliance with the requirements of the individual equipment
specification and unless otherwise specified therein shall in-
clude the examination and tests specified hereinafter. Where
prepre,-:cticn inspection has been made on an earlier model, a
careful check shall be made to determine that all corrective
measures found necessary as a result of such inspection have
been carried out. (For each of the following, the applicable
spec section number is given).
Surface examination Power

Operating test Radio interference & radiation
Weights and dimensions Frequency spectrum signature
Supply line voltage & frequency Controls and control circuits
Water cooling Accelerated life test
Heat test Sho-k, vibration, & inclination
Enclosure tesL Salt spray test
Temperature Reliability
Humidity
17-17
(4.4.3) 'roduction control inspection. - Production control

inspection shall be conducted on a sampling basis and shall
encompass functional and performance tests throughout the
required range; tests which will detect any deterioration of
the design by wear of such items as dies, molds, and jogs,
and by substitution of different parts; tests which detect
deviations in the processing of the materials; tests to
determine temperature rise produced in operation and ability
(F equipment to withstand this heat; tests of efficiency; and
tests of the performance with other equipment in a system.
These tests shall be performed on the complete equipment as
offered for delivery. Unless otherwise specified in the in-
dividual equipment specification, production control, inspec-
tion shall include the following (again section numbers are
given):
Weights and dimensions Radio interference &

Supply line voltage & frequency radiation
Water cooling Equipment freq. spectrum
Heat test signature
Enclosure Controls & control circuits
Power Weld Test (when required)
Reliability
(4.4.4) Environmental tests. - Envircrmental tests shall be

conducted to prove the durability of the materials, parts,
major units, and the equimnent as a whole; life tests; simu-
lated service tests; tests of the effects of changes of en-
vironmient (such as extremes of temperature and humidity,
effect of salt air); and tests of the effects of shock,
vibration, inclination, and hard usage. Unless otherwise
specified in the individual equipment specification, these
tests shall include the following (again section numbers are
given):
Temper atur e
Humidity
Accelerated life test
Shock, vibration and inclination
Salt spray test
(4.5.13) Accelerated life tests. - If the equipment is de-

signed for water cooling, these tests shall be conducted with
water at 350 + 20 C. inlet temperature continuously circulating
through the water circuit. The equipment shall be subjected
to the following conditioning and tests.
17-18
(4.5.13.2.2) The test cycle specified in 4.5.13.2.1 shall

be repeated without interruption for a period of 360 hour's
(15 complete days).
(4.5.14.2.5) Test data. - Test data accumulated during

the accelerated life tests, including details of all fail-
ures, shall be provided and shall be included in the re-
port on preproduction inspection.
(4.5.17) Reliability. - Verification of reliability require-

ments shall be performed as specified in the individual
equipment specification employing Specification MIL R 22732
to the extent applicable.
(6.2) Since this specification is general in scope and covers

only the construction practices and the conditions under which
equipment for Naval ship or shore use must operate, the details
of performance of the equipment under the conditions stated herein
and the ordering information must be specified elsewhere. Atten-
tion of design engineers is invited to the items listed below
which should be covered in the individual equipment specifications.
a) Detail performance requirements for the particular equipment.
b) Class of equipment (see 1.2 and 3.8.1).
ff) Modification of production control inspection (see 4.4.3).
gg) Modification to environmental tests (see 4.4.4).
kk) Nominal conditions for accelerated life test (see 4.5.14.1.1).
C) Mean time between failures (see 3.1.2.3).
(6.5) This specification should be referenced in all individual

equipment specifications, including specifications for equipment
in tne development stage, in order to insure the use of stan-
dard parts rather than nonstandard or special partb.
(6.6) The hiqh reliability requirement becomes a critical pro-

blem with increasing complexity of equipment in terms of greater
number of parts. Even part failure rates in the very low percent
level, when multiplied by a large number of parts, present a high
probability of equipment failure. Increasing availability of
miniaturization techniques, of new high-reliability parts and
new assembly methods will lead to space and weight savings. In each
case, consideration shall be given to the use of weight and space
savings for ultra-conservative design in critical circuits or the
17-19
use of redundant circuitry in these areas. Redundancy techniques

shall be considered only when it becomes evident from analysis of
the tentative design that the high reliability requirements cannot
be met in any manner.
(6.9) The NEL Reliability Design Handbook is citeu as a design

guide. Thouqh very useful as a design guide, the applicable
specifications under the specific contract shall govern in all
cases of discrepancy, deviation or conflict between these con-
tract specifications and this design guide document. All devia-
tions from specifica<tion requirements under a contract shall be
approved by the Bureau or agency concerned.
(6.9.2) An additional quide for deslqners is the booklet

titled "Suggestions for Designers of Electronic Equipment".
This booklet also references MtN-8681B, 'Vibration Problems in
the Design of Shipboard Electronic Equi-nent". This is 3
35mm sound movie, 16 minutes in length, which may be borrowed
froin any Navy district film library, Bureau of Ships and U. S.
Navy Electronics Laboratory (USNEL), San Diego 52, California.
The booklet may be obtained free of cost from USNEL.
.3.2 RELIABILITY SPECIFICATION ABSTRACTS
Specification sections of MIL STD 785 and MIL R 22732B relating

to a common objective are grouped to7jether in this section, for
comparison arid used in procurement. Aqain, the specification
section numbers are in parentheses:
Note that there is much duplication of intent, using differei.'

words for the same or closely related objectives. For example,
quantitacive requirements are called out by 3.2.1 (3.2.1) below,
as well as 3.1 (3.1.2.3) above. Parts control is specified in
3.2.6 below, also in 3.1 (3.4.1 above). Verification is covered
in 3.2,2 below and in 3.1 (4.4.4) and (4.5.18) above. However
these are quite gross retationships. It has been found imprac-
tical to actually compare paragraph details. Chapters &2 and 23
do extract all parts of MIL STD 785 by actual contractor task,
which sometimes involves extraction of a single sentence from a
wide-ranging paragraph.
3.2.1 Quantitative Requirements
MIL STD '85 (3.2.1) Quantitative Requirements. The system re-

liability objectives and minimum acceptable requirements shall
be as specified contractually. The minimum acceptable reii3bil-
ity requirements for some major subsystems and equipments may be
1.7-20
included in appropriate sections of the system specification,

The values not established by the procuring actiývity shall be
established by the system contractor at a contractually speci-
fied control point prior to release of dlesign for initial fabri-
cation of specified articles.
MIL R 22732B (-3-1) L.otc;li requirements for individual equiprents:

Detail reliability requirements or excepti-ios applicable to
particular equipments shall be specified in the individual
equipment specification. In the event of any conflict between
requirements of this specification andi the indivi'-_al equipmnent
specification, the latter shall govern.
3.2.2 Reliability Verification: MIL STD 785 requires the con-

tractor to develop a plan for demonstrating achieved reliability.
at specified milestones. MIL R 22732 gives detailed test re-
quirements (based on AGREE plan) that tests the required relia-
bility against an alternate hypothesis of 2/3 the required value
with cons.umiers and prodttcers risks of 10;ý,, (see chapter 11).
This i3 not equivalent to demonstration of the requi,-ed reliabil-
ity. It actually demonst-ates that the reliability 's at least
2/3 ot that required with 901Z confidence. In the event the
Bureau decides to u-e some test pl-in other than the AGREE plaib
and particularly if a ne-v one is trepared, it would bhe well to
ha~e the plan checked by a sta-istician.
MIL STD 785 (3.5-1) Test R-._-ir&"-'nts "for Develcpr-nt Qualifica-

tionand ccýjýt ance: A planined ano scheduled prociram of fun-c-
tional anZIenvironmental test min*.t equipment shall `De conducted
during design and develop ,ent phases to esti-mate achieved relia.-
bility and to provide feedback of data as a bas'is for- making re-
liability improvements, The tieveloprent testinq proqram si~a~l
confirm :idequacy -- f selection of comj :)nen~ts anO parts, aetermine
capabilities and safety margins, evaluate drifts of comnponent
parameters with time, and determine f~iiure-modes and relative
failure-rates. If such data art, not available, all items of the
sysem~ determined by thle rtliabilitv studies (3.2.2 and 3.3.3)
to hve auiqificnt bar~u oninhrent reliability shall be
tested early in the develo rent i' rox-,unless other valid proof
of adequacy can be Presented.
17 21
(3 5. 1. 1) Environmenta II Re.uirer".,nt: _Ir. I in

test ing: If maximum. environmentail Atr, , .t
been established by the pro-rn n,,1 ac t t
estimated from -xperience on past r r, i:n',s 1, t St
gram for deve Io~neiit, qual i fi cat Ii "I' I- ,
generated on this basis. D0 ee1o nnt nv
n'n - ts
shall be planned to evaluate the tcy,..
ment for the expected coni 1t,Qns -in t >- . o-r.r't (.. .. ,
ground operation, launch, fligiht ind orbit). Tdc
t,•st pli nr
shall include consideration -f c'-n: r.i t, I n, insul- tIn
shock-mounting, truss mounting ctc. nir nrn . I- br.bl tr
areas shall be identified at tne ..,'e"., s.n.,;÷to,. c.i-o'ent
and part level, and the effects ot the st.,
reliability shall be stimated on eouipments, c.no-nnts, .r
parts identified as critical. Dctailew,' in, :pecitic re,,it-"o
of environmental factors affecting reliability shall - tc-
formed. In addition to qualification ,n~i
t ccl.tancc tst"nq,
additional testing shall be pe-formed on critical items, -Ich
as life testing or failure-mode testing, t. *sess the af'octs
of the environments on such c-itical it- an, t t(tE.rmT ne
adequacy of safety margins incorporated b. -,t.- dbsin,
subject to approval by the procur ing; act.
(3.5.1.2) CoTponent Part Testini: All c '_-..ent parts tr be

used in production equipament shalI be assi 1!wL .1 r-1 Iiabi 1 tv
index, failure-rate, or expe-cted probabilit'.•',t e 1'01,
stated stress levels. Tre rel iabil tv te.st zr•r.''r .
applicable military part. stocini-.tio-- ti-
cations shall be used. Where the c-ritr ict.- ,ten t o; cst
procedures not applicable, le s`ý,-ll . i a' '
non-applicability and a des'sr t-o-tpn ,i,: t-,,tt .. . :

which he plans to use. A s:irrent. re , t, '..s . all
be maintained. The test data shall be r ti .a -. i.nou'on
period of 2 years from conpletý .r) . tr- T ý,t <atl
shall be made available to intAr2.at in a .note
activities upon request "'f t ite procur-ir) act v..,tv .
(3.5.1.3) MaximmnmPre-ack-'otance :,I at ion: The c-•ntra tot

shall prcoide and maintain a current list of itt'ms -vi-4
critically limited useful lives (- U o per tina, tire or k!per-
'
ating cycIe) in their applic-itlon P,: i X I M,11

allowable o gerating time (or cy.-es .- erf t 'nI shall bt-
clearly defined .ith elements ,f data mcethl;'s of cowita-
tions. o'.'.p
The contractor shall pro1os cai th, t im,, or
II
17-22
number of equivalen- operating cycles that _s n-)t to be ex-

ceeded prior to acceptance of the contractor's product. He
shall ensure that each such item has its total opel -ting time
or niumber of equivalent operating cycles recorded, starting
with and including its initial functional test, whether at the
4'•a contractor's facility or a supplier's facility. Upon mutual
agreement between the procuring activity and the contractor,
any item may be dropped f-om the above list, or its limit
revised, when changes in tLe items useful life indicate the
need for such revisions.
(3.5.16) Reliability Demonstration
(3.5.16.1) initial Plan: An initial plan for demonstration

cf arhieved reliability at specified milestones, includin-
estimated number of test articles and if not specified by thC
procuring activity a quantitative estimate of the confidence
level, shall be prepared by the contractor mnd submitted in a
section of the reliability progTram plan. The general plans
for demonstration of reliability shall include trade-off
cu,-ves showing number of test articles and operating test
time or test effort versos confidence, and will -ncompass
testing at the system -ajor element level, and major sub-
system or component vels separately and in combination.
(3.5.16.2) Final Plan: Final plan for demonstrating achieved

reliability shall include any revisions to data in the initial
plan, and the ground rules E-nd conditions for deciding whether
a test shall be classified as a success or failure, or shall
be excluded due to invalid test data. Reliability demonstra-
tion plans shall apply all results of testing and operations
from which valid reliability measurement or assessment can be
obtained. Engineering tests and analyses, e.g., test to fail-
u2re concept-, shall be included to supplement statistical
measures. The milestones that are to constitute demonstra-
tion of contract compliance shall be establishcd and incor-
porated in the contractual documents. Specific plans for
conducting a reliability demonstration shall be zu-i tted for
approval at the time specified by the procuring activity.
(3.5.16.3) Test Plans: The test plans contained in MIL STD

781, when applicable, shall be applied.
its
17-23
MTT R 22732B (3.2.5) _rotjtype (pre-production) mo~els: When

Sthe procureenjt includes the fabrication of prototyp2 (pre-pro-
duction) models of the equipment, the contractor shall perform
a reliability demonstration test to assure that the reliability
required in the individual equipment specification is character-
istic of the equipment design.
"(3.2.5.1) Reliability Dernon,,tr 7tion: Reliability demonstra-

tion tests shall be performea in accordance with 4.2 and 4.3.
Testel equipments shall exhibit a mean-time-between-failures
(MTBF) equal to or greater tý ,n that specified in the indiv-
idual equipment specification as determined by 4.2.6. No
decision to accept or reject shall be made until each equip-
ment tested has acclunulated an operating time of at least
3/2 times the specified MTBF without specific app-oval by
the Bureau or agency concerned. If the test terminates in a
reject decision, the contractor shall indentify the cause or
causes of such a decision from an analysis of the failure
data accumulated during the test and propose corrective action
necessary to eliminate the causes of unreliability identified.
When it is impossible or impractical to require reliability
demonstration and testing in accordance with 4.2 and, upon
specific approval by the bureau or agency concerned, the
reliability assurance procedure of paragraph 4.3 shall be
applied.
(3.2.5.2) Reportin;: The results of the reliability demon-

stration test shall be sumranarized in a report to the procure-
ment agency. This report shall contain the records specified
in 4.2.5 and an analysis of the information they contain.
(3.2.6) Production: When equipments are committed to production,

the contractor shall perform reliability production tests on pro-
duction units to demonstrate that the level of reliability re-
quired in the individual equipment specification is maintained
during the production 2rocess.
(3.2,6.1) Reliability Production Tests: Reliability prcoduc-

tion tests shall be performed on samples taken from each
periodic production lot in accordance with the c.iteria -:)f
4.2. Unless otherwise specified in the individual equipment
specification, the periodicity for reliability production
testing shall be one month. Tested equipments shall exhibit
Sa MTBF equal to or greater than that specified in the indiv-
17-24
idaual spipe>nt
soccification as determined by tho criteria
of 4.2.6. No untestce Froduction units shall be released as
acc.eptable for shi. nt until the reliability test for that
pr,'duction lot results in -in accept decision without speci fic
apo.roval, by the Bureau, or agency concerned.
(3 2.6.2) joating: The results of each reliability pro-

duction test shall bo summari7ed in a report to the procure-
ment agencv. This report shall contain the records specified
in 4.2,5 nd an analysis of the information they contain.
(4.2) Reliability Assurance bYTesting:
(4.2.1) Reliability Tests: Reliability tests shall be con-

du :ted on samples of the prototype and production units of
equipments that have minimum or specified MTBF requirements.
If a soecific reliability test plan is not indicated in the
individual equipment specification, then 60 days prior to
testing, the contractor shall subfnit for approval a detailed
reliability tcst plan that incorporates at least the f•- ...
specified by this docur -rnt and by the individual e-4quipient
specification. Task Group Reports 2 and 3 of :-.liability of
MiLitary Electronic Equip.ment may be .ied as a guide for c,:e_-
pl.eting the detailed test plan. Plans for reliability tests
in-egrated :with other quality conftormance, inspection tests
may b. submitted for approval to tle bureau or agency con-
ce-iied.
(4.2.1.3,) 'rest Details: The contractor and the procuring

group T`hall reachn written agreement specifying all as-
pr:cts of the reliability tests, including reporting, forms
before starting the tests. Rules for scoring failures shall
be exact. The performance characteristics to be measured
and their tolerances shall be covered in the individual
equipment specification. They shall be kept to a minimum
compatible with determination of satisfactory and unsatis-
factory performance. The environment in whi.ch the equip-
ment is tested, any preventive maintenance to be permitted,
and other details of the test program shall all be cubmitted
to the procuring activity and approved before the tests
begin. When approved by the procuring activity, the con-
tractor may elect to include any or all quality conform-
ance inspection tests specified into the individual equip-
ment specification or MIL E 16400 as part of •he reliabil-
ity test with no change in accept-reject criteria.
17-25
(4.2.2) Sample Size: The number of samples to be tested will

be specified in the individual equipment specification. When
not specified, the contractor shall propose a sampling plan
for approval by the procuring activity.
(4.2.3) Environment: The following test levels shall be

used for determining the environment to be imposed during re-
liability testing; the selection of the particular guide
shall be specified in the individual equipment specification.
(4.2.5) Recorded Data: From the start to the conclusion of

the test, the contractor shall maintain a continuous adequate
and accurate record of measurements of performance, test time,
test operator's observation, failures, and test facility con-
ditions. The data taken during the test shall be the least
necessary to complete the following: (a) Operational sheet;
(b) Log of equipment failures and operating time; (c) Failure
rcpo.:t; (d) Equipment logs.
(4.2.5.1) Operation Sheet: The operation sheet shall be

designed to provide a continuous record of the test sample
and test facility performance.
(4.2.5.2) Lol of equi ment failures and operating time:

The log of equipment failures and operating time shall
contain the information necessarý for an accept or reject
decision. The beading of the log shall identify the test,
the specific equipments under test, and the person respon-
sible for the log. The body shall contain the following
information: (a) Entry number; (b) Date and time of entry;
(c) Identification of equipment that failed; (d) Accumu-
lated operating time of all equipments; (f) Normalized
test time (item (e) divided by specified MTBF); (g) Total
number of failures observed for all equipments on test.
An entry shall be made at the occurence of each apparent

equipment failure. If failure diagnosis reveals that the
test speciment was not at fault, the failure may be deleted
upon appropriate reference to the operation sheet. Upon
accumulation of enough time or failures for either an
accept or reject, the test shall be concluded with an
appropriate entry.
i
1 17-26
(4.2.5.3) Failure Report: Completion of a failure report

to sufficiently describe all pertinent circumstances atten-
4 darnt to each equipment failure shall be mandatory. Th_-
failure report shall have two main parts; one shall report
the exact nature of the failure, and the other shall re-
port the cause to the fullest extent possible. The first
part shall describe the symptoms and the diagnosis action
taken, how the equipment was repaired, identification of
parts replaced or adjustments made, and what the effect of
the repair was. The second part shall include an analysis
of the failed part, an analysis of the circuit, and pro-
posals for- action to prevent recurrence of the failure.
(4.2.5.4) Equipment Log: There shall be an equipment log

for each unit tested. It shall remain attached to the unit
throughout the test to provide a complete history of the
equipment. The equipment log shall report the performpnce
of the equipment, any adjustments or repairs, and the oper-
ating time accumulated during the reliability test.
3.2.3 Planning Tasks: MIL STD 785 (paragraph 3.1) provides a

clear statement of requirements for the contractor to conduct his
work on the contract in a logical orderly manner. It is parti-
cularly applicable to CPFF contracts, when it can be administered,

where it can be a very useful tool in obtaining visibility of the
contractor's paerformance. MI R 22732, while requiring that the
contractor have a program, does not require its documentation and
hence limits visibility and control over adequacy of planning.
MIL STD 785 (3.1) Reliability Assurance Program: The contractor

shall establish and maintain an effective and economical relia-
bility assurance program, planned, integrated, and developed in
conjunction with other planning functions. The program shall be
adjusted to suit the type and phase (design, development, pro-
duction) of the procurement. The program shall be based upon
the severity of the requirements, the complexity of the design,
the quantity under procurement, and the manufacturing techniques
required. The program shall assure adequate reliability consider-
ation throughout all aspects of the design, development, or pro-
duction as necessary to meet the contractual reliability require-
ments.
4.
17-27
(3.3.1) Proposed Reliabilitv' Program Plan: The contractor's

proposed reliability program plan, in accordance with the
requirements of the work statement and this standard, shall
be submitted as a separate and complete entity within the
contractor's proposal for the system. The proposed plan must
be an integrated effort within the total program plan; it
shall provide specific information as to how the contractor
will meet specified quantitative reliability requirements
during development and manufacture including the design
concepts to be utilized. The proper manner of demonstra-
ting reliability at stated confidence levels shall be des-
cribed. The proposed reliability program plan, as approved
by the procuring activity will become a contract compliance
document; reliability test plans must be an integral part
of the program test plan.
(3.3.2) Reliability Organiza.tion: The program plan shall

(1) identify the organization and the personnel respcnsible
for managing the overall reliability program, and (2) shall
clearly define its responsibilities and functions including
both policy and action. It shall stipulate the authority
delegated to this organization to enforce its policies. The
relationships between line, service, staff, and policy
organizations shall be identified.
(3.3.3) Management and Control: The program plan shall

include detailed listing of specific tasks, man-loading per
task, and procedures to implement and c .ntrol these tasks.
it shall include a description of each task to be performed
whether or not it is already documented in contract-or
directives, the organizational unit with the authority and
responsibility for executing each task, the method of control
to insure executive of each task as planned, and scheduled
start and completion dates of each task. This data shall be
in a form that permits technical auditing by the procuring
activity. The information provided shall include the method
of analysis to be used as a basis for achieving the pr-jper
balance of effort and resources from a reliability standpoint.
The contractor shall identify specific technical problems
to be solved, review problems considering program require-
*
17-28
r'tents, and develop a detailed program to solve the problems.

Records shall be maintained on the status of actions to
resolve problems. All designers and associated personnel
shall be made aware of the reiiability requirements per-
taining to their area of responsibility and shall be in-
cluded in the information loop to correct known deficiencies.
Thne designation of milestones, definition of inter-relation-
ships, and estimation of times required for reliability pro-
gr~m activities and tasks shall be employed as part of over-
all program control which applies the program techniques.
If PERT (Program Evaluation and Review Techniaues) is part
of the program it shall be utilized.
MIL-R-22732B (3.2) Reliability Assurance Program: The con-

tractor shall establish and conduct a reliability assurance
program including, as a minimum, the elements required by this
specification. The contractor's reliability assurance program
shall be consistent with the requirements of MIL-STD-441 and
the requirements of this specification. Where the requirements
of MIL-STD-441 and this specification conflict, the requirements
of this specification shall govern. The fundamental features of
the reliability assurance program shall be consistent with the
extent to which the particular procurement embraces the pro-
curement phases of feasibility study, design and development,
prototype (preproduction) fabrication, and production. When
these phases, either individually or collectively, are included
in the procurement the reliability program elements listed there-
under are required.
3.2.4 Evaluation Tasks: The treatment afforded by MIL-R-22732

(paragraph 3.2.2 and 4.3) in the use of reliability analysis to
improve the product while in the design stage is excellent.
Reports are not specified in detail. The visibility would be
improved by some elaboration of reporting requirements.
MIL-STD-785 (3.2.2) Reliability Requirement Studies: The relia-

bility program shall procide for preliminary and continuing
studies of reliability est'mates and achievements. The relia-
bility program for all program phases shall provide for pro-
gressive refinement of the reliability analysis and validation
of specified requirements for all planned missions or operational
modes of the system. These studies shall include definition of
functional performance limits, duratiolL of operation in time or
cycles, etc., and the environmental conditions of operational
use. Apportionment of reliability requirement from the system
to syst.-m elements shall consider complexity and impcrtance
(effect of failure) of the system elements including alternative
17-29
modes of operation. Progressive reliability goals shall be

established for each major phase of a program which are phased
with program review points (3.4).
(3.5.4) Critical Items: The contractor shall esta;.lish an

effective method for identification, control and special handling
of critical parts, components, subsystems or othcr end items from
design through final acceptance. Such methods shall be described
in the contractor's formal policies and procedures to assure
awareness by all affected personnel (erg., design, purchasing,
manufactuin], inspection, test, handling, etc.) of the essential
and critica- naLure of such items. The methodology used in
generating the critical item 11it shall be furnished to the pro-
curing activity. The methcd used and the list subsequently
generated shall be subject to review and evaluation of the pro-
curing activity.
(3.5.5) Mathemati-al Models: The contractor shall provide

mathernaIical modeis based on systems analysis to apportion relia-
bility over major systems elements; and to predict reliability
at various stages of design. The mathematical models, apportion-
ment, and ijitial prediction shall be included in the program
plan
(3.5.9) Human Engineering: The reliability program shall apply

the principles of human engineering in all operations during
design development, manufacture, test, maintenance, and oper-
ation of the system or subsystem. The design shall incorporate
human engineering features that miniiize the possibility of de-
grading reliability through human error. Contractor's human
engineering personnel shall participate in design activity and
proposed tests to assure that the principles in MIL-STD-803 have
been incorpoltted in design and are reflected in test plans.
(3.5.10) Statistical Methods: The contractor's reliability

program shall incorporate optimum utilization of statistical
planning -nd analysis. This shall include application of such
methods as design of experiment, analysis of variance, and other
methods applicable to design, development, and production phases.
(3.5.111 Maintainability: The effects of the reliability pro-

gram on the maintainability of the design shall be considered
during the initial -nd subsequent design pha,;es to assure
minimum d_ýgradation to system availability.
(..5.11) Effects of Storage, Shelf-Life, Packaging, Transport:.-_

ion, Iidndling, and Maintenance: 'fhe contractor shall determ.
17-30
by test and analysis, or shall estimate, the effects of storage,

shelf-life, packaging, transportation, handling and maintenance
on the relia',iilty of the product. He shall design the product
to withstand tIhese effects. Any special requirements (r limita-
tions on shelf-life, storage, packaging, transportation, handling,
and maintenance shall be made known to the procuring activity.
MIL-R-22732B (3.2.1) Feasily Studies: Reliability sh,11 bp

considered in determining whether or not practical aLulicati n
of a concept or tentative design is posbible for this puipose,
an estimate of reliability shall be determined using the appli
cable method set forth in NAVSHIPS 93820 consistent with the
extent to which the design configuration is known. The effect
of the estimated reliability on other mission parameters of
maintainability, availability, ,and effectiveness shall b
analyzed and identified together with a d-scription of the
relationships betwetn reliability and these parameters i.
achieving the intended mission objective.
(3.2.2) Design and Develol aie-:.: If shall be recognized by the

contractor that the inherent eitability of any product is
determined by the basic design nich is the limiting factor il
achieving high reliability durirng military use. Accordingly,
the major emphasis by the contractor in attaining the degree of[
reliability required by the individual equipment specification
must be applied during product design and development. :`n
product design and development the following reliability program
elements are required.
(3.2.2.1) Product Identification: The contractor *nall

identify the complete product involved in the procurement
to which the numerical reliability requirement in the in-
dividual equipment specification applies. The mission
objective shall be delineated together with the specific
criteria for determining product success or failure. The
numerical reliability requirement shall be interpreted by
the contractor in terms of the mission objective, the
product configuration, and the criteria for success and
fai lure.
(3.2.2.2) Reliability Design Guides: The contractor and

his personnel shall familiarize themselves with the Bureau
of Ships Reliability Design handbook NAVSHIPS and make
maximum use of the design guides therein in the design and
design modifications required by the indiviriual equipment
specification as well as this specification.
f
17-31
(3.2.2.3) Mathematical Model: The contractor shall establish

a mathematical model relating the reliability of the complete
product to the design configuration, modes of operation, duty
cycles, and reliability indexes used for evaluation. The
mathematical model shall provide the basis for reliability
prediction, analytical reliability assessment, and allocation
of reliability goals to lower levels within the product.
(3.2.2.4) Allocation of Reliability Requirements: The con-

tractor shall apportion the reliability requirement from the
individual equipment specification to lower levels within the
product by allocatinc; numerical reliability goals to each sub-
system, equipment, assembly, sub-assembly, down to each non-
repairable part. When recombined in accordance with the
mathematical model (see 3.2.2.3) the allocated goals shall
yield a product reliability which equals or exceeds the re-
quirement in the individual equipment specification. The
detail goals shall provide the basis for establishing relia-
bility criteria for suppliers products and for evaluating
progress when compared with the results of subyequent relia-
bility predictions and tests. Such comparisons shall serve
as a means for detecting potential trouble areas and for
adjusting reliability effort to areas where needed to meet
required reliability levels.
(3.2.2.5) Initial Reliability Prediction: The contractor

:hall perform an initial reliability prediction for the
c)mplete procuct utilizing Method C set forth in NAVSHIPS
93820. Parts or subunits not covered by existing data in
NAVSHIPS 93820 shall be identified and means for obtaining
reliability figures of merit for these items shall be stated
by the contractor. Use of reliability data from other sources
sv-h as parts suppliers or other reliability documentation is
permissible subject to approval by the procuring agency, how-
ever, such data shall not. take precedence over data for
identical items contained in NAVSHIPS 91820 unless fully
justified by the contractor and approved by the procuring
agency. Correlation shall be made between allocated relia-
bility qoals (see 3.2.2.4) and reliability predictions.
(3.2.2.7) Final Reliability Prediction: The contractor shall

perform a final reliability prediction incorporating all design
changes made during the development process and representing
the final ;esign configuration to be used in the product
Method D of NAVSHIPS )3820 shall be used together with data
"from other sources as required and substantiated, taking into
"ac.-ount the failure characteristics of parts for which
SI
17-32
severity (stress) fun, ions versus failure rate are known and
documented. Correlation shall be made between allocated relia-
bility goals (see 3.2.2.4) and the tinal reliability predict-
ion.
(3.2.8) Qualitative Requirements: Equipments that do not have

a specified minimum MTBF shall be designed and produced to attain
the maximum practical MTBF. Such equipment shall be free of the
known causes of poor reliability such as unnecessary complexity,
misapplication of parts, marginal design, and poor workmanship.
The reliability assurance procedure prescribed in 4.3 shall be
applied to verify that the equipmernt fulfills this requirement.
(4.3) Reliability Assurance by Analysis and Prediction: The

following procedure shall be applied to all electronic equip-
ments regardless of whether quantitative reliability require-
ment are involved and regardless of whether reliability testing
is required.
(a) The MTBF of the equipment shall be predicted using

Met-hod D of publication NAVSHIPS 93820.
(b) The design shall be reviewed and analyzed in detail by

a group provided by the contractor independeot of the design-
ers to determine that it is inherently as reliable as is
practical. It shall be the particular function of this group
to constructively criticize such common weaknesses as un-
necessary complexity, misapplication of part., and those
commonly called "marginal design". This jroup shall report
the results of the design review and analysis together with
recommendations to the procurement agency and the drsigners.
(c) Any failure of a prototype or preproductioi. equipment

that occurs during the development, construction, or testing
of the equipment 3hall be analyzed and reported to the pro-
curement agency. The analysis shall be conducted 4- such a
manner as to determine the caust of the fiilure so that its
recurrence can be prevented. Repcrts of the failures nd their
analyses shall b. forwarded to the design review qroup for
endorsement.
The equipment shall be considered acceptable whenever the relia-

bility prediction, the design review, and the failure analyses
are completed and the procurement agency is satisfied that any
faults revealed by these studies have been corrected.
17-33
3.2.5 Design Review:
MIL-STD-785 (3.5.6.1) Periodic desiqn reviews for reliability

and evaluation of designs shall be conducted as an integral part
of the contractor's engineering design review and evaluation
prccedures. These reviews shall evaluate the achievement of
reliability relative to the reliability goals established for
each major phase and review point of the contract; with con-
tractor evaluation before designs are finalized, The relia-
bility design revievw analyses shall include, to the extent
applicable:
(1) Reliability estimates based upon prediction (such as

MIL-STD-756 and MIL-HDBK-217 as basic data) and accumulated
test data. Estimates shall be made for each mode of oper-
ation.
(2) Review of potential desicn or production problem areas.
(3) Analysis of effects of failure.
(4) Identification of the principle, critical items in-

hibiting reliability achievement.
(5) The ,Jffects of engineering decisions and trade-offs

upon reliability achievements, potential and growth.
(3.'_.6.2) The program plan shall specify appropriate personnel

from the contractor's re]iability oraanizations who shall parti-
cipate in the design reviews and denote approval by signature.
These reviews shell be continuing in nature to provide for the
earlie t possible detection and correction of any potential
deficienc.-es. A system shall be established and ma'ntained by
the contractor to assure reliability participation in control
ot designs, specifications, drcwings, and all changes thereto.
(3.5.6.3) The design review shall compare the design with

previously defined qualitative and quantitative requirements.
The results of the review shall be docur.,-nted.
(3.5.6.4) The procuring activity shall be notified at least

10 days prioi to each scheduled formal design review (as dia-
tinguished from continuing), to permit procuring activity
participation. The minutes of such reviews shall be made
available to the procuring activity upon reques4 .
17-34
MIL-R-22732B (3.2.2.6) Reliability Design Review: The con-

tractor shall perform a reliability design review function con-
ducte°, by experienced reliability personnel not directly sub-
ordinate to the design engineering function. The design review
shall include a detailed examination o'f the design documents,
drawings, ar specifications and a complete evaluation of the
effects of r.irt selection and application on the reliability of
the product. Evaluations shall include analysis of environmental
stresses (temperature, humidity, vibration) as well as physical
stresses (electrical, mechanical) sustained-by parts during in-
tended military use of the product. Identification shall be made
of critical or marginal features of the product desiqn which
adversely affect reliability as determined by the design review.
Provision s all be made by the contractor for approval by the
reliability design review function prior to final release of the
product design.
(3.2.3) Incompatibility of existing design and required relia-

bility: In the event that incompatibility of existing design
and required reliability is established, the contractor shall
prepare and submit to the procuring activity for approval, a
proposed program for accomplishing suich design changes as are
required to insure compatibility. Where possible, such design
changes shall include at least, but shall not be limited to
consideration of reduction of thermal and electrical stresses
on the equipment part .:xnplement. When it is established that
the required reliability level is not obtainable within the
existing state of the art for parts, the contractor's proposal
shall include a diagnosis of optimum types of and locations for
redundant circuitry and the scope of the work necessary to
provide the required reliability by these means.
3.2.6 Parts Reliability: MIL-STD-785 provides a very

effective coverage of parts control. MIL-R-22732B does not
cov-r this area. Where MIL-E-16400 is utilized in the procure-
ment, the parts selection requirement requires selection of stan-
dard parts from MIL-STD-242. These parts are preferred on a
basis of standardization rather than on a basis of high relia-
bility and hence do not guarantee performaace of the part.
MIL-STD-785 (3.5.3) Parts Reliability: Parts shall not be used

without knowledge of their capabilities and reliabilitY potential
determined from current or previous testing. Information shall
be sought or generated on stress levels and limits of application
as well as on failure rate. Available data and central in-
formation facilities shall be utilizod to avoiearneidless dupli-
cation of testing. In using existing data, the risk and limit-
r L
:rt-_1 i, - Th* best a,.vailable estimate
o' eet r-ri nat n f ftai _are rate fa--)r each part type shall be
%,ade; the part vendor's accumulated test history under part
specifi. itions requiring failure rate verification shall be
souqht. ½ported measure of a-hicved reliability should not be
based upon short duration tests which predominately measure
performanco. If time does not permit adequate t.-sting at
advanced ages, the contractor shall show the age range actually
tested and shall justify use of such data.
(3.5.3.1) Where estimates, data, and experience indicate a

need for a parts reliability improvement program to achieve
desired system reliabilbty, the contractor shall propose a
program, to increase the standardization and reliability of
parts to the required level. A preferred parts list shall be
maintained and utilized as a source of high reliability parts.
(3.5.3.2) Emergency Reporting of Defective Parts: When a

MIL specification or a MIL part is deemed suspect by the
development contractor, the contractor snall:
(a) Indicate reason with supporting evidence of this

conclusion.
(b) Perform fai -d part diagnosis and analysis of those

parts deemed suspect development, acceptance tests, and
other related activities.
(c) Whenever possible, reach a conclusion relative to

the cause of failure.
(d) Report by most expeditious means to the procuring

activity with concise supporting data when, and only when,
it has been concluded that a part is unsatisfactory for
any of the following reasonsa
(1) A part which was accepted as meeting a MIL

specification but which failed to perform to expecta-
tions, such failure concluded to be attributable to:
(a) Manufacturing procedures, choice of materials, or
design of part, or (b) Test and inspection disciplines.
(2) A military part specification which is inadequate

in that it (a) does not take advantage of the state-of-
the-art, (b) requires amendment to encourage advance-
17-36
ment of the state-of-the-art; or (c) requires revision

for clarity.
3.2.7 Supplier Control:,
MIL-STD-785 (3.5.7) Supplier and Subccntractor Reliability

Programs: The- contractor shall be responsible for assuring that
suppliers's and subcontractor's achieved reliability levels are
consistent with overall system requirements. The contractor
shall impose, directly or indirectly, quantitative reliability
requirements and acceptance criteria on all echelons of suppliers
and subcontractors; and shall incorporate applicable portions ct
this standard in subcontracts and purchase orders. The relia-
bility program of the contractor shall contain provisions for
surveillance of supplier and subcontractor reliability activities
including failura reporting. The surveillance shall consist of
but not be limited to such items as maintaining a supplier
selection program based upon review of the supplier's reliability
program, quality control system, examination of his facilities,
and past performance, to assure that suppliers are capable of
attaining and maintain 4 ng the required level of reliability. The
contractor shall take 1 actions necessary to assure that no
changes made by any supplier will reduce reliability of the
system. Records of each supplier's performance shall be main-
tained and reviewed with him periodically.
3.2.8 Failure Data and Diaqgnesis: MIL-STD-785 provides for the

collectioiL of success/failure data and the analysis of failures
occurring to the product or to the components before assembly.
MIL-R-22732 requires recording of failures occurring during the
reliability tests, with analysis and report of their causes.
MIL-STD-785 (3.5.15) Failure Data Collection, Analysis, and

Corrective Action: (a). The contractor shall have and shall
require major subcot. tractors to have a closed loop system for
collecting, analyzing, and recording all failures that occur during
phases of teacts required for system elements including those that
are performed in-plant and at installation sites. The contractor
shall describe his failure reporting procedures, including flow
charts, for the analysis, feedback and corrective action as part
of the program plan (see 3.3.3). The contractor shall explain
the method by which failure reports are initiated. Analysis and
recording of failures shall differentiate between, but not be
restricted to, those due to equipment failure and those due to
human error in designing, processing, handling, transporting,
storing, maintaining, and operating the equipment. Elapsed time
indicators on event counters shall be utilized or a log shall be
17-37
maintaini:ed to report accumulated operation time or operation

cycles on system components that arc time or operation cycle
sensitive. IZ-he failure reporting system shall be designed to
be compatible with the maintenance data collection-'sstem of the
procuring or using activity so that, as the syste; nears the
operational inventory phase, transistion to in-service failure
reporting can be accomplished with the minimrma disturbance and
maximum continuity of effort. The failure reporting systt•n shall
include provisions to assure that effective corrective actions
are taken on a timely basis to reduze or prevent repetition of
the failures. The contractor shall establish scheduled audits
to review all open reports, analyses, dates for corrective
action and report all delinquencies to management.
(b) The contractor shall ccmmence failure reporting with initial

development testing or operation including operating equipment at
receiving inspection, at a vendor's plant in final assembly, check-
out., or during acceptance testing. An unscheduled adjustment,
other than a calibration made during other maintenance because
o: convenience, shall be defined as a failure for reporting pur-
poses. Failures of components prior to incorporation into an
assembly shall be recorded separately and reported.
(c) The contractor shall submit failure report summaries as
specified by the procuring activity.
3.2.9 Supporting Activities:
MIL-STD-785 (3.5.2) Furnished Equipmient: Where other equipments,

such as Government-furnished or associate contractor. supplied
equipment are to be integrated to provide a complete operationali
system, the contractor shall use known or estimated reliability
values for these equipments. When such empirical data are not.
available through the channels to which the contractor has access,
the contractor shall request such data from the procuring
activity. The contractor shall report potential reliability
problems introduced by deficient Government-furnished equipment
or other associated equipment over which hehas no control and
shall indicate anO. justify the system changes necessary to
accommodate or the improvement' necessary to make this equipment
compatible with the system requirements.
(3.5.8) Reliability Indoctrination and Training: The relia-

bility program shall contain provisions to s-pplement the basic
training and indoctrination of company and plant personnel with
reliability training to assure that their skills and knowled4e
keep pace with advancing technology and the requirements or
17-38
peculiarities of the system or equipment.
(3.5.14) Manufacturing Controls and Monitoring: The contractor

shall have a planned, controlled and schedule system of pro-
duction control and monitoring to assure that reliability achieved
in design iS maintained durinq production.
MIL-R-22732B (3.2.9) Support Activitýy The contractor's facil-

ities and organization shall be such as to insure that allJ
support which affects equipment reliability will be accomplished
in a manner compatible with the requirements of this specifi-
ration. Such support shall include, but is not limited to, the
following: (a) Quality control systems requirements in accord-
ance with MIL-E-16400, and (b) Reliability indoctrilation of
personnel.
3.2.10 Monitoring and Review: MIL-STD7.L•5 provides for the

program to be reviewed at. planned points. MIL-R-22732 requires
progress reports monthly and at the conclusion of specific
elements, (apportionment, prediction, design review and testing).
The coverage in the progress reportis not clearly specified,
but tile inference would seem to inclilde the progress ,nd results
on the particular elements.
MIL-STD-785 (3.4) Program Review: The reliability program shall

be organized and scheduled to permit the contractor and the
procuring activity to review its status, including renults
achieved, at pre-planned steps or checkpoints. This formal
review and assessment of reliability normally will be conducted
at major p.ogram points and these points will be established by
the procuring activity during negotiations. As the program
develops, reliability progress shall be assessed by use of such
information as predictUons of reliability and results of relia-
bility design reviewt., and tests including effects of human per-
formance.
MIl-R-22732B(3.2.8.1) Reporting: The results of the reliability

assurance plan shall be summarized in a report to the procure-
ment agency. This report shall include :the results of the relia-
bility prediction, design review, and failure analyses specified
in 4.3 together with a discussion of the information con.ained
therein.
(3.2.4) As a minimum, reports shall be submitted 45 days after

award of contract and monthly thereafter to end of contract, or
at the conclusion of each program element specified in 3.2.2.1;
3.2.2.3, 3.2.2.4, 3.2.2.5, 3.2.2.6, 3.2.2.7,.3.2.5.2, 3.2.6.2,
17-39
and 3.2.8.1 whichever occurs more frequently.
3.3 MAINTAINABILITY SPECIFICATION ABSTRACTS
There is considerable overlap between maintainability and relia-

bility specifications, the prime example being design review.
Most such specifications read as though separate design review
meetings are required for maintainability, reliability, safety,
and the host of other important design consideraticns. To the
contractor this is not economical or relaistic, since trade-offs .
between these disciplines are involved. For this reason Chapters
22 and 23 recommend language that combines the discipline where
it is appropriate.
For electronic systems, MIL-M-23313 provides a useful basic

specification for obtaining a required MTTR in the Product.
This specification is not referenced in the general electronic
system specification MIL-E-16400, nor in MIL-R-Z'27:32. To apply
MIL-M-23313 to a particular procurement requires (a) reference
to MIL-M-23313 in the procurement document, a"d (b) assignment
of quantitative requirements.
There is no BuShip specification or MIL-STD released for main-

tainability requirements on systems other than 'l~ctronic. To
approach maintainability in such systems, the specific clauses
must be developed in the procurement documents. In building up
such a specification, (a) the numerical requirement must be
specifited, (b) the relevant factors of maintenance philosophy,
replaceme.nt level of parts or components, and software support
must be provided, (c) maintainability studins, design review
effort, predictions and apportionment and special logistics
studies, should be required, (d) details and frequency of report-
ing should be outlined, and (e) the acceptance test plan should
be defined.
There is considerabale variation between the approaches of the

various ser'vices in attempting to obtain a specified maintain-
ability of procured equipment. In addition to the Bureau's
specification for maintainability requirements for electronic
equipment and syrtems, selected abstracts of Air Force and
Bureau of Naval Weapons are furnished for clarification of
understanding.
3.3.1 MIL-M-23313A (SHIPS) - Ma2ntainability Requirements for
Shipboard and Shore Electronic Equipments and Systems.
Nrqurmet
(1.1) This specification covers maintainability requirements
17-40
for B'u-eau of Ships shipboard and shore i1ectronic equipment and

systems.
(1.2) In addition, this specification prescribes procedures to

be followed for evaluation of equipment maintainability during
equipment or system development a-nc: production programs. In
particular At provides procedures for*--,-
(a) Maintainability evnluation of final dosign.
(b) Preproduction maintainability test.
(c) Maintainability design review during production.
(d)- Maintainability evaluation during preliminary design.
(3.1.1) Maintainability assurance program.,- The contractor's

.(supplier's) maintainability assurance program, shall be consist
ent with the requirements of this specificati-vn. The procuring
activity will, at its option, review and evaluate the contractor's
maintainability assurance program to determine whether or not it
is adequate and consistent with thv provisions of this spec-
ification. The mairtainability assurance program shall include,
but Shall not be limited to, the following requirements or
applicable portions thereof.
(3.1.1.1) Support activity. - The contractor's facilities or

those of a subcontractor shall be such as to insure that all
support which affects equipment maintainability will be
accomplished in' a'manner compatible with the requirements of
this'specification. Such support shall include, but shall
not be limited to, the following:
(a) Maintainability indoctrination of personnel.
(b) Maintainability design review throughout the develop-

ment and production program tc assure that maintainability
is being considered as a design goal.
(3.1-1.2) Maintainability design guide.. - The contractor

and his personnel shall familiarize themselves With Publi-
cation NAVSEIPS 94324, and make maximum use of the design
guides therein.
(3.1.1.3) Maintainability during design and production. -
The maintainability evaluation procedure and maintainability
test described in the appendix shall be used for evaluating
17-41
the maintainability of equipments and systems in %the final

design stage, and in the preproduction and production stages
(see Sections 30 and 40).
(3.1.1.4) Maintainability prediction during preliminary

design stage. - In the preliminary design stage (see 6.3.3)
the contractor may use any evalu&tion method and any scheiule
of evaluation suitable to him to assure himself'of compliance
with this specification in the final design stage and in the
preproduction and production stages. Four evaluation methods
for various stages of development and design are presented in
the appendix (see Section 50).
(3.2) Maintainability requirements. - The procuring activity

will specify an equipment repair time (ERTO in the detailed
equipment or systems specification. (See 6.4) The design of
the equipment or system shall be such that the geometric mean
of all active repair time intervals required to repair independ-
ent failures shall not exceed the specified ERT. Compliance
with this requirement will be verified in the final design stage,
and in the preproduction and production stages when the follow-
ing criteria are met.
(6.4) Maintainability specification method. - The value of

Equipment Repair Time (ERT) to be specified in the detailed
equipment specification (See 3.2) should be determined using
the following expression:
ERT (specified) = 0.37 ERTmax.
where (a) ERTmax = the maximum value of ERT that should be

accepted no more than 10 percent of the time, and (b) 0.37'= a
value resulting from application of "Student's t" operating
characteristics and that assures a 95 percent probability that
an equipment having an acceptable ERT will not be rejected as
a result of the first maintainiability test when the same size
is 20, and assuming a population standard deviation (O)of 0.55.
(3.2.1) Maintainability requirements.in final design stage•.'-.

The contractor will be considered to have met the specified
maintainability requitements in the final design stage and prior
to fabrication of the preproduction model (see 6.3.5), when the
calculated geometric mean-time-to-repair, determined by the
maintainability evaluation of the final design is not more than'
the specified ERT (see 4.3).
(4.3) Maintainability evaluation of final design. - Maintain-

17 -t2
ability evaluation of the final design shall be performed before

starting fabrication of the preproduction model (see 6.3.4). :Ihe
final determination of the scheduiu for performing the maintain-
ability evaluation of the final design will be made by the pro-
curing activity.
(3.2.2) Maintainability requirements in the preproduction stage.

- The contractor .will be considered to have met the maintain-
ability requirements for the preproduction model when the measured
geometric mean-time-to-repair (MTTRG) and standard deviation (S),
as determined in accordance with (4.4) produce the following
result:
log MTTRG • log ERT + 0.397 (S)

where (a) log ERT = the logarithm of the.Equipment Repair Time
specified in 3.2, (b) log MTTRG = the value determined in
accordance with 40.5.1, and (c) S = the value determined, in
accordance with 40.5.2.
(4.4) Preptoduction maintainability _test. - The preproduction

maintainability test shall be performed on the preproduction
model (see 6.3.5) and before the start of production.
(3.2.3) Maintainability requirement during production. - The

contractor will be considered to have met the maintainability
requirements for production models if no design changes or
modifications are introduced following acceptance of the pre-
production model or it maintainability of the equipment or
system has not been degraded below the specified ERT (see 3.2)
by the introduction of design changes or modifications. (See 4.5).
(4.5) Maintainability design review during production. - When-
ever design change(s) are proposed for any reason during pro-
duction and when so directed by the procuring activity, the con-
tractor shall review' the proposed change(s) to assure that the
overall maintainability of the equipetent will not be degraded as
L result of the change(s). This review shall include a des-
cription of the proposed change(s) and a revision of the mait'I..
tainability evaluation of final design of (4.3) reflecting the
overall effect of the change(s). If, in theopinion of the
procuring activity, there is a possibility that degradation of
the overall maintainability will occur as a result of the design
change(s), the procuriLng activity reserves the right to require
a maintainability test to be performed on a production model
incorporating the design change(s) to determine the extent of
such degradation. The particular model to'be tested will be
r'
P.-43
selected by the prcuIng activ~ty vhen such test is required

by the prorurir> activity, the t-st shall be performed by the
contractor and in accordance with section (40) of the appendix.
Acceptance criteria forc this test shalli be the same as for t-he
preproduction maintainability test (see 3.2.2), with the non-
compliance provisions of (4.4.2) ipplicable. Whtn the test
demonstrates that the equipmnent maintainability does not meet
specified mainitainability requirements, production shall be sus-
pended pending coordination between the contractor and procuring
activity to- resolve problem areas in the design.
(3.3.1) Anticipated nonconformance. - In the event the con-

tractor'~s maintainability evaluatirns durinci the preliminary
desigin stag indicate that the speciflied maintainability will
not be obtained within the existinq- state-of-the-art, the con-
tractor shall submnit a rep--t to the procuring actfivity explain-
(a) The reasons why the specified maintainability cannot be

obtai npd,
(b) The -.peci fic level of maintainabiIL itv' that can be

achieved7 and,
(c) The design chanqes rec-esaary for achiev-ing this level

of maintainability.
(3.3-.2 Noncon formnance o-f firi cles . - Tn. the tevent the cal1-
c-ulated! qeoret,-i c mcoýn-t ime-t 0-ropa ~r _,f thet final -desiqn -uoe,)s
nolt meet the requirement of _2_1 the contractor shall -repare
and ubiiit
o te prcurn c-ti-ity fo)r ipproval, a -r 'popsed
Prot-ram for accompl -s hin- -o c-b dosign chanrios as are requiredI
to insure that the, 7iam-tainarhiit . requmLremrei* of the final
dIes iqn will be m t.Tmrpltrnenta1 i,'n of 'he j[ru-;cxed desl 4un
changjes approved by the prL-cur in,, activity v ill be in accordance
with the terms and co.nditio__ns of- thev c n trac t-
(3.3.3) Noncom formancec_ of i~rt.-i-roduc-tiOn mo~dell.- in the (event

t he eqipm,. :it oýr s N's tem s 1a ilI t-o meet the requirements of 3.2.2
aftcr the second maintainibility test (see 4.4.42), the con-
tractor shall eftect such modi fici-xtio'ns as are considerled
necessary by the prcocurirl- a-t ivity to assure cvmpliance.
Followir-i such mcodific-at ions, the test of 4.4 shall be repeated.
(3.1.4) Noncon fo.rmance of prodluction moxie . ?n the event tbe

-
equipxnent or systesn tai' - to, mre,2t the requir~ments of 3.2.3 the

contractor shall suspend prroduction piendinQ coordination with
17-44
the prok-urin(, act ivit-'v, to rcpi2 rc-11YEm areas -Jn the d3esi>zn.
(3 .4) 3~~~-The contracitor shallI uhbri.t m-ountainability

evaluation and test reports to the procCurirng act ivittv-- follows:
(3.4.1) Final design iiaint-ainability eva'1Luation rep'.."rt, ('34.2)
Prc-oroduction mai ntainability test report, a2(3.4-3) Production
maintainability review reports.
(3.6) Main--ainabilliytest technician. - Unless other-visa spec-

ified i'n the contiact, or by the Contracting Officer after awardý
of the contract., the procurin- activity will pro-.ide an Electronic
Techni 'ian iir. will perform the test repa-ir actions of the main-
tainability test described in Section 40 of the appendix. When,
in the interest of the Lrocurirng activity, the contractor is re-
qiuired to furnish a tec~hnician flor perfor-mtances of the test
repair actio)ns, the contractor will be so noti3fied n.o-t later-
than 30 days prior to the date scheduile for the start of the
test.
(4.1) REsponsbilijr ispection. - Unless otherwise specified

in the contract or porchase order, the s~ipplier is responsible
for tl-'- performance. of all inspecti on requirements as specifi-ed
herein. Exc~ept as other'.-ise spec-ified, the supplier may utilize
his own t.,-ciiuties o:- any commercial laboratory acceptable to the
Governmen~t. The Governm~ent reserves the ri-ght- to perform any of
the inspections set forth in the specificaticn, where such in-
spections are deemed n.2cessary to assure suppii-ýs arl services
conform t~o prescribed requý.:ements.
(4.2) Classification of inspection. - Maintainability inspection

shall be classified as fnllows: (a) maintainability evaluatio'n
of final design (see 4.3), (b) preproduction maintainability
test (see 4.4), and (c) maintainability design review during
production (see 4.5).
(6.5.2) Maintainability_ ýIEc-ificationCriterion. - The criterion

(ERT =0.37 ERTmnax) given in 6.4 estahlishes an equipment repair
time value to be specified as the maintainability requirement by
the writer of the detailed equipment or system specification.
It is based on establishina a maximum acceptable (upper limit)
value of ERTmax from known operational or availability require.-
ments,.and determining from this, an AQL of specified ERT. This
specified value of ERT establishec. by the criterion of 6.4 is such
that if the maintainability test r--sulted in a measured MTTRG, at
exactly the ac':eptancr linit (that is, log MTTRG =log ERT +0.397
WS) the second time thie teFss- of 20 repair time measurements was
performed, and after failing the first test, there will be a 90
1.7-45
percent probability that the equipents or system has a true

MTTRG less than ERTmax.
,6.5.2.3) Therefor , the specification writer should first
establish the EPTrax (based on known operational requirements,

and so forth) which cannot be accepted more than 10 percent of
the tLme. 7he specified value of ERT to be included in the
detailed equipnent or system specitication is determined from
•RTTax using (xpression in paragraph 6.4.
3.3.2 WR-30, Integrated Maintenance Management for Aeronautical

weapons, Weapon Systems and Related Equipment, Bureau of Naval
Weapons.
(1.1) This docuznent establishes the policy, terms and conditions

governing the implementation and execution of an integrated main-
tainability and support program for weapons, weapon systems and
ralated equipments to be procured under the contract in which this
document is cited. It is the specific intent of tb's document to
oharter the Integrated Ma:ntenance Management Team to manage :he
total Logistic Support Piogram. Accordingly, this document is
designed to develop, early in a program, a maintenance plan which
is tailored to specific commodities and contracts.
(3.1.1) Organization. - In order to satisfy the overall objective

of the requirements contained herein, it is essential that the
Goverrnment and the contractor each establish an organization to
achieve the integration and management of maintenance resources.
In recognition of thiq requirement, the contractor shall establish
an appropriate organization with expressed authority and res-
ponsibility for respondinq to such requirements.
(3.1.2) Management Team Establishment and Composition. Within

thirty days subsequent to award of contract wherein this document
is cited, the Government will establish an Integrated Maintenance
Management Team. The composition of the Management Team will
include the contractor and Government personnel responsible for
specific elements of this document.
(3.1.3) •lanning Conference. - At a date mutually acceptable to

both the Government and the contractor, bui in any event not
later than 60 days subsequent to the establishment of the Inte-
grated Maintenance Management Team, the Government will ccnvene
the Team for a planning conference for the purpo-e of reviewing,
modifying, and approving the contra--or's detailed plans for
satisfying the requirements of this document.
17-46
(3.1.6) Integrated Maintenance Man3gemrent Plan. - The con-

tractor's documented Integrated Maintenance Management Plan shall
be presented for approval at the planning conference. The plan
shall contain the following as a minimum: (a) Management Program
Section, (b) Maintainability Program Section, (c) Personnel and
Training Program Section, (d) Publication Program Sectioih, (e)
Augmented Support Program Section, (f) Government Support Program
Section, and (g) Facility Requirements Program Section.
(3.1.7) Maintenance Enginetring Analysis Record (MEAR). - The

MEAR shall be utilized for management and control of the main-
tainability program and the integration -f maintenance resources.
The contractor shall prepare MEAR's in accordance with Appendix
A during the developient program and complete them on a con-
tinuing basis in accordance with the schedule agreed upon during
the planning conference. MEAR's shall be prepared for the end
article; functional systems, assemblies; equipment type items
which are programmed for independent overhaul, repair or parts
replacement; designated special support equipment; and other
items to such range and depth as considered necessary to insure
adequate maintenance resource support.
(3.1.9) Contractor Maintenance and Failure Data Collection. -

The contractor shall establish and implement a data collection
system which will be compatible with the data collection Frogram
in effect by the using activity. The contracter will commence
data collection at that point in time when hardware is in exist-
ence and continued throughout the Augmented Support Program.
(3.2.2.4) Quality. of Design. - During the design phase, the

following maintainability objeccives and related technical,
economic and operational constraints shall be considered as a
minimum to determine the optimum manner of satisfying the main-
tainability requirements for the end articles.
(a) Design so that the mean time to accomplish scheduled

and unscheduled maintenance is within the target objectives
which must be met to satisfy the operational plan for use.
(b) Design to minimize the complexity of frequently per-

formed maintenance tasks (for example: servicing, calibrat-
ion, adjustments, tirt-e-phased replacements, scheduled in-
spections, etc.).
(c) Maximize the extent to which equipment and system per-

formance can be verified, and system calibration performed
on the end article with minimum need for support equipment.
A
17-47
'd) Design for rapid and positive recognition and isolation

of equipnent malfunction or marginal performance.
(e) Design to require the minimum personnel skills and

training needed to develop adequate maintenance proficiency.
(f) Design to require minimum numbers and types of facilities,

support equipment (special, general and standard) required to
perform maintenance.
(g) Design to require the minimum: number of parts, replace-

ment spares, and consumable maintenance materials, by use of
military standard items, standard comaer ial items, multiple
use of the same components in the system, maximum use of
components used in previous systems and maintenance of a high
level of interchangeability within the system, and between
various series or models of the same system.
(h) Design to enhance and facilita e maximum field and

organi.zational sE:lf-sufficiency, within the t .hnical,
economic, and ocerational framework contained in the Inte-
grated Mair.tenalice Management Plan.
(i) design for the optimum accessibility in all systems,

equipment and components requiring maintenance, servicing,
inspections, removal or replacement.
(j) Design equipment and components which are subject to

maintenance to eliminate the possibility of improper in-
stallation.
(k) Design for maximum safety for both personnel and equip-
ment involved in the performance of maintenance.
(1) Wherever possible and logistically practical, use self-

adjusting, self-calibrating and self-checking equipment.
(i) When sealed or encapsulated components are used which

are subject to maintenance, repair or modification, they
shall be designed, when practicable, to facilitate unsealing
and resealing by maintenance personnel.
(3.2.2.6) Design Reviews: Design reviews for maintainability

requirements shall be accomplished prior to rele3se of system
installation drawings and assembly production drawings. These
reviews shall be directed toward an analysis of troubleshooting
techniques, accessibility, compatibility, and adequacy of support
17-AC
equipment, human enqineering, and life support considerations'.

training requirements, and maintenance support costs. For items
cnvered by MEAR's the contractor shall not release drawings f"or
initial fabrication or release purchase orders for procurement
until the maintenance requirements and tasks have iýeen identified
and analyzed. Certification that such review has been made shall
be indicated by appropriate drawing title: block ý ignature and
date.
(3.2.4) Maintainability Design Trade-offs. To achieve optimum

operational capability, design trade-offs may be necessary.
Maintainability evaluations shall be made, as appropriate, on a
continuing basis, as a part of system engineering studies to
establish support consequences of design approaches in terms of
maintenance resource requirements and development costs. Factors
to be considered in determining possible trade-offs are as fol-
lows: Criticality of failure, equipment reliability, economic
constraints, and performance requirements.
(3.3.3) Personnel Training Requirements. The contractor shall

p vide a summary of training requirements in accordance with
WR-25 to insure that military personnel will be capable of main-
taining the end article and relate& support equipment. The
trainincT requirements shall be directly related to the mainten-
ance requirements contained in the MEAR's and shall emphasize
new materials, training devices and techniques not currently in
use or which are not readily adaptable to existing military
training programs.
(3.4.1) Publication Integration. The contractor shall insure

that data generated as the result of the maintenance engineering
analysis is appropriately used to provide the basis for publica-
tions and manuals required by publication specifications cited
separately. It is essential that the content of technical man-
uals, which are considered a maintenance resource, reflect the
proper inter-relationship of scheduled and unschedule maintenance
requirements, tasks, support equipment and material requirements
and maintenance level capability.
(3.5.2.1) Contract-r Acqui.,-ed Spares and Repair Parts.Support

Material List; Preparation of. The contractor shall prepare, on
the basis of MEAR's, support material list(s) for spares and
repair parts in accordance with Appendix B. These lists shall
include contractor and vendor items acquired to support the end
article for the duration of the Augmented Support Program.
(3.5.4.1) Soecial Support Equipment Desij•. The contractor shall

17 -49
imi edieteJ.I investigate requirements for SSE as substantiated by

maintenance engineering analysis. Concurrent with maintenance
engineer•.ng analysis, the contractor shall proceed with design
or engineering study anJ shall prepare maintenance engineering
analysis on end items of support equipment as determined neces-
sary.
These procedures are applicable to contractor designed and fabri-

cated SSE as well as SSE dEsigned and/or fabricated by vendors
or subcontractors. The equipment concerned is considered t, '3e
of the type necessary for service, maintenance, test, repair ot
overhaul of the end article and systems or components thereof
and not the type required for developmental qualification or
highly specialized technical laboratory type equipment. The
Integrated Maintenance Management Team shall supply suoplemental
maintenance policy on any item of suppo-t equipment requeted by
the contractor. Unless otherwise specified. •esign requirements
for special support equipment shall be in accordance with the
specifications listed in paragraph 2.1 of this document, except
that special support equipment required solely for overhaul or
depot use may be designed in accordance with best commercial
practices.
(3.7.1) Control Stages: A maximum of five stages for verifica-

tion of maintainability and integration of maintenance resources
are required for control purposes. These stages are as follows:
(3.7.1.1) Sta e One. At the planning conference, the contrac-

tor shall present data submitted during the proposal, updated
as appropriate.
(3.7.1.2) sýta3e Two. Stage two shall be progressively imple-

me.,ted during breadboarding or mock up of the contract end
article, its sý'stems and equipment, including special support
equipment. Durinq this stage, the contractor shail evaluate
accessibility, simplicity, equipment size, working environ-
ment, maintenance resource requirements and human engineering
considerations. The initial maintainability predictions and
mnaintenance resources requirements shall be verified and up-
dated during this stage.
(0.7.1.3) Stae Three. Stage three shall be conduot-ed on

the first representative production end article which has
been identified by the contractor and scheduled specifically
for this purpose. During this stage the maintainability
program requirements shall be evaluated to insure tha* the
operational requireirients can be met without exceeding pro-
17-50
qrammed maintenance resources. In addition, this stage shall

include evaluation of comp,.tibility between maintenance re-
sources. Information feedback will be initiated from observed
maintenance action so that early corrective action can be
taken or initiated.
(3.7.1.4) Stage Four. Stage four will occur during trials

a- which time the achievement of the end article maintain-
ability requirements will be demonstrated. The demonstration
shall be performed on maintainability test aircraft as spec-
ified in the test program. The specific time phasing of
demonstrations and proposed requirements to be demonstrated
shall be stipulated by the contractor and shall be made a
part of the maintainability program plan.
(3.7.1.5) Stage Five. Verification of the in-service and

S-rti~cle naa!,-- I"
I .. .......... I .
by the Govermvnent in-service verification will be accomplished
using only these tools, equipment, data, training, personnel,
and material resources which have been programmed and provided
as a result of the application of this document.
3.3.3 MIL M 26512C(USAF) Maintainability Requirements for

Aerospace Systems and Equipment, U. S. Air Force.
(1.1) This specification establishe. the general Maintainability

requirements for systems and equipmc.it and provides maintainabil-
ity program policy and procedures.
(3.1) General Maintainability Requi_-ements. - The system/equip-

ment maintainability characteristics shall be such that the
maintenance required to meet the planned mission can be accom-
plished within the limits specified in the system/equipment
specification or work t..atement. The maintenance requirements
specified shall apply to all levels of maintenance in fhe plan-
ned maintenance environment, and, depending upon the mission c'
the system/equipment, shall be stated in quantitative terms such
as:
(a) Time (e.g. mean and maximum dowo time, reaction time,
turn around time, mean and maximum times to repair, etc.)
(b) Rate (e.g. maintenance manhours/flying hour, maintenance

manhours/specific maintenance action, operational ready rate,
maintenance hours/operating hours, etc.'
(c) Maintenance complexity (e.g. number people and skill
4
17-51
levels, variety of AGE, etc.)
(d) Maintenance costs (e.g., maintenance costs per year,

etc.)
(e) Accuracy (e.g., tolerances of performances).
(3.2) Maintainability Design Princi es. - The design of all

equipment comprising the system for which the contractor has
responsibil 4 ty shall be so developed that an optimum mix of
personnel skills and training, equipment complexity, performance,
and reliability will be attained f.-ro,,.gh applic-_:. of main-
Stainability r-i#"iis
(a) Design to minimize the complexity of maintenance tasks.
(b) Design tor rapid and positi"'- rpcoqnition of equipment

malfunction or marginal performance.
(c) Design for rapid and positive identification of the re-

placement defective part, assembly, or component.
(d) Design to require the minimum maintenance skills and

training needed to develop adequate maintenance proficiency.
(e) Design to require minimum numbers and types of tools and

test equipment (sp-cial and qtAndard) needed to perform main-
tenance.
(f) Design for the optimum aiccossibility.
(g) Design for maximum safety for both equipment and per-
sonnel involved in the performance of maintenance.
(h) Maximize the extent that performance can be verified,

malfunctions anticipated and located, and calibration per-
formed.
(i) Design so the mean time to accomplish schedule and un-

scheduled maintenance is sufficiently low so as to assure
the attainment of specified availability of the system/equip-
ment.
(j) Design to enhance and facilitate all levels of main-

tenance action.
j
(3.4) Maintainability Characteristics. - The maintainability
17-52
characteristics of the equipment and components of the sysLem

shall be determined or predicted in terms of their contribution
4o the overall system maintainability characteristics required
to achieve the specified system requirements at each level of
maintenance. Factors considered shall include but not be limited
to mean-time-between-failures, mean tine for repair, mean time
for scheduled maintenance, operational requirements, skills,
special equipment, levels and ]ocaticn of facilities, and mean
downt ime.
(3.5.3.2) Specific maintainability program elements. - The

following are the minimum program elements which shall be in-
corporated into the contractor's maintainability program.
(a) De.ign assistance. - Concurrent with the development of

the proposed program plan, the contractor's maintainability
oruanization shall hegin to provide design engineering with
maintain-hbility design guidelines and techniques for achieving
the maintainability requireiu,•iL.
(b) Design reviews. - Provisions shall be made to assure the

the accomplishment of design reviews at the most appropriate
stages of system/equipment acquisition.
(e) Revie,-, of design changes. - Provision shall be made to

assure review of all proposod ,ieziign changes for maintain-
ability quantitative and qualitati.e effects.
(d) Corrective action system ' peration. - The maintainability

organization Shdll assure that problems attecting the main-
tainability of system, equiypent shill be corrective action
responsibility assioned and shall follow-up for timely resol-
ution of such problems.
(e) Maintainability predirtins. - Provision shall be made

for prediction of system, equipment maintainability at selected
control points during system. eiuipmet(nt acquisition.
(f) Test and demonstration. - %hilt_ preliminary testing and

demonstration may, where feasibl•, ),e performed concurrently
with breadboard, environmental, or ,)ther tests required by
the design and development proo1ram, provisions shall bo made
for, formal maintainability tests ý.n dJelivered article(s).
(g) Maintainability indoctrination or training as appropriate

of contractedr personnel. - Provisions shall be mdde ror approp-
riate maintainability indoctrination of cotractor personnel,
Il_ - 53
siuch as, design engineer inq and manufacturinq quality cl~ntrol-

;rnTe requirements and objectives of the maintain~ibility
pr cy,:.am . This indoctrination may take the t-,ýrrn of icct-ures,
tziining films, workships, etc.
(h) Logistic sopport model. - Provisions shall be m-)dc for

the Contractor's mn~ntainability orianization to participate
in the development of the logistic support model.
(i) Maintainability analysis. - Identifi-cation and manage-

ment of the maintainability design and all prerequisite
resources shall be accomplished througýh the use. of anclys is
techniques. A maintainability engineering analysis of the
system shall be accomplished concurrently with the ciesiin
effort to provide a systenudt ic u.--.,tiyon ot the-
tisks that will be required in support of the system/ecuip-
rnent and AGE.
(3.6) MaintainabliljyvDesignj rade-otfs. - To achieve optimum
major areas involved are impact of equilyment ma~lfunction, relia-

bility of equipment, economic limitations, and performance
requirements.
(4.2) Maintainability Demonstration. - Maintainability shall be

quantitatively demonstrated and evaluatet.,. One metho~d for
accomplishment will be found in Appendix A. The contractrr may
propose alternate techriqor-b.
(4.3) Maintainability Records. - The contractor sha'.1 establish

and maintain reco,:rds of mý:intainabilil-y infoirmati,..n pertaininq to
the contract. These records shall b'Žý available for i.nspection b%.
the applicable procuring activity throughout the contract.
3.3.4 MIL-S-23603(WEP)_Sy~stemReadiness/M -intainability,

Avionic Systems DesijL,_Zeneral specification fi-r:
(1.1) Scope. - Th-s document specifies one o-f tht. major require-
ments for System Effectiveness as it ielatcs to) Avionlc systems
and subsystems (See 6.1.9). Equipment c~iprlyinq with these
requirements shall be designed to meet the requiremnents for
maint3inability and system r-cadi ness .ý,_+heut re'Žducti on in the
functional system performance. All levels of maintenance in-
cluding certain airborne -aintenance functions are considered
in this spec.Ification. (The maintainability terrminolo~gy
appearing in this specification is defined in Par. 6.1. The
interrelationship of the terms is shown in Chart IV.
17-5.4
(3,3 .1) Operaticon-al. MainLzl-lnability Requirements. -The cguali-

tati,.e- and quant itati1ve chairacter ist ics of the equipm~ent ind Ic-.
ated in 1.2 shall be such that it will be pos.uibl'- in 95/- of all
the cases of failure, to perform all corrective org;anizational
maintenance actions, other than combat damage, resulting from
two hours of combat fli -Iht operations within a t'-= arou~id
period (Max. 4.2.1 (3)) not exceeding 3 iinutes. As here
applied an organizational, corrective maintenance Action includes
t1,e fcolio-!iiig: (See (-.I for definitions of termnun~ojy).
(1.) Recognition of a fault.
(2) Isolation of the fault to a Weapon Replaceable Asscrnbly

(WR ;.' ,,+ 1Maintenance Mod.ule Mother Bo)ard (See 6.1).
(3) Rcpair of the fault.
(4) Ch-ck out of the repair.
(3.3.2) Mainta Lnabi li t- fndices tor Or~ianizat ion Maintenance. -
(3.3.2.1) Light Replac-.able Assembly (LRA) Rat io - The ratio'(

of the number o-f Ligh elcaleAsmle (LRA's) to the
total numbei. of Weapon Replaceable Assemblies (',WRA's) (which
is equal, to the sumn of the HaL,,4ccnbz As;embiie-s (F-IRA's
l-,us the LRA's) shall not be less than 0.90 unless otht-r- ise
spec ifi ed in the liet a i spec ificat i~n. An example snow,ýingf
computition is showsn in fi .ý'iies I andl- IA. (S';ee 0 . I )
(.3.I .2ý. 2) Nz n-Akmbiguity (N-A ~P -.itio - The ratio o-f t number

of WRA's faulit-xbolated ~et Iv .,,ith buIIt- inT teCS t f e,-t ýre S
an-1 wit'hout ambi;u itý to thet tot al nu-iber of hall no:t
;P.
be less thain @. unlvei oth rw.ist, speci tiedA In the dletail
spFeci- fc at cn . An example shk-, in-, ion1- is sonin
Liutt
fi~lu'- I and 1A.
(3.1 .2 .1~) Fixed Inter face (Fl) Ratko - The ratio' ofý th'e
number of -;RA' s whichi do not req-u irv aci-ustment. or tr m
irrnn
at int, alation in trie air,.raft toý- the total number f" WRA's
shall vc ýPt im i zed and shill not be less- thian 1.Cu ~
otherwise spec ~ifl-, in the let ai sp-eci ficat ion. An exampleý
of comT.'putatio.n i.; shnown in figures I and !A.
(3.3.3) Maintainability Indice~s for Intermediate Maintenance.
(3.1.3.1) :)uick RejplaceaŽble Assembly (',.RA) Ratio - fhe ratio

of the nuimber of ý)uick Beplaceabhie Assemblies (Q-RA) to the
17 - 55
to-_tal numbor r.)f ,ho;, P- o"l' 1-ed±'"' Assf-mb"Il f5s (: \ 1cc 1h js

equal t:';toe sum if As, nBencii Ffrý-,lac-(eahl' As( Mbl
(BRA) and, the Tnlc uaruo w icjs ( II:PA) s111 1 nuý"t
be less t'an ~. inl-s io ch'r 02In the
'('
spe(-i fic-at n ei xAf, 1o t ,-,mputat 1),i:-i shiwr. in f iq-
ure-, 2 and 2!A. F ;r thelifi ni (n)Jk
toie te-- SPA, _PA,
BRA and, 11PHA, see 0.1.
3 31.3.2) Ste P N ýn-Amýbi_4uity (<N-A) Piti -) Theic ratic tf the

numbe r o f S RA' s d i rc * ly i~s .lated aniih t±u~ut;t
the tot,)l number of -SPA' s shall nut Le le.ss th-in . 'oni elss
otherw,ýise specifixed in th'e dletail 5-cci ftic-at !ýn. An texample
of c ,mputation is shcowýn in fi oures 'rA.
(3.3 .3.3) Shop Fix-ed Iri-rffac-e (SF-) Pat i - The ratic if

the numbher of SRA s whic-h i`-. n 't reqo.ire a-iot~t~
tr Lmtrinqg at instalIlat i n in a 'ARA tro t'ne týal umbe
SRA s ohall be- opt im izedC and shal1l n,- b1
1-,( -losFthan 1 un -
less otherwise spec i f ied i n th -let -)i I _-ýoc i *i cat -ion. on
exampl e o f computat ion is shw n fioie 2 and' 2,\.
(3.4.2) Test Program Outline - No latzor- tli~rl, 1.) phrior to

deliv~ ry and at lea,ýt 45 days prior: to, the MaIintalinaili tv Tests
the contractor shall s J1-nit f :r review n--dur~a by t h,
Buireau ofl Naval Weapons a crnplote test .r-rrr
i t line in the
form of Part LIT of MIL-T-l83113. -he -ulieThil
,ntain
list describino the2 tasks (NC's) selected, lon hr 4.2 .1 to !)e
s iru lated- dur inq tile Maint ai nabil It lest S . At this t i:ce t1-e
governmrent may add or subst .tote certaiin tasks t.. r drstt.ion.
(4.1) Inte~irated Avionic Sy_;tem._Sulbsyjstemt,7-.,aiia~.

abilityTestino - Vhe Irnteoýratvd "'ioroic Svstem, us.t~ shall
be tested by the contract or to det ermitne com~ Ii anc-e ý it h the
requirements of this specitication. These tests shall be des
crbe in the test procedures outline of 1.4.2 as apLproved bý
the Bureau of Naval Weapo~ns. The, tests shall be coo~rdindteul
with the test orooram for the Inteuirated System, when pract ic-
able and economical to do sk. At any rate, the tests s!ia~l
be conducted early enouq;h so that the reporti nk requirements of
paraoraph 1.4.3 can be met.
(4.2) Maintenance Task Simulation contractor shall per-

-The
frm time studies of mainticnance task sim~ulation in a ttiarnner

representative 7-f system characteristics in actual operation.
Time to accomplish each mainteoiance task shall include iecog-
nition time, diaqnosis tiime, repair time ana checkout ti-me.
should be recoqnized that active maintenance dow.in timne depends
It I
17-56
upon the tiine recpired, to recognize, locate, diaqnose, repair

and check ct the repair of an equijpment malfunction. Further-
mcore, the amount of :equired rdaintenance depends upon the equip-
ment reliability. Therefore, in order that the simulated mfin-
tenance tasks used in the maintainability derr, nstrat >n will be
reprosentative of normal operation all of the above contributors
to active maintenance time shall be considered in the tAsk select-
ion unless otherwise specified. Selection of maintenance tasks
shall be accomplished in accordance with 4.2.1. For the purpose
of maintainability demonstration, supply down time and waiting
or admsLnistrative dow-n time shall be excluded.
4. S t1MMARY
In this chapter we have outlined the need for specifications,

the co:nplcxity of the specif`-ation tree, anl the problems
incident to this colexity ana he reliability and maintain-
abili, ty technology. The three basic kinds of specifications
are described.
A selected list of 20 specifications, standards, ind references

is given, embracing those most commonly used to contract for
reliabilitv and maintainability. Detailed abstracts from the
major 3-ecifications are iiven, grouping like subjects together
for easy reference.
Chapter's 22 and 23 cooitain recommenced language selected from

thk.se ;pecifications and modified or supplemented wherever
imnprove9d practices are available. For a large program such
languaje becomes part of the Reliability and Ma ntainability
1-ro -ram Plan. For small programs the Chapter 22 and 23 lang-
uage, or any other in this Chapter 17, may be used directly as
app-:opr ate.
5. REFEREINCES
(1) Reliability of Milit iry Electronic Equipment by the

rvivisory Group on Reliab']ity of Flectronic Equipment
(AGREE), Office of t'.e Assistant Secretary of Pefense,
Department of Pefnse, 4 June 1957, Superintendent of
Documents.
18-i
Chapter 18
PARTS ENGINEfRIN1G
189-3
18- 3
1 STANDARDS & PREFERRED PPARTS IS- 3
i.1 Standard Values 18- 5
1.2 Preferred Parts 18- 7
1.3 Preferred Components
2 NON-PREFERRED PARTS 18-

18- 7
3 PART SELECTION AND APPLICATION
3.1 Known Reliability Parts 18- 9
3.2 Parts Application 18-10
3.3 Derating 18-10
3.3.1 Derating Factors 18-13
3.3.2 Derating vs. Failure Rate 18-20
3.3.3 General 18-20
3.4 Tolerance Data
18-21
4 PARTS OPERATIONAL DATA 1-21
4.1 Design Data 18-28
4.2 Problem Parts 18-28
4.3 Critical Parts
18-29
5 PARTS SPECIFICATION
18-30
6 ENGIjTEERING STOCKROOM
18-31
7 PARTS HANDLING
18-31
8 TRACEABILITY 18-32
8.1 Lot Control 18-32
8.2 Serialization
Control
8.3
18-33
9 PARTS TESTING
18-34
10 SU4MARY
11 REFERENCES 18-34
m1_-
Chapter 18
PARTS ENGINEERING
Probably no other contractor activity has a greater impact on

system or component reliability than his attention to the relia-
bility of the parts he selects and uses. This is true because,
in a typical design, failure of any one of most parts causes
system failure. These are called "critical" parts, as opposed
to other parts whose failure would not cause system failure.
Failure of a part is its departure from the functional specifi-
cations upon which its application depends, including degradation
or cessation of function.
But it does not follow that if all parts have perfect reliabil-
ity, the system will have perfect reliability. This is so be-
cause the application of parts and their interfaces, such as
tolerance drift compatibility, can be such that the system will
fail to function properly even with perfectly reliable parts.
Nor does it follow, as one often hears, that parts improvement is
the only way to achieve required reliability. One other way is
the use of judicious redundancy, which protects the system from
failure of certain parts.
So we see that parts control is an extremely necessary, but not

sufficient, task +,n achieve the required equipment or system re-
liability.
Many contractors have excellent parts control procedures, but

many do not. The basic problem is to prevent the selection of
prts about which there is inadequate knowledge, or their use
in a way that degrades reliability. It is particularly serious
in the electronics or mechanisms areas, where the green young
engineer can become sold on an elegant new part in the vendors
catalog. It is "-hust what he needs" but has no history, no ped-
igree, no MTBF rating.
For the BuShips engineer, this chapter presents a picture of the

contractor work commonly called "parts engineering", with atten-
tion to activities directly affecting reliability. Since there
are many such groups that do not yet control reliability in the
manner to be outlined, the Bureau engineer should look for evi-
dence that each of these activities is effectively handled by
at least some part of the contractors organization. They can be
evaluated as discussed in chapter 23 section 4.2.
18-3
1. STANDARDS & PREFERRED PARTS
Many design engineers have resisted standardization, on the

ground that it restricts their freedom for exercise of unbridled
creativity and "progress" to new things. Now that we are bending
the objective from "new things" to "thing that keep working",
such resistance amounts to poor engineering.
But unless such standards are kept vigilantly up to date with

advancing state of the art, they can discourage initiative for
new developments. They mL t be constantly reviewed to add new
standards. In the case of new physical hardware standards, very
thorough reliability verification must precede their establish-
ment prior to withdrawal (for new design) of obsolete standards.
The American Standards Association (I) has been established for
"national approval of standards sources and for distribution of
many standards. Now let's review those pertinent to our needs.
1.1 STANDARD SIZES & VALUES
Reliability is improved by experier..e. To the extent any manu-

facturer can produce larger quantities of fewer sizes, he learns
more abcut each size by feedback from more users, and improves
his design.
Many years ago the A.id Radio Manufacturers Association (now

Electronic Industries Association) saw the great economic and
reliability advantage of establishing stock values. They chose
a set of values in which each successive value is 24.10 greater
than the preced'ng, for 1 5% tolerance. Then for ±10% tolerance
every other value is standard, and for ±20% every fourth value
is standard. This system achieved complete coverage of all values,
since adjacent high and low tolerances nearly coincide. In
Figure 18-4 these values are shown in the "Choice 1, 2 and 3"
columns, and each value can be multiplied or divided by 10 or any
multiple of 10.
The advent of film-type (carbon and metal film) with much better
control of resistance values prompted the military to extend the
system to ±+1% values, as shown in the Military Standard MS 90169
"Choice 3 and 4" columns. Nearly all resistor and capacitor
manufacturers now furnish all of these standard values.
There are many electrical and electronic circuit applications

where t20% resistance or capacitance values are more than adequate.
So in the interest of reliability and economy the design engineer
should always specify the "Choice I" values when they will serve
18-4
m 0 L~4
O CC).4cl)
`40 0 o o co co~
COOO C Ct- t- t:E-' -t-c Cc' 0 0 oo~00' M b
000l
0) tot00
x 0N 1
u~Ct00coi
n
C14 0
I- O C6 O
cqm v n or Coo N LO CO
wt-G4mc
v to~
'. rU Co C
N 0
C/I o Cc)-- m
CO u) Ifl-4oM
N N m O) Vto CDt t- O0
4C , -- 4 C") Co Co
r4 N N N ýcl NqC
l 4 ,M
N0
NN4- N
N Q
rz 4 i
0 N
-4
S~18-5
the purpose, and if not, use Choice 2, etc.
In many cases the design engineer uses precision (film-type) re-

sistors where Lhe larger drift of composition or other resistors
cannot be tolerated. But to take advantage of standard part re-
liability and economy, he must use these specified values even if
the precision (nominal value) is not needed. Many companies order
only tl% film-type resistors, to reduce the problem of calculating
circuit performance via tolerance evaluation.
While the above system is well-established for small resistors

and capacitors, its advantages apply equally wel! for all kinds
of parts that are used in quantity. Screw sizes and threads,
and pipe have used similar systems for a hundred years. As our
technology develops new kinds of parts, the design engineer can
contribute to reliability by specifying values from such systems.
1.2 PREFERRED PARTS
Here a semantic problem has arisen. Several military and NASA

agencies have established "standard" parts lists, such as MIL
STD 242E. The criteria for inclusion in such li 2 +-• varies widelv.
from mere volume of use to fairly rigid life test qualification.
Similarly many contractors have established such "standard parts"
lists, also with widely-variant criteria. Thus the term "stan-
dard part" does not mean the "best part", or parts, to use among
alternatives. So the term "preferred part" has emerged, to con-
note a much higher degree of selectivity. A fairly high propor-
tion of "standard" parts are riot eligible for "preferred part"
status with contractors working to specified reliability. Let's
review the advantages of the establishment of a truly minimum
number of preferred parts:
Manufacturers Cost Reduction: Obviously the rore a manufac-

turer can make of fewer types, the lower his unit production
costs will be. Moreover, as competitors are attracted by the
volume, multiple sources are assured and competitive process
refinements drive the price still lower and keep it down.
Reliability: As higher quantities of fewer types are pro-

duced, the manufacturer can generally afford more specialized
test facilities, and engineering refinement, spreading their
cost over more units. He learns more about the failure modes
of each type from his own experience and frow his customers,
and thus can take more remedial action to raise reliability.
Since he tests more of them, his confidence level for a given
failure rate is higher, or conversely the fail-.re rate is
18-6
lower for conventional confidence levels.
Contractors Cos. Reduction: Since the part manufacturer can

afford better testing, and is usually better able to do it
than his customer, standardization generally reduces the con-
tractors own verification or acceptance testing. But the
sheer reduction of paperwork for multiple specifications,
procurement requisitions, purchase orders, and liaison con-
stitutes substantial cost reduction. Parts lists are simpli-
fied. Obviously the contractors parts inventory investment
and control cost is greatly reduced.
Ownership Cost: As fewer types of parts are required for

maintenance, with higher quantities of each, the logistics
cost is reduced. Fewer parts have to be stocked on board,
at shipyards, at supply centers, and at the manufacturer's
plant. Fewer parts are needed in the "pipe line". Fewer
parts permits better handling at lower cost. But also the
higher reliability of preferred parts reduces maintenance and
therefore logistic costs.
Op rational Data: Higher quantities of fewer types per=it

the acquisition of more complete operational information on
each part, for feedback to design engineers. And the data
has better precision. Tha design engineer has a more real-
istic basis for decision.
Tolerance Limits: Part standardization should particularly

cover configuration, such as shape, lead length and material,
mounting dimensions, etc. Here the Bureau or the contractor
can usually specify limits in such a way as to encompass
several suppliers standard products to preserve competition,
economy, and availability for delivery. To standardize on
one suppliers exact design is sometimes necessary, but rarely
desirable. without competition, or with pdtent advantage over
competition, there is not much incentive for reliability and
cost improvement.
With the above advantages in mind, many contractors have estab-

lished policies and procedures that require the design engineer
to (a) select and specify a preferred part, or (b) convince a
parts engineering specialist t'Ciat no existing preferr-!d part
will serve the purpose. As repeated demands for a kind of part
occur, this procedure serves to initiate the establishment of a
new preferred part, and possible removal of a superseded -art
from the preferred parts list. The Bureau engineer can look for
and encourage such contrartor procedures.
18-7
1.3 PREFERRED COMPONENTS
Oomponents such as regulator valves or amplifier circuits, made

up of parts, can be either selected from available supplier pro-
ducts or developed by the design engineer, for wide use across
a range of higher-level designs.
The above considerations for parts apply equally; well to compon-

ents, though there are fewer such standards and they are more
complex. Many contractors maintain a file of thoroughly-proven
circuits, which may be either used directly or modified to avoid
the unreliability and cost of complete reinvention. But, sadly,
the amount of such reinvention in the U. S. must be staggering,
for sheer lack of communication.
2. NON-PREFERRED PARTS
As discussed above, some government agencies have established

"standard parts" or "quali'fied parts" lists of parts qualified
to some criteria appropriate at the time. Such agencies then
t-ke the position tha"- thp •ntrart-oý milst oh4r% t'Keir prc,.!
to use each part not on the list, as in MIL E 16400E section
3.4.1. The contractor must give his justification, -which is
given on grounds of peLfornance capability, reliability, cost,
etc. Such negotiation is usually conducted with the agency by
the contractors parts engineeriiig specialists, who are most
likely to have wide knowledge o" available part capabilities.
But in order to achieve reYquired reliability, and whether or not

the contractors customer has a standard parts list, the same kind
of control must be exercised over non-preferred parts. That is,
if the contractor has established a good preferred parts list,
on which only parts of known history and reliability appear, there
must be a procedure that prevents use of ether parts until the
pertinent preferred parts are adequately considered. This is
normally handled by requiring a parts engineering or reliability
specialist approval of drawings prior to design review for final
release. Some contractors require such approval of all parts
procurement requisitions, which is pretty late and requires the
parts engineering people to go back over the drawings and anal-
yses anyway.
3. PART SELECTION AND APPLICATION
Two major causes of unreliability are (a) selection of a part

18-8
without really knowing its reliability history, and (b) iwproperly

using the part :-n design, so that its capabilities are exceeded.
Preferred Parts lists establish a "bank" of known-r2liability
parts, but they cannot contain all parts needed for a new design.
3.1 KNOWN RELIABILITY PARTS
The achievement of specified componunt reliability begins with

the selection of parts of knowi, t:li.1i1ity. For most situations
the component failure rate is the simple sum of the failure rates
of its parts whose failure would cause component failure. This is
true whether or not the actual part failure rate values are known.
In general T..e only sources of dependable information on a speci-

fic part are the supplier of the part a-n Lh-e usetb of The part,
if they have kept records of failures vs. stress time. And some
suppliers are reluctant to discl-se such information for fear
they will fare unfavorably relative to competition. Some con-
tractors or subcontractors who use the part may kPep -iod records,
and may provide such specific information.
One way to get wst5 of known reliability is to specify the re-

quired quantitative value and the verification requirement to
parts suppliers, and ask for quotations. Some w,'iu iecline to
quote, indicating they either do not know how to get the t.rquired
value, or are unwilling to guarantee their assertions. Others
will quote without understanding the problem, then later renege
when they realize what is required. But many today do understand,
do keep test and operatii al records, and can be relied upon to
show convincingly what value they can achieve. And most of these
are willing to guarantee the value.
The co•-monest quantification of parts reliability is in terms of

maximum failure rate, or failures per million hours of stress
(or, somewhat confusingly, in "- failures/1000 hours). But there
can b- situations where stress time records are impractic3l, so
that maximum unreliability must be specified as the probability
of failure in a given production lot or lots, for specified en-
vironment and stress. This is roughly equivalenrt to a fraction
of the overlap area between stress and strength distribution
curves.
"Established-Reliability Parts" specifications MIL P 38100 (4)

are being developed by DOD under Air Force sponsorship, as an
out-growth of the Minuteman high-reliability electronic parts
program. These specifications call for very tight design and
manufacturing controls. special handling, and a continuous test
18-9
program to verify the achieved reliability. As a result, a 10-

to-i failure rate reduction was ac-•ieved for about a dozen common
electronic parts, which can be procured from their manufacturers;
The program, is expected to be expanded tn other electronir and
mechanical ,arts. In the meantime some contractors are using the
MIL-R-38100 content as a moJel to develop their own specification
to vendors, and the BuShips engineers can ro the same for critical
requirements but redundancy of specifications should be discouraged.
Today, however, the quantitative reliability records for most

specific parts (as opposed to part classes) do not yet exist.
The design engineer must then look for other assurance of "known
reliability". For example if he knows that hundreds or even
dozens of a certain part have been used (stressed) for years,
and he can find no evidence that it has ever failed (except by
misuse), he has good intuitive confidence that it has high relia-
bility. On the other hand he must systematically and thoroughly
look for such evidence of failure before real confidence can
develop. The Bureau should require the contractor to seek such
evidence.
3.2 PARTS APPLICATION
Improper use of parts utterly wastes the time and cost of careful
known-reliability part selection. The selection and application
of parts of course consti~utes a large part of the design process.
It is the design engineer's job to balance dozens of consider-
ations for each decision.
But wost design engineers are not experts on more than a few
parts with which their experience is extensive. Almost every
new design involves parts with which the design engineer is
only barily acquainted. To solve this problem most well-organized
contractors have long-established groups of parts engineering
spocialists, each of whom work only with a few kinds of parts.
Over a period of ti4.e they know more about the capabilities and
limitations of some sptcific parts than anyone in the contractors'
organization. The great bulk of this knowledqe is perishable,
not on spec sheets, not in handbooks.
Howevr it is imperative that the parts spczialists know the

reliability of each part, and how such reliability is affected
by applicition. Many well-established Parts Engineetinq groups
do not h4', this knowledge.
Hardly anything will contribute more to reliability than the

detailed review of a proposed design by the cognizant parts
18-10
specialists. When they are inclined to recommend against use of

a specific part in a certain way, or to recommend an alternative
part or manner of its use, there should be thorough discussion
before the design engineers decision is made. Some contractors
have procedures whereby only the top Engineering Manager can
override a parts engineer's disapproval of a part application.
Knowledge of this causes the design engineer to be very sure
of ks ground before taking a position. The Bureau engineer
shoula make sure some such control is in effect.
3.3 DERATING
Intuitively every design engineer feels that reliability is

improved by using parts rated much higher than the expected
stress. That is, he "derates" the parts for his application.
It is equivalent to increasing the "safety factor". Unfort-
unately this practice also increases cost, weight, and volume.
If cperational experience shows no failures, he never knows how
much, if any, unnecessary cost, weight and volur,. he nas in-
curred. We are all aware of such examples of "overdesign".
Nevertheless, judicious deratiny is a po'Aerful aid to reli -
bility. There are two basic approaches:
3.3.1 Derating Factors: In the absence of good failure rate

data, the parts engineering specialists may establish quite
arbitrary derating factors for each kind of part. These are
based on long experience, trial and error, and judgment. They
have been quite successful, anu are very widely used, but un-
doubtedly cause some degree of "overdesign'. Examples of these
are shown in Figure 18-11, used by a major con-
tractor, and 18-12 from MIL HDBK 217. Policies and procedures
are established whereby dil design engineers are required to use
the indicated minimum deratings.
Manufacturers' catalogs are somewhat confusing regdrding resistor

power rating since they often give three ratings. The most
optimistic rating is the manufacturer's (commercial), while the
most pessimistic is the MTL-R-93A. The MrL-R-9444 specification
permits more power to be dissipated in a given size resistor
than MIL-R-93A permits, yet it contemplates a more severe environ-
ment. This means that resistors of the encapsulated variety which
meet both of these military specifications are much better than
the MIL-R-93A requirements and we needlessly penalize ourselves
when we derate to thcse pessimistic watt values.
Nearly all transistors are rated by the manifacturer on the basis

of an absolute max -um systen. These ratings are not conservative
18-1
1' MO
+~
4)1
> >'
V be
Q i
E) too Ol
S.. M-
-~ .-. a
cc.' b
0 AW w4
~~~*1~ -~ E
-~ ~ 0
5 C .~
19-12
In t CD m 0 M 0 _n to t.
04
0 . 0 0
- -
ooIL
C,4
ODL m w
~ ~
PIBOFI~ ~ ~ POC.0)9J
W ~tPlo~dPclP~ )W 1O
18-1.3
and, if , a will result in immediate failure or drastically

reduced life expectancy of the device. Figure 18-11,previously
called out, extracts the derating ':alues from a quite thorough
exposition (5) on good transistor circuit design. The following
consolidates the best derating practices used by experience design
engineers.
It has been estimated that 95 per cent of all traniistor failures

are due to voltage breakdown. Although this estimate may be some-
what high, it emphasizes the necessity to derate the voltages
aoplied to transistors to as low a value as possible consistent
with required performance. Sume research work indicates that the
reliability of germanium transistors can be increased by a factor
of 10 by operating at half the rated voltage.
Common practice is to limit the peak collector voltage, including

a-c swing ana surge voltages, to 75 per cent maximum rated value
BVCBO OR BVCEO. Since some typ.s of voltage breakdown occur at
lower voltages as the ambient temperature is reduced, the deiting
factor of 7- per cent should be applied to the breakdown voltage
at the lowest temperature of interest. Avalanche breakdown margin
should also be checked at the maximum expected temperature.
Junction tenpcrature is an important factor 1n transistor relia-

bility. Maximum junction temperatures of 1500C for silicon and
850C for germanimu are considered safe. However, reliability
is greatly improv'd if junction temperatures are kept as low as
possible. Some researchers indicate the re'iability doubles for
each 10 0 C reduction in junction temperature. Normally, junction
temperature is determined by the power dissipated in the tran-
sistor due to collector current and voltage. However, some
applications (e.g. dc to dc converters) will have a substantial
amount of power dissipated in the base circuit, this power must
be considered when predicting junction temperatures.
3.3.2 Derating vs. Failure Rate: When good failure rate data
is available, a more rational approach may be used. The design
engineer selects the parts he would like to use, designs the cir-
cuit or mechanical assembly, and calculates (usually simple fail-
ure rate addition) the total failure rate of his design. If it
is too high or borderline, h,- then refers to failure-rate-vs-
stress curves, and derates judiciously until the total is low
enough. Examples of such curves are shown in Fieures 18-14 through
18-15 - 18-19 from MIL-Hdbk-21.7. These are "generic" curves,
hcwever, useful only for relative failure rate comparison. They
do not express absolute values for the Gpecific part selected.
16-14
oq i4
00
t0
~4 -q
$-4
ý00
0ux
z e~r:
00
CCc
UA
00
0>
og -1 O
In'
U~ IMPJ~O
0
on 4 v
18.-15
00
bD0
C4~
00.
W-4
04
00t
joloa jutul~n~pyal.b
18-16
1-44
00
0
>-
00
0*
0N N
0vnO 001%07HaIB
18-17
0
'-4
0c1
-4
H
0
0
U
0
'.4
0 '5 0
H E
0 1.4
0 04
0 'U
-4
o
C4
I I I I 1 0
W
-u 1 0
18-18
00
0-4
~
sianoq ~ zlu ~ Qolav
18-19
00
zU
A4
*z 41.
9"0 001%
alu OS~v
18-20
Parts engineering specialists ar- reý,onsible for keepincy up-to-

date such data in the hands of the design engineers, particularly
as data is collected from actual test and operational experience'
with the specific parts, and for approving part application on
the basis of such derating.
3.3.3 General: In the electronics industry, data (2, 3) on

failure rates vs. stress is -,,ailable for a number of common
parts. The curves can be used to get at least a rough idea of
the reliability improvement available through derating by any
amount.
In the mechanical and structural fields such data is sometimes

obtainable from the manufacturer or users, but time rate data is
not available yet in handbook form. In using the manufacturer's
rating and single design stress values, .he design engineer has
to keep in mind that they are really distributions, not single
values. He has to find out either the worst-case "tolerances"
for both stress and strength, or preferably plot the distributions
themselves.
The Bureau engineer should make very sure that some such rational
derating approach is established and enforced, preferably by
cognizant parts engineering specialists.
3.4 TOLERANCE DATA
In quantity manufacture, all parts characteristics have stdtiS-

tical distributions. That is, any one characteristic (such as
length or resistance) has a nominal or mean value, and a var-ance
above and below it. We call the extreme values of The variance
"Tolerances". These distributions are basically affected by
manufacturing lot, and by techniques for selection of clc*e-toler-
ance parts out or wide-tolerance lots.
In addition to such manufacturing variance there is applicttion

variance regardless of quantity. That is, theie are distribu-
tions of each characteristic resulting from environment (tem-
perature, etc.) stress (pressure, voltage, etc.), and tine
(cold flow, drift, aging, etc.). Such distributions or toler-
ances must be added to the manufacturing distributions or
tolerances in orC-r tou determine the rtal operational distribu-
tion. An example is steam line desion whore 0-rinqs are used
to absorb tolerances.
A design is never complete until the design engineer has made

sure that the distributions or tolerances cannot coxnbine in
18-21
such a way as to interfere with the intended function. The

Bureau engineer must make sure that adequate suu,- analysis is
conducted.
In a complex circuit, mechanism, or structure it is necessary to

consider the overall effect of the expected range of manufactur-
inq variance, operational environment and all stresses, and the
effect of time. Chapter 13, section 2.5 outlines Worst-Case
Tolerance Analysis, Statistical Tolerance Analysis, and Marginal
Checking, all used for this purpose. All such tolerance eval-
uation depends on some depth of part tole'ance data, and the
parts engineering specialist again is in the best position to
develop, publish, and update such data for broad use for by
design engineers. Figures 18-22 through 18-26 show some excellent
data (5) for this purpose, not available in the MIL handbooks.
4. PARTS OPERATIONAL DATA
4.1 DESIGN DATA
In order to design to meet a specified reliability, the design

engineer must obtain some idea of the reliability of the parts
he tentatively proposes to use. Such information is often
meager indeed. While someelectronic parts data ib prolific, it
is also contradictory and therefore generates little confidence.
So-called "generic" failure rate data was developed initially

by RCA for electronic parts, and subsequently refined by several
contractors and government agencies. It is currently available
in MIL-Hdbk-217 (2) and the Farada (3) books, and in NAVSHIPS
93820. But this data is sub'ject to wide variance, and useful
only for preliminary or comparative analysis. It tells little
about the failure rate of a specific suppliers part that the
design engineer may consider using.
Very few contractors have developed continuously-operating data-

reduction systems that provide information to design engineers
in convenient, form. Figure 18-27 shows a rather comprehensive
system now under development by a major contractor. A "Data
Integration"' group sets up an automitic "all source" flow of
pertinent data from industry (217, Farada, Etc., above), supp-
liers, design evaluation tests, manufacturing tests, contractor
and possibly BuShips tests and Navy operations. Using controlled
formats, the group screens the data to weed out the non-signifi-
cant, interrogates sources where feasi.ble for clarification,
conducLs running analyses for current t'timates, and reduces the
result to an updated punch card. The updated cards accum~late,
r 18-22
'1 +9 +1 -~ +ý +1 + 14
Q~O -4 N4 o 4 -
14 C)
*9* +1 +9 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1
-l t- 2
C-1 tC- Lf C64N
Im - 1- 0
+ +~ I-
I -n
E LoL.U)L ~~~
'.
+1
~
- ~ _ ~ _ b _ _ X_ _ _
tt~j~f ~ 0
~ ~J
~ c1c~ 4 ~ ~c
u- u
18-23
+ + +
00
o 4 0
18-24
r0 n
-q IM
4 4
OD ul -
~ e~
C~2 ______________ __r
4: ;.4 Q.
oo +
CO 5
ut
Litj 0 I 0
I..
4ý 4-4
+i
+1- + +! q
+0
C134
+1 +4
ws+
bi od
+1 +4
18-26
. +1 +1
00 bo
0 I +1 - +
I ÷ 0
+1 + +
U
Q 1
93I 0 0,
z c
0 0
nI
-~ In-4 0 11In
I!I
cq_-_.
boi
• |iii
Si• io
J = :2 -H
18-27
= I
00
iFF4
H 00
z 00
00
H z
040
~i2
00
>~ 1:
-. H 2
0 z
3!
0
-LL
,~.H z
18-28
displace prior cards in sorting, and regular monthly printouts

are produced.
The design engineering printout across the bottom of the figure

(a) identifies each part or component for which data is available,
shcws (b) the environment (such as grGund air-conditioned environ-
ment, GAC) and stress (such as 15 kpsi) for which the data applies,
(c) the current failure rate estimate, distribution (such as
Weibull parameter code), and life (such as 1000 hours to rising
failure rate), (d) the MTTR, preventive maintenance fraction of
stress time, and maintenance cost per 1000 hours, and (e) the
approximate componenf cost, delivery, and weight.
With regular printouts of this nature, the design engineer is in

a position to compare one part with another on a truly balanced
and integrated basis, relying less on intuition.
The Bureau engineer, in evaluating competitive contractors, will

know that the contractor who has such a system is making the most
of data feedback to design, and that is equivalent to high-relia-
bility design the first time.
4.2 PROBLEM PARTS
Parts fail for many reasons. Three of them are (a) the part is
bad, or does not meet its own specifications, (b) its specifi-
cations are wrong, and (c) it is improperly used, whether or not
correctly specified. Part of the failure diagnosis job (Chapter
16) is to find out which for sure. In any case a running
corrective action loq should be kept (Chapter 21, section 8)
until the problem is completely resolved.
If the verdict is reason (a) above, the part should be removed

from t'he Design Data (Section 4.1 above) printout, or at least
flagged thereon, until the problem is resolved. If it is reason
(c) it should not be removed because it is not a defective part.
The Bureau engineer should see that such procedures are used.
4.3 CRITICAL PARTS
A critical part Tay be defined as one whose fajilure would cause

system failure. Note that in this case it is not a question of
the reliability of the part itself, but rather only of how it is
u-ed. A preferred part of "perfect" reliability can be, and
should be, a critical part. Unhappily many people persist in
thinking of critical parts as undesirable, and there are in-
structions to "eliminate" them. This is nonsense, because what-
18-2 9
ever replaces them then becomes critical.
There are several specifications that require "special handling"

(see section 7 below) for critical parts, for obvious reasons.
Thus "critical parts lists" are required of the contractor. But
since they only reflect how the part is used, and should not be
affected by its inherent reliability, a given part will be
critical in some systems and not in others.
"Criticality", on the other hand, is a number that expresses the

effect of a given part upon system reliability. Thus its critic-
ality is affected by both its inherent reliability and whether it
is used in a manner that, if it fails, the system fails. All
parts may be ranked in order of decreasing criticality, which
amounts to a ranking of importance to system reliability achieve-
ment.
"Levels of Essentiality" have been established by BuShips Instruc-

tion 4410.17 for ships piping. Essentiality levels I and II are
roughly equivalent to "critical" parts above. When the relia-
bility aLid "essentiality" of ships piping are considered together,
we are considering "criticality" cf the piping.
The Bureau engineer should make sure that critical parts lists
and criticality rankings are used when appropriate.
5. PARTS SPECIFICATION
Many of the contractor's design engineers may require the 3ame

part, and quite commonly its important characteristics are diff-
erent for different applicaticns. Thus if each design engineer
writes his own specification, the parts manufacturer is confused
by many inconsistent specs. The supplier is forced to form his
own opinion of the relative importance of characteristics to
standardize on only one or a few, to stay competitive.
But the contractors parts engineering specilists are in a far

better position to evaluate relative importance of character-
istics, or to talk the design engineer out of a specified
characteristic that, on second thought, is not worth its cost.
Or perhaps the specialists can suggest an alternative, for %ich
the specification is already available.
Problems like these have led nearly all major contractors to

establish centralized specification groups, with parts speci-
fication in the Parts Engineering. group.
18-30
Many parts suppliers have embraced the word "reliability" without

knowing what it means. Quite a few make "Hi-Rel" parts which
may have a tighter quality control specification, but which
actually promise nothing about +-he reliability or failure rate
of the part. It's analogous to the small table model "Hi-Fi"
radios which are not. The Bureau engineer must make ver' sure
that parts reliability (failure rate, not quality) is specified.
A centralized contractor group responsible for writing all parts

specifications can (a) contribute to standardization and its in-
herent reliability advantage, (b) write specs around at least two
suppliers products to preserve competition (price and reliability),
(c) use the widest possible knowledge of parts deficiencies across
projects to influence spec revisions and new specs, (d) make sure
that all necessary quality control requirements are included, and
most importantly (e) see that maximum permissible failure rate,
and the means of verification (including confidence level) is
specified, but only to the level actually needed.
6. ENG INEERING STOCKROOM
A commonly-overlooked indirect source of unreliability is the

engineering stockroom from which the design engineer or techni-
cian selects parts that "will work" in his mockup, breadboart,
engineering model, or engineering prototype. At this design
phase he is primarily interested in juggling parts and valueE
until the mechanism or circuit functions in the manner desired.
He has not yet tackled many constraints such as environu~ent,
tolerances, reliability, maintainability, parts delivery, cost,
etc.
Out once these parts are operational in the engineering model,

most of them have a way of being specified in the parts list for
release, and vociferously defended. To challenge them seems a
reflection on the design engineer's judgment, and besides he is
now too close to a scheduled completion to do much changinq.
Many contractors avoid this problem by (a) having the parts

engineering specialiqts control the stockroom inventory. (b)
prohibiting non-preferred parts in the stockroom whenever an
equivalent preferred part is available, (c) prohibiting the
ordering of a non-preferred part in the same situation, and (d)
having the parts engineering specia'ists review each design
engineering request for new experimental parts, and order the
"best" part (reliability and otherwise) with the design engineers
concurrence.
16
= ~18 -31
7. PARTS iIANDLING
The contractors manufacturing activity (and others to a lesser

extent) handle millions of parts, and must do so in an economical
and practical manner. M-4-1 bins are widely used for "nuts and
bolts" hardware. It was natural to use bins for electronic parts.
While most parts can take the banqing around they get from being
poured into a bin, or dropped on the floor and tossed back, many
cannot without degradation of reliability. For this reason, the
Minuteman "high-reliability" parts program utilized rigid handl-
ing procedures.
There are many other opportunities for mishandling that cause

reliability reduction. Examples are inadequate supplier shipping
containers, rough treatment in receiving inspection, stacking
large quantities with damage at the bottom, fatigue ef parts
leads h, repeated bending during assembly, overheating of sensi-
tive -arts during soldering, overstress in factory tests, resting
assemblies (such as circuit boards) on their parts while in
factory transit, dropping assemblies on their parts, straining
part leads or mountings by misalignment, etc.
Review of the above shows that some can be detected by quality

inspection, but many cannot. The latter cause eventual failure
due to operational vibration, temperature cycling, etc. There-
fore much attention has been given to control of handling prco-
cedures to prevent reliability degradat-on. Since the parts
engineering specialist is most knowledg.ble about the sensitive
characteristics of each part, most contractors have made such
specialists responsible for (a) the generation of control policy
and procedures, for (b) review of engineering drawings and
specifications to make sure they are invoked, and (c) review of
factory and audit procedures to make sure they are invoked.
The Bureau engineer should make very sure that parts handling
procedures are adequate and enforced.
8. TRACEABILITY
When a failure occurs in engineering or factory test or actual

operation of a system, and failure diagnosis (Chapter 16) shows
that the part and not its application is deficient, three steps
become mandatory. They are (a) replace or repair the deficient
part, (b) take steps to prevent receipt or use of any more such
deficient parts, and (c) replace or repair any other such parts,
now questionable, that may have been used anywhere in a manner
that system failure could result. It is this third step that is
18-32
complex and of concern here. For example, the use of welded in-
stead of sgamless drawn tubing on the Nautilus had to be traced.
The problem is to keep records in such a manner that critical

parts (whose failure can cause system failure) can be traced
back to an individual or lot test history, and conversely that
all application of a questionable such part can be traced to the
specific systems and cormiponents where it was used. If not
arranged carefully this can result in substantial paperwork and
cost beyond real justification. BuShips Instruction 4410.17
discusses such control. There are two basic techniques, both
widely used:
§.1 LoT CONTROL
In writing its part specification, the parts engineering special-

ist requires the supplier to keep complete records of the tests
(100% or sample) he conducts on each manufacturing lot during
vAich absolutely no material or process change was made. If a
dhange was made he must record it and start a new lot number.
Then every part shipped to the contractor must be identified
(either on tne part or by accompanying paperwork) by its lot
number, or the lot number of the batch or lot of parts. Then
it is up to the contractor to handle them in such a way that the
record for each serial-numbered assembly shows the lot numbers
of its critical parts. Complete system records show the serial
numbers of all assemblies.
6.2 SERIALIZATION
When parts undergo a special high-reliability manufacturing

process, and are individually (100%) tested, and then used in
very critical applications (part failure begets cert in system
failure), they are often given individual part serial numbers.
This of course provides excellent traceability, but requires
a great deal of paperwork and high cost. It may be quite
practical and effective for few-of-a-kind systems, but unjusti-
fiable for substantial production, where lot control is a I-eason-
able ompromise
Another problem with part serialization is that many electronic

parts are getting too small to hold a number, so the numbers are
printed alongside them on a card used by the supplier to protect
and ship thaem. Disassociation between card and part inevitably
occurs.
Serialization is of course very widely practiced at the component,

18-33
subsystem and systen, level, for ruughly the same purpose, and is
very effective.
8.3 CONTROL
Since lot or serial number instruction must appear on the part

specification to the supplier, as well as on release ?aperwozk
to manufacturing, it is usually a parts engineering responsit]ility
to develop practical traceability pdicy and procedures. The Bur-
eau engineer must make sure they are adequate and enforced.
9. PARTS TESTING
Chapter 11 develops the techniques for verifying reliability.

The standard MTB• test ("sequential life test in the language of
statistics) can work very well for. most components, subsystem
and systems, depending upon the importance of reliability and the
economics of proving it. For some parts it wo:rks well, and for
others it is impractical.
Today's part failure rates run the order of 0.002 to 1.0 failures
per million hours of stress, which is 1 million to 500 million
hours MTBF. If 1000 of each part is life-tested to l0-ti.mes-MBF,
the test durations will run 1.1 to 570 years. Obviously the
higher the part rcliability the more impossible it is to test for
it. They become oboolete long before they can be verified. AW
the test investment is not justifiable.
Standardization on certain preferred parts by the contractor, and

particularly if many contractors can agree on such preferred parts,
permits a good supplier to greatly increase his volume of eAch of
fewer parts. Thus he can justify automatic equipment and life
testing of parts that otherwise would remain unverified.
A very stgniticant contrioution to the parts testing prublt is

the Naval Ordnance Laboratory (NOL) Inter-Service Data Exchanqo
Program (IDEP) which collects well-organized test data from unq
participating contractors, diqtsts it, and issues periodic
reports on file cards with microfilm inserts of the detailed
reports. Contractors frequently find an IDEP test report sufft-
cent to eliminate costly tests that would otherwise be required.
The systeir works.
Knowledge of the above verification situation surrounding each

part used in industry is generally highest in the contractor's
Parts Engineering group. Therefore most contractors assign to
thea the responsibility to (a) determine what parts ve ift-
.-- "Mo
18-34
cation approach is best, (b) specifyjing tne exact test procedlare,

(c) determine whether the supplier can best do it, (d) actually
conduct the tests if t)e supplier should not, (e) interpret the
test results for acceptance or rejection, and (f) work with the
supplier on deficient parts. The Bureau engineer should make
sure that such integration of reliability test activities is
adequate.
10. SUMMARY
Although perfect parts do not assure perfect system reliability,

the failure of any one of most parts of a system causes system
failure. Therefore thorough engineering control Of r1t is1;
essential to system reliability.
Most c,-cntractor.; have found a centralized Parts Engineering

activity, with experts in specific kinds of parts, to be in-
dispensable. This chapter has outlined the principal activities
of such specialists, why they are needed, and what they con-
tribute.
The basic contribution is establishment of preferred parts for

ust, by all design enqineers, and ample consultation and guide-
lines for part selection and application.
Parts data, particularly concerning reliability, is needed ir,

concise form for design engineer decisions. Part specification,
handled uniforml',, pays off in reliability. Engneering stock-
room control, paxts handling procedures, traceability, and parts
testing have become es:'ecially important as higher system relia-
bility is required.
No amount ot system design, analysis, and reliability production

will bring high reliability unless there is c._ntrolled and
adequate critical parts reliability. The Bureau engineer muzt
assure himsel f that the contractors proceoures and enforcement
thereof are adequete for the reliability required.
i I. REFERENCES
(1) American Standards Price List and Index, :Vnerican Standards

Association, Inc., 70 East 45th Street, New York 17, N. Y.
(2) Reliability Stress and Failure Rate Data for Electronic

Eg0iient, MIL-tidbk-217, 6 August 1962, Supt. of Documents.
(3) Failure Rate Data Handbook (FARADA) SP63-470, 1 June 1962,

18-35
U. S. Naval Ordnance Laboratory (BuWeps), Corona, Calif.
(4) Reliability Assurance Program for Established Reliability

Parts, Military Specification MIL-R-38100 (USAF), 15 April
1963.
(5) Reliability and Components Handbook, Motorola, Inc.,

Scottsdale, Arizona, by F. E. Dreste, et.al., Revised
3-1-63
I I
19-
;.napter 109
SUPPLIER RELATIONsHIPS
1. SUPPLIER QUALIFICATION 19- 2
2. SUPPLIER REQUIREMENT CRITERIA 19- 5

2.1 Need 19- 5
2.2 Technology Gap 19- 5
2.3 Criticality 19- 6
2.4 Supplier Experience 19- 6
3. SPECIFICATIONS 19- 7
3.1 Supplier Specifications 19- 7
3.2 Contractor Specifications 19- i
3.3 Data 19- 8
3.4 Request for Proposal 19- 8
4. PROPO)SAL EVALUATIOF' 19- 9
5. SURVEYS 19- 9
6. CONTRACT NEGOTIATION 19-10
7. SUPPLIER EVALUATION 19-10
B. SUPPLIER CONTROL 19-15
9. SNe4MARY 19-16
10. REFERINCES 19-17

19-2
Chapter 19
SUPPLIER RELATIONSHIPS
In order to design and manufacture equipment and systems of

known and controlled reliability and maintainability, the
contractor must in turn know and control the reliability and
maintainability of what he buys. His sources may be called
vendors, distributors, suppliers, subcontractors, etc., but we
use the broad word "suppliers" to mean all of them.
Since suppliers normally provide the bulk of deliverable hard-

ware, it is imperative that BuShips reliability and maintain-
ability requirements be passed on to suppliers appropriately.
But that weasel word is a Pandora's box, because the depth of
specification and control must vary widely with (a) the relia-
bility and maintainability actually needed, (b) the gap, if any,
between needs and state of the art, and (c) the design level
(parts vs systems). Obviously a competent pipe manufacturer
would not and should not hold still for a complex reliability
and maintainability program plan of 15 tasks. Conversely a
radar computer manufacturer had better expect to guarantee the
MTBF and/or agree to a set of reliability and maintainability
tasks.
While supplier quality control programs have been very well

developed by many contractors, and soca of these claim to control
reliability, the fact is that very few actually get into the
suppliers' design capability to achieve specified reliability
and maintainability. And there is no other place to get it.
Tight surveillance of a supplier's procedures and quality control
can minimize reliability and maintainability degradation, but
cannot assure design achievement thereof.
Chapter 22, Section 15, and Chapter 23, Sections 2 and 3

delineate the BuShips steps necessary to assure that the
contractor establishes an adequate supplier control proqram.
1. SUPPLIER QUALIFICATION
Without going to the expense of a personal survey, contractors

can find out quite a lot through the mail. So can BuShips, for
that matter. Figures 19-3 and 19-4 show a 2-page questionnaire
t'hat will pretty well highlight what suppliers have done and are
doing. Another page could be added sugqesting that the supplier
state what he is planning to do, but o-f course such words are
cheap.
19-3
~ _-.----
'CA
044
0 x=
r. V4-g CU
Cd 0 0
zC E
s 00
0 -
2,, r~1 m :
O-ot - EEo 4es I
o* w
od- 'I - .0
o 1. bf c. I
•
goIt
19-4
00
0 bi 0
~Q
0: 0
0.
~
z~ ; ~ 'd 'o,-
0 0
I.E~~ ~0~- 4s *.
s. 0. r.s
0 0
0 >10
-o A 0O
>4 0
0 0
0 ~ bobib .e .
0~~C ~ 0.-
0 . CU 0 .
bO¶3
0 0
-u C'I Co
19-5
Such returned questionaires permit the contractor or BuShips to

(a) eliminate obviously non-competitive suppliers, (b) select
those to be considered (of which ultimately the serious conten-
ders will be personally surveyed), and (c) determine about how
much reliability and maintainability education and control he
will have to do to get the required reliability and maintainabil-
ity in supplier products.
2. SUPPLIER REQUIREMENT CRITERIA
Just as the contractors reliability and maintainability program

is determined by the BuShips requirements as in chapter 23
sections 1, 2.1.1, 3.1, so must the supplier's reliability and
maintainability program be determined by the contractors system
or equipment. reliability and maintainability requirements. The
contractor had to apportion them As in chapter 6, and has deter-
mined what quantitative reliability and maintainability he must
specify to suppliers. Chapter 22 section 15 details the
BuShips instruction to contractors.
But not all specifications to suppliers need or can have such a
quantitative requirement. Here are the factors to consider:
2.1 NEED
If the contractor is supplying to BuShips equipment whose failure

would not have important consequences (maybe air conditioning
equipment), BuShips would not specify quantitative reliability
nor a reliability and maintainability program. So obviously
neither would the contractor to his suppliers. Conversely fail-
ure of a system upon which a major operational task may depend
(say the power supply fcr fire control) w,)uld require the con-
tractor to apportion BuShips quantitative .requirements to his
suppliers.
2.2 TECHNOLOGY GAP
If the well-verified need is for a system of much higher relia-

bility (say 100-to-l MTBF improvement) than previously achieved,
and this is not exactly uncommon, then the contractor can only
get it by relatively heroic measures as outlined in chapter 13.
But quitr commonly it is a judicious choice between (a) redun-
dancy of mode or components and (b) parts improvement, the latter
being very expensive if not infeasible. But the redundancy can
be within his own design using supplier components, or within
the supplier components, or both. In any case he will most
19-6
certainly have to specify quantitative reliability to his sup-

pliers, to a much lower design level than would otherwise be
justifiehd.
2.3 CRITICALITY
If the contractors erntire system has a certain anticipated fail-

ure rate (say 100 failures per million hours of operation), then
a simple measure of the "criticality" of a component thereof is
the increment of that system failure rate (say 2 failures per
million hours) due to that component. If the component is used
redundantly, its own failure rate would be higher (say 10 fail-
ures per million hours).
Now obviously a component of zero criticality (say a pilot light

whose failure would not contribute to system failure rate) does
not need a quantitative reliability specification, much less a
reliability program. On the other hand components of high cri-
ticality (say a radar magnetron) demand quantitative reliability
specification to suppliers if the contractor is to achieve and
control his system reliaýbility.
So the contractor must rank all components in the order of de-

creasing criticality, and there will be a place in the list below
which quantitative reliability specification and/or reliability
and maintainability programs cannot justify their cost and pos-
sible delivery delays. One way to locate this boundary is by
trial and error, starting at a low value (in the above example,
ask for supplier quotations based upon quantitative specification,
verification, and/or control for all criticalities above 1 failure
per million hours). Then as the supplier cost estimates thereof
come in, adjust the boundary upward to an economically justified
level (say 5 failures/million hours).
2.4 SUPPLIER EXPERIENCE
Quite commonly an excellent supplier will have had little or no

experience with design for specified reliability. If h" happens
to be a sole source for the needed component, or all other zources
are not interested in upgrading their capability, the contractor
has no choice but to bring the selected supplier up to speed. In
this case he will undoubtedly specify specific tasks to be done,
to achieve a specified reliability and maintainability.
19-7
3. SPECIFICATIONS
It is very obvious that the supplier cannot be held contractually

responsible for what the contractor failed U, specify explicitly.
And yet it is impossible to specify everything. The contractor
has to select experienced and trustworthy suppliers and bank on
their own desire to satisfy him in order to stay in business.
But there are grey areas. If the contractor plans to use a
suppliers product in a new way, the supplier cannot bp expected
to forsee the implications without detailed engineering attention
to the application. This is particularly true of reliability and
maintainability implications.
3.1 SUPPLIEP SP, JIFICATIONS
Most suppliers develop excellen specifications on their products.

After studying such specs, and judging how well the supplir
-tays within bis specs, customers then place orders by product
(or cltalog, model or part) number appearing on the spec. But
the customer in so doing is taking a risk that (a) the product
fiat he -e eives will not be within specs, (b) something not
quantified in the spec, that the customer assumed would be
acceptable, does not fit, ane. (c) the supplier has changed some-
thing that do s not affect the spec, but does affect the customers
applic -ion adversely. It is the last two points that often
adversely affect reliability.
As a cons•equence, most contractors have developed internal rules

that sa; concerning components of criticality above the boundary
in 2.3 above, that (a) no critical component may be ordered by
supplier product number alone, (b) the suppliers specification
may be referenced f uniquely numbered and dated for each change
thereof, or it may be copied, and (c) the contractors additional
spec requirements, if any, must be stated, as outlined below.
3.2 CONTRACTOR SPEC IFICATIONS
For best economy, delivery, and reliability of supplier products,

it is always desirable to order what the supplier considers
standard ("off-the-shelf"), which implies using only the suppliers
specification. But this may or may not provide adequate relia-
bJity. Even if it does, the supplier may make a design change
that he considers a r al product improvement, but because of the
way it is used by the contractor, reliability degration may
result.
Therefore con4ractors may adopt internal rules that say in addi-
-I'i
19-8
tion to those in 3.1 above, (a) list the actual application spec
requirements, including reliability and maintainability, but
excluding unnecessary feature or spec ranges that avilable
products may ponsess, (b) use the supplier spec ranges and words
wherever they fit the need very well, arid identify them as
supplier standard, .. ( Cc) call the suppliers attention to what,
in his standard spec, Ls not needed. This will permit the
supplier to consider tradeoffs with the thinqs that are needea
beyond his standard spec, resulting in minimum cost anC delay.
3.3 DATA
Good suppliers are ready to do anything that is economically

justified to improve their products in the eyes of their custom-
ers. Thus it is not difficult to convince most of them that
there should be a two-way flow of data on their products. Thib
does not refer to QC corrective action procedures when a suppli-
ers product gives trouble in the contractors plant. It noes reF-
to exchange of reliability and maintainability data.
The supplier should be requested te, ptovide full reliability and

maintainability data on the products hat he is furnishino during
the suppliers design and manufact, re :.hereof, including data
derived from other customer usage o' such product3. The data
should include operating (stress) time or cycles, local environ•-
ment and stress, failure rate (or % fa led, if failure -ate is
not obtainable), and downtime and manhours per failure. Other
data may also be appropriate for specific products.
In reLurn for the above (perhaps at no extra cost) tne cn-rac'tur

should agree to provide the same information to the supplLer on
his products, throughout contractors design, manufacture, t....,
checkout, and operation. And if BuShips will provide such it
formation to its prime contractor after delivery and contract
completion, the contractor should agree to continue the inftrma
tion flow to suppliers. This is probably the most powerful l-ieans
of assuring that successive supplier designs will have the re-
quired reliability and maintainability.
3.4 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
As contractors find it necessary to impose quanrtitative reliabil-

ity and-maintainability requirements on supplier •, and particu-
larly as we enter the era of attention to cost-effective design,
the simple specification to suppliers will no lont,2r serve the
purpose for many products. The contractor will not know what
reliability and maintainability can be achieved until he tells a
19-9
few suppliers what he wants, and asks for their well-considered

formal proposals. Nor will he know what the desired reliability
and maintainability may cost. But with such proposals he can
trade off the achievable reliability and maintainabiliy with
cost, including consequent Ownership cost (see chapter 26), and
decide what exactly to require of the supplier.
The content of a BuShips Request for Proposal (RFP) is covered

in chapter 23 sections 2.1 and 3, and the principles are no
different for a contractors RFP to suppliers. If the contractor
for a fire-control system is subcontracting its radar/computer,
he will probably use nearly all the elements of section 2.1 of
chapter 23 including a comprehensive reliability and maintain-
ability Program Plan. But if he is buying roller bearings, he
may use a very simple RFP involving no Program Plan specifica-
tion of "how" the supplier will achieve the desired reliability.
4. PROPOSAL EVALUATION
Again BuShips proposal e".'aluation is covered in chapter 23

section 4., and the principles are the same for contractor eval-
uation of supplier proposals. The contractor can use the same
weight ratings that were used to evaluate his own RFP, or a
different weight rating, according to the contractors judgment
of relative contribution to reliability jnd maintainability.
5. SURVEYS
Mos contractors have appropriate supplier survey procedures,

usually condulcted by the Quality Control group. However, most
of these do not actually evaluate the suppliers capability to
design for specified reliability and maintainability, but rather
his "control" procedures.
ThQ Sopplier Questionaire in 1. above of course constitutes a

preliminary survey, but it cannot generate enough confidence
upon which to base a decision to place an order.
vhen the contractor has narrowed his decision down to a choice

1 -tween siy two suppliers of critical comnponents, it is time to
conduct pcrson-to-person surveys of the two to aid in the final
decisions. Chapter 24 section 6.1 discusses such BuShips sur-
-'eK', and the same procedures can be used by contractors.
After placing an order with a supplier, the contractor shouid

19-10
then conduct periodic surveys of his suppliers of critical com-

ponents. The selection of suppliers to be surveyed and the fre-
quency of surveys (usually every 6 to 12 months, or when the
supplier has made a significant -hanqe of design, manufacturing
method, or organization) depends upon the criticality of the
component. Chapter 24 section 6.4 outlines the BuShips post-
award surveys, and contractor procedures would be the same.
The next two pages show a Design Vendor Appraisal Summary form
used by a major shipbuilder (1), following which are the detailed
questions, pertinent to reliability and maintainability, used by
the appraiser.
6. CONTRACT NEGOTIATION
Considering the necessity for the contractor to require specified

reliability and maintainability from his suppliers of critical
components, and the fact that he will want to pass along some of
his BuShips incentive to his suppliers, there is likely to be
more negotiation of s'ipplier contracts than in the past. Basic-
ally he should be negotiating promised reliability and maintain-
ability values vs. their cost, without trying to control the way
in which the supplier gets there. But with the many excellent
suppliers who have not yet had experience with the reliability
and maintainability ta4ks needed to get there, the contractor
must also negotiate tasks.
The BuShips contract negotiation principles are covered in

chapte- 23 section 2.4, and chapter 24 section 4. These can be
appropriately interpreted for contractor use with suppliers.
7. SUPPLIER EVALUATION
After a contract is placed with a supplier, the contractor will

need to check periodically whether the supplier is still on the
track. F-r d substantial subcontract of a critical component
this may involve monthly (a)review of the suppliers monthly p-e-
diction of reliability and maintainability based or design to
dats!, Wbi review of the quantitative requirements if prediction!,
ar ,rnot consistent therewith, (c) review of supplier progress a-n
reliability ansS maintainability Program Plan tasks, particularly
lrnrrective Action Log progress, (d) review of verification test
results, and (e) a re-survey every 6 to 12 months of the sup-
pliers capability.
1 9-11
VENDOR DESIGN
______________VE~NDOR APPRAISAL SUMMARY
COMMODI1 Y
1. ENGlNEERI PLEASE CHECK APPLICABLE WilCUM IPON
A. TECI*IIC .1.ADEQUACY OF DESIGNS:

DESCRIBES
BOX WIIHICH BEST
THIS VFN.DOR PE-RFORMIANeCE. __________Scoll
PUrcNAiN ~uS ONLY
NO EXPERIENCE "W"'I. -
"gmis"cs m 1. an I 1*AUo#ItHTA CwtIMAINT IN
INCH 41ASIaIs"f
CACLAI N34
u006
Or.NLVTWAA,
I
ubo.
A~t-A
eua~~wut?
let.... ,wm
Ab~jt? WHMN&C.LLWATION
m
= 'mo
PARTASSt
V twO
TOur 10 1"1 011104116110
*STU. CALC4LAKý. Ali LAIKl6
Of
~LlIlt AC MINYO. cu tw
tlVA.Im
,a~~.
as 1SIIIISINCI ACI*OIOUD UA~e? ty 1
o [ILLJi 1WN 2O 4
8. PRACTICABILITY OF DESIGNS
%AOf PIAC1SCMM
VNW010 i~6400 A n I 1XSAM0141 ALAUMUIfy.
SIM. OeuIASA LAu WINw. "AlMUtIT.
et "mwoo' WdIAtMlACTOO 0 ~141
NO EXPERIENCE AllCCIS101460OLMII0e
tINl VISION.
AND#CI"
IT "a1. -IQtwIo 01 .0.ONItU"
MOM-A-CTION
"oleMlwttAsgImemysT wow.
o0 T1 1 ' 12] T317 ___
C. SAFETY MARGIN OF DESIGNS

WICSCSAINV ~it10
RAtleS All BUILTle~t~
WHO~t
IS1. UM
t~=
o
GOSHO e"WAN NU. I WOM)tEt
.w
UMw
S 15011Al
O Se w '"INtw
MATIIL, 11410( 505 419"Of tS O
0111615104 ANNIt? ulow
"41tC '
IENCENC
NOOU'DV OFP
ON1 PATS
5ttA ttIn ORt~C
O I S~S.tlSAI
eIw
StANIOANDS
AND0 , .44
W116CHANGAWLITTitw ewt
FATR 1 CiONAOWAIW
oM F
0. INITIATIVE IN PROPOSING 1sEP10 VEMNTS
1 2T3-4
VIOc. CC '.IANIL? MSU~TO INAleolATS COMMMINtWCtw RlW MC leMIM
Gvm0 SImpoov " S 041 014
UMU11A1111410
64
LWII-1 06No"P2011, VIPCO T W ll.9 OVIS"LL9tUtf twACTICK0.11 Mil COIUtAWI"
M T01AW CHANG 11544 NNACIUI.
NO EXPERIENCE M--LL"m ow f "so a a INt m~ S1IT..a
pawel " ow U"l "e~top"VINh
7O-st. F5411 A.7 letuTJt w
E. "INITIATIVE ICOST REDUCTION THROUGH VALUE ANALYSIS
1414*511111 of SAMSOIL
A IN,.0 NA.W. Il' 111.ef o Ca"
ostt t AIM t 36 UATIMPAGOOIV,AMANNOM
VINSON10
Se.lA A 5111354150
44WAItC .,C H" tt6LAKN = ALIA"L
F. PROMPINE .IN RESOLVING DESIGN PROBLEMS
NO EXPUI HENCE wmiuzw. ww ewcmvt Ptill

WWW DAA Au
10 SAIVOINLA1144
04 elvw Ill.M'011.twiIt90415? 0510tP 643 006
CowsON1.14D
VAIN bllAISLY.
Mo 123 4
19-12
THIS COLUMN IS FOR

G. CO-OPERATION RE:NECESSARY DESIGN CHANGES PFURCHASINQ VIE ONLY
_______________ ______________ _______________SCORE
coo...eoou~to~h
.m pupo .. "I 10 1
of11
IOW , lVt.40 tool"1 10o~ol~t
ASII.TA .01 me ooom
amoo .114DIC 111o.11o foi
PAN88 K INLDS
DIU"lfVA. ON610094 O 8LFiAV0~,§VV
1 .81011*
INS0 L
SOtt11I~ CA..t 02 1048M8l~I81 11111.0..
NO EXPERIENCE 00
VIDOC8 F01.s.1 11110)
l~olI,1.8
8808 1088
Is
ItN
..
l IXC1D
Is SLW Noo'1SCm
08oAs 8011.41-
800,C01118804
.880 OlO~t
=c2tV`M*A1j#014
081
&
110.1t88
008111
Ago
OItmA~
008
I 18085 at ACSA fo t PON0
0104
4 011 ~ INV
H. At HERENCE TO FURCHASF REQUIREMENTS, PLANS A SPECIFICATIONS
w~11itfs to A010101 08100 10

UP tO
001100811
AN clt t N1Wi1048t1MN~ titlOC
S "1CI1ICA8I011 Ot11
Nt0tlt~PNOtI
0 Co1. Ol
18011111t dtOl Wi01t" 01 04ACAA
MIINR0118811 kIIA1 0014ALL0810111184 01180 18 80 0CMn
1*8811 otsO01
NO E-XPERIENC A01"'
4CE t-'ýkhlo11 0 .. oiltmT
is$
V01
"Dom.101lt880t
c11
11084118tt
a80U.tIIil~
D4~412
1 01 0'OLDS
of0 00118tot
C0ACI
t1=1
I4 Poo
OAI
po" D1WI8
t1Xoll.$AN
SERVICEN
DESIGN% att.l AOT - II I
T.11CSERVICE1
IiG
tO A%1011
us100 GROW14t 18510
e808 iic D.1.' I
OCOI1 01 4105 A1UCO.S.U0ILSO .. *t tI. 021.086
VEDORIS . t1 GA8081
NO EXPERIENCE R'-110004C1 It~l

R08 "M8 0RE0 1081 No~~tt
oW 1* 2CJ% DCSIN 3ATR

OINAl UOT WIAC4AIM
NDI #'i _____U~tii,
11018
K.v RE:-c CIFI ASOERTO TEATRE ONIDIE
SOI.O.TUCIV VOD0MENTShms 1 .18a OM~sI SAGN
1108 818ll0l 81081010180t8.18I
BASIS000i801?8
NO
t~~~rtK~tNcG
.. IS8110~
Kolveclftu
i
018PsitlI
4210
MD60T8 8811008
ctom
088 ito 0 M t~8~8

211 O0188Ot 11 MO~~t 3l0 10P008tl ~ tL0 80,410 .111
".014
8 t14.' 1110 1 tS
8W *EVC Ob 018 I80
CCAStIONA pI0,ialt .6l SS0cSl a t 81..1w
No 810 OCtAG
moloAR l oulstsit
L. CO-OPERATION RE: ~'CIFIC SUBMADSRUCINE

APLCTION REQUIREMENTS: O OS EE EURMNS ECR RHBTO.~
8
IH OIOIG
SIOCK DESIGN
08.86FOR 104ION1810NGL
vVE801080 AND0 041180 POI~I 1180.1.. PilI 00 0
1110
AND AIR
10t~t1110181 ll"*110 011101180t048o 50011181
TO011011011 1810100808004Itll.
v~a,. 18 Mi I t~t
QUNL M6i0081 oo:.ooSiAtl
C110861001 088881tO u NC000t
f1.0
0008801 04.1
18011 0088I
0810Si.0000810 4101 *NMEt~
80011P
lIhtlINltI11tI 101811001lvos
%4881810 AD, CI~cht
NO 1XEIEC INI OCR12CIfY1 41WI

-0__NNAL-
VENDO,
MOST RSO CAAPL CAPRODDIN
NEED BUTIMPROVE10ENTS1L..
OUS NOIN VENDO BETTERTHA wk

D GEERLL CAPABLE.
DNO EDD
HAS~ SHRCMNG-NAISATR
IWEIG
MOST ENDOS CAABLE NEED PROD1116 I UT IPROVME.T
NOT*DE 1 1610111G
19-13
7C'PRAISERS QUESTIONS FOR THE DESIGN VENDOR APPRAISAL SUKMARY
A. l'echnical Adequacy of Designs

SWhat test and/or performance hMstories are gathered?
.*How rigorous are calculations for performance and strength
disability?
3. How close to the state of the art?
4. What are the limiting feature of the design for durability?
5. Does vendor document TFR incidents? Are these avail.able
to (the contractor) ?
B. Practicability of Designs
1. Vendor has reviewed his product's application to sub-
marine system and environments?
:. Vendor has visited ships or mock-ups to confirm and
concur adequacy of application in his opinion?
:3. Is design simplicity exploited as a creativity character-
istic? How is this developed?
4. How is durability and reliability judged?
5. How has vendor used the stated design targets for life
expectancy? What technical proofs of ccmpliance have
been made?
6. Has vendor used maintainability as a design characteris-
tic? How?
7. Whaic accessibilities have been provided in the product?
How is the physical space evaluated from a man/main-
tenance coordination in the ship environment?
8. Are special tools or alignment jigs or special sequential
assembly checks required for tear down and repair?
9. What are the limiting wear and/or deterioration consider-
ations?
10. What spare parts are proposed to suit continuity of
per formance expectations?
11. What repair schedule is designed to provide adequate
prwiventative meaintenance for extended life?
12. What program of Design Review is proposed for what
stages of design and manufacturing?
'3. How .,ill vendor invite (contractor) participation in
Dcsign Review?
4. What means are provided for proper material selection
and continuity of pedigree?
15. What means are provided for assurance of design, material,
and quality of second tier purchases?
C. Safety Margins
1. What performance margin exists over guaranteed rating?
2. What is the "worst case" or limiting pprameter in
estimating type of casualty on overload?
19-14
3. Is a fa;lure analysis study made? What mnde and

mechanism contributes to failure?
4. Is therc any test-to-failure data available?
5. What safety factors are standard practice?
6. Are safety margins calculated?
7. Can safety margin and performance margin be related
to expected performance life? What is the limiting
margin which degrades with operating time?
8. What Services (oil, water, grease, electricity, toTque,
etc.) variabilities can be tolerated within guarantee
per formance range?
9. Is a tolerance analysis accomplished?
10. What effects are expected if adverse tolerance build-?s
occur? Is there adjustment means?
11. What overall performance factors or ranges of variabil-
ity are controlled by permangntor maintenance adjust-
ments?
12. What areas of the desin.n -lave the maximum risk to suc-
cess ful per formran-e?
13. If vendor could afford to redesign and reschedule,
what design changes would he make as improvements?
D. Initiative in Proposing improvements
1. Will vendor orient Design Reviews toward improving
design as well as justifying current work status?
2. Does vendor have the courage to make the effort required
for significant imprzwvment?
E. Initiative i.i Cost Reduction Throujh Value Analysis
I. Can the vendors evaluate cost-effectiveness and
comparison evkluations on their products?
F. Promptness
1. Does vendor rromptly accept responsibility for obvious
faults even if evasion is available via strict inter-
pretation of specs?
G. Co-operation, etc.
1. (a) Are material selections offered to (contractor) for
agreement?
(b) Are substituticns made without (contractor) knowledge?
I. Design Service
1. Does vendor use planned objective Design Review at the
purchase order acceptance phase?
2 (a) How is maintainability, accessibility, producibility,
"Inspectability" determined as early inputs to the
designer?
(b) How is maintainability related to realistic pro-
visioning proposals at the design stage?
19-15
K. Coopeation, etc. Non-Destructive

!. (a) How carefully does vendor extract all information
from required tests?
(b) Does he attempt to vary performance parameters tc
determine overall variability cr~teria?
(c) Does he consider extrapolation of performance with
time?
(d) Does vendor design and prepare a test plan?
(e) Ie (contractor) party to pre-approvals of testing
arrangements?
2. (a) Are test results provided to Engineering/Design?
(b) Are these results checked against those expected by
Design Engineers?
(c) Are differences ex, ,uated and incorporated in
technical data as lessons learned for future work?
For a relative small purchase order for a critical component

already designed, and whose reliability i.3 al::eady well-estab-
lished and adequate, the contractor would need only (a) periodic
confirmation of the predicted reliability (which would be subject
to data coming in from all the suppliers customers) and (d) re-
view of verification test results prior to shipment.
The above review is accomplished by contractually-arrfnged

monthly reports, reviewed in detail and analyzed by a contractor
reliability and maintainability specialist. But such review
must be supplemented by regular visits to the supplier for under-
standing of the problems and formal or informal audit of the
suppliers methods.
8. SUPPTLIER CONTROL
If the supplier is competent, and has agreed to furnish specified

quantitative reliability and maintainability for his product,
and his contract says he will not get paid if he does not meet
the spec, no further controls should be necessary. A ccmpetent
supplier will control himself, and the contractors actions
should always try to get him to do so. Then the contractor need
only w"atch and regularly evaluate the reports.
If the supplier of a new and untried design cannot agree toaso

guarantee reliability and maintainability, then there must be
contractual agreement on the tasks the supplier will perform in
his effort to achieve specified reliability and maintainability.
In this case the contractor must also audit and control effort
task performance, involving corrective action followup, all of
19-. 16
which constitutes a much bigger job.
AP. the contractors design progresses, there will be unforseen

ch:nges in the need for reliability and maintainability, perhaps
because contractor design improvement tradeoffs change the cri-
ticality of the supplier product.. For example the contractor
may decide to add an alternative mode of operation, which in turn
reduces the dependency upon the suppliers component. Such
changes of need can easily change the suppliers most cost.
effective approach, so he shoild be immediately informed of them.
A contract change may be appropriate.
3ut then there are inevitable supplier deficiencies in achieve-

ment of reliability and maintainability requirements, achieve-
ment of reliability and maintainability program tasks, schedule
a,1herence, or excessive expenditure. It is then up to the con-
vractor to (a) get the facts and thoroughly understand the pro-
blem, (b) require official supplier commitment on corrective
action by a specified date, or (c) alter the requirement on the
supplier to fit the unforseen contingency, and (d) possibly alter
the contract.
9. SUMMARY
In this chapter we have reviewed the normal interface between

the contractor i~nd his suppliers, so far as reliability and main-
teinability management is conce::ned. Since such suppliers pro-
vide the bulk of the hardware that actually determines the con-
tractors ,_".Uieved reliability and maintainability, careful
management of suppliers is mandatory.
Qualificalion of suppliers must be based upon their capabi] *.ty

to design for specified reliability and maintainability, no. just
to document it. The reliability and maintainability requirements
placed upon suppliers are determined by (a) the actual need for
reliability and maintainability, (b) the technology gap, if any,
(c) the criticality of the component within the contractors
design, and (d) the suppliers experience with design for relia-
bility and maintainability.
We have tried to emphasize that contractor ordering simply by

supplier product number is a dangerous practice, and .cannot be
tolerated for critical componnits. Yet the contractor should
not, c0reate new specification language and quantitative require-
ments, which add to both contractor and supplier costs, where
the existing supplier specification language adequately ties it
We have also emphasized the urgent need fc.Ir ddta exchange with
suppliors, an, that it should nrot entail extra c,,)st.
Perhaps most important, the contractor must recognize that a

competent supplier knows far more cJ&,t 1~is product, and what
can be done to i1 nprove it, than the contractor. So if more
reliability and maintainability is actually needed, the contrac-
tor must solicit supplier proposals to get a fix on what is
achievable and what it costs.
Then ii approaching the contract negotiation and agreement

phase, and subsequent evaluation and control, the contractor
should try for contracts that require minimum control. Economic
incentives and penalties surrounding reliability and maintain-
ability achievement are powerful medicine. If the needeu
supplier refuses to commit himself to suzh guaran-tees, he is
asking for a lot of detailed a-d costly "over-the-shoulder"
control of "how" he does his job.
10. REFERENCES
1. Design Vendor Appraisal Summary, (1. Engineering), General

Dynamics/ElectrLc Boat Division, Groton. Connecticut.
MNi AN't!ý- 7RE

LANP I7TT~
1. S7TFLIER COTRAOL 2C- 3
2. MANUFACTURING CONITROL 20- 4

2.1 Critical Item Handlina 2n- 4
2.2 Equilur-nL PFotection 20- 5
2.3 Fabrication and Assembly Inspection 20- 5
2.4 Non-Inspectable Defects 20- 5
2.5 Vibration "Testing" 20- 8
3. INTEGRATED TEST 20- R

3.1 Performarce Testing 20- 8
3.2 Reliability Testing 20- 9
3.3 Maintainability Testing 20-10
3.4 Failure Diagnosis 20-10
'4. DELIVERY AIND INSTALLATION 20-10

4.1 Packing and Preservation 20-10
4.2 Installation 20-11
4.3 Checkout 20-Il
5. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 20-11

5.1 Spares 20-12
5.2 "Abnormal" Conditions 20-12
5.3 Maintenance 20-12
5.4 Data Recording 20-13
6. SKI4MARY 20-14
20-2
Chapter 20
MANUFACTURE AIM' OPERATION
We have constantly reiterated the need to get the required re-

liability and maintainability into the design itself, long before
release toD manufacture. Nearly all other chapters are addressed
to the techniques for doing so. And if it.is not done, nothing
we c:.?n do in manufacture (including "zero defect3") oi in opera-
tion of the' system, can restore the lacking inherent reliability
and maintainability.
On the other hand the manufacturing processes can and usually do

degrade the reliability below that inherent in the design. They
reduce the reliability from a negligible to a substantial amount
depending upon (a) the care with which the design allows for
manufacturing state-of-the-art capability, or the design "pro-
ducibility", (b) the adequacy of quality control, and (c) the
attention to the items discussed in this chapter, which may or
may not be considered quality control tasks.
Quality Control has been basically concerned with (a) the control
of manufacturing processes and procedures that can affect product
quality, and (b) the inspection and test of hardware during man-
ufacture, to catch and correct all defects that can be found by
such methods. The bulk of the quality control procedures catch
current defects, and those which "could" lead to operational
trouble, rather than those involving reliability or an operation-
al Lime to failure. However many contractors Quality Control
groups today do conduct MTBF tests, constituting the contractors
procuct reliability "measurement" function.
BuSl•ips can make sure that the contractor controls reliability

in manufacture by delineating in the specification or program
plan the tasks given in chapter 22 section 16. Methods for audit
and evaluation of such contractor effort is covered in chapter
24 ,ýection 5, to be carried out by InsMat, SupShips or ethsr cog-
niz:nt government representative as outlined in chapter 24 sec. 7.
In -he following sections we will discuss those activities having

an impact on reliability (operational continuity with time),
excluding those involving only current defects, regardless of
the contractors assignment of responsibility.
20-3
1. SUPPLIER CONTROL
Supplier reliability and maintainability relationships arn dis-

cussed in detail in chapter 19. We will only reiterate what is
said by i.ts sections 5 and /, that the LuiLventional and excellent
supplier quality control survey techniq,.es seldon., cover h'he
suppliers design capability. But once the design is released to
manufacture, supplier control is primarily a manufacturing re-
sponsibility, thus covered here.
The supiliers welding capabi:ity, of both machines and welders,

can have a significant effect on reliability depending upon the
design configuration and safety margin. in order to assure
itself of that capability, the contractor will often "certify"
the suppliers welders and machines, or require the suppiier to
do so.
Soldering capability has the same or hAigher impact on electronic

equipment reliability certification of personnel again being
used.
Radiographic, ultrasonic, and infrared inspection techniques,

since they check the above fabrication and assembly methods,
also usually require the same certification.
Corrective action control is discussed in chapters 21 section 8,

and 22 section 13. Where reliability and maintainability can be
affected, the contractor can require his supplier to use such a
orocedure.
Once the suppliers design is frozen and accepted by the contrac-

tor, absolutely no changes of desijn, r. aterials, or manufacturing
p~rocesses should be allowed without the contractors knowledge.
and approval. Many system failures have occurred because the
supplier made a small change that in his honer judgment "obvi-
ously" improved his product, but he could not forsee that the
contractors special manner of using the product could not toler-
.t_ the cnange.
Since the supplier should have much better testing facilities

and knowledge of his ow•n product, it is nearly always preferable
and less expensive to have the supplier conduct all final accep-
tance-tests, suitably witnessed by a contractor's repreientative.
This especially applies to MTBF tests, because the supplier can
get more product hours of test across several or many customers,
with much higher confidence in the result.
20 4
~ ii c cokil nc; aidl pres~ervation of his pro-.duct can have an

So
e f fect on re' i ~ahili t,., as, d iscus sed! in, ca;:)ter 1P. Thecora-
tor must ýýns ist on adie uaes'cIirceatio)ns
If for an%, reaso,,n reliability a!-d maaintainability; tests are t

cood.-ucted by the supplier, they can be conuuFcted in the contr c--
tor 's Peceiving Test. Ho~wever this dc~ision shcLuiC' he part of a n
iLnteu rat ed test pl-ian.
Some supplier pro~ducts are, perishable o--r subject. to croinif

not pro-perly s3torud prior to uein t~he contractors m-anufactuire.
Th is often amo-unts to Pred ictable reliab iiit, dlearadar ion, so
protecT i'-e -measures are requ bred both by su~pl per, in transit,
-in d n the contractors plant.
sulc,"lie- uata reportinci is cliscussed in.c~aotctr 19sect-ion 3.3,
ad2s ct ion 18. The conltracto)r must rz~quire th-e supplier to

providea struss ti,-ne and failure data on all critical products
(whose failure wo,-uld cause the rontractor~s system, failure).
Fai lure diagnosis must be required of th-.e supplier for evea!

failuro of' a critical pDroduct, as dise'cus;ed in ch~apter 16 -and
chapter 22 section 17. It is usually much more effective and
econtu-mica. --or him to do it thnthe contractor, and a good
suppi icr knows hie needs that knowledge to survive_.
2. MA-NUFACTURU4C CONTROL,
As outlined in the introduction to thi~s chapter, we are attemp-

t-inc; to focus on the activities directly affecting reliability
,-ii maintainabilit-y, and not attempting to cover -11l quality
control activitic..-
2. 1 CRITXCAL ITEMHLANDLIFNC'
Manufacturing reliability cmntrol begins with establishment of

(a) the "critical" reliability it,.ms deserving of special atten.-
tion, and (b) tile characteristics of those iteals needinq special
controIs. Sroccia 1 attcntion requ-ires physical identi fication so
that all personnel who,. sce the hardýware or its accompaning paper-
work see instantly that it is "special". Since critical items
also deserve special handling, one commonly used method is the
use of covered tote frays of a distinctive color for all critical
parts, the trays often containing foam plastic cutouts to support
the component properly. riut since such trays have also been
fo~und very effective for general mat erial. control, some other
20-5
col.or can be used for non-critical items.
2.2 EQUIPMENT PROTECTION
In shipbuilding, as well as in most other large manufacturing

activities, the contractor normally receives much Government-
Furnished Equipment (GFE) and Contractor-Furnished Equipment (CFE)
to be installed in the system. During the period that it is on
hand, both awaiting and following its installation, there are
many opportunities for reliability degradation unless preventive
measures are taken. So that the Bureau may have a standard of
comparison in evaluating contractors equipment protection pro-
cedures, Figures 20-6 and 20-7 show samples of excellent proced-
ures established by a major shipbuilder.
2.3 FABRICATION AND ASSEMBLY INSPECTION
The kinds of things that degrade reliability (later failure in

operation) are loose or overstressed hardware, insufficient
thread engagement, lockwashers, poor solder joints, loose solder,
lack of surface protection, inadequate clearances, wiring harness
bending stress concentrations, inadequate support (vs. vibration
and shock), improper materials, eta. Inspection of fabrication
and assemblies is normally conducted by quality control, so-
phased that each job matches inspector capabilities (so fatigue
does not lead to poor coverage), and so that areas are inspected
before being covered up by a next assembly of which they are a
part. Obviously encapsulation, which clearly protects reliabil-
ity, must follow detailed inspection.
2.4 NON-INSPECTAPLE DEFECTS
Many defects that can degrade reliability cannot be detected by

inspection. These particularly include the material processes,
such as heat treatment (including inadvertent), welding, plating,
etching, finishing, casting, etc. They are usually controlled
by (a) rigid control of the procedure, personnel, and equipment
by which the process is accomplished, (b) non-destructive tests
such as radiographic, ultrasonic, and infrared, and (c) sample
destructive tests to failure, which generates confidence only
if there is never a failure at maximum operational stress.
Contamination can be a reliability-degrading defect impossible to.

inspect, and often difficult to test for. It often results in
elaborate "clean rooms" and rigid cleanliness controls for both
personnel and hardware.
20-6
EQUIPMENT PROTECTION INSTRUCTIONS
for GFE and CFE
Frequency Check
Equipment Receipt to Installation
Nuclear - OFE Installation To Delivery Instruction
•eat Exchangers
Emerrency Cooling C-1 W-3 1. Upon receipt; cap and maintain in accordance
Fresh Water and a-4 with manufacturer's instructions.
Salt Water M-2 2. When installed, inspect zincs for corrosion;
Non-Re~enerative replace if corroded.
(Ptirification) 3. When filled with water, sample, analyze and
Regenerative treat in accordance with paragraph 2.1.1.1.
(Purification) 4. Protect on shipboard with sheet metal covers
in accordance with paragraph 2.1.1..
"Seam-Genertor W-I W-1,3 1. Unless otherwise 8pecifled by manufacturer,
C-2 maintain secondary side pressurized to 5 psig
with nitrogen.
2. Dry lay up. Inspect for corrosion, cleanli-
rnss and moisture. Add desiccant if required by
manufacturer's Instructions. Use dynamic dehu-
midifying machine when specified by the manu-
facturer (paragraph 2.1.1.2).
3. Wet lay up. Cheek that vessel is filled up
Into vents with water, Sample, analyze and test
in accordance with paragraph 2.1.1.1.
Pressure Vessels 1. Upon receipt, cap and maintain in accordance
Demineraltzer C-1 W-2 with manufacturer's instructions.
Pressurizer G-3 2. When filled with water, sample, analyze and
treat in accordance with paragraph 2.1.1.1.
3. Protect on shipboard with sheet metal covers
In accordance with paragraph 2.1.1.5.
-R~a~t r-P~e~sirFe~s~l- w-1 W-1 1. Maintain pressurized with nitrogen to 5 pslg,
C-I 'j. ns per manufacturer's technical manual.
%,-ver with plywood and hercullte material to
_ _.__rltect reactor and openings.
Pumns and Motors I. Rotate pump shalt 1 1/4 turns manually.
-ooster W-1 W-1,3 2. Measure and record insulation resistance.
Charging M-2 3. Insure that permanent or temporary heaters
Core Removal are energized, where applicable, ii'motors.
Reactor Pressure. 4. Protect on shipboard with sheet metal covers
Fresh Water in accordance with paragraph 2.1.1.5.
Vacuum
Main n W-I
-n----------- W . Maintain pump containera preasusw ed with
Pu.mps & Motors C-i B-3,4 nitrogen in accordance with manufkoturer's
G-5 instructions.
2. Maintain nitrogen purge of 1/2 to I cubic
foot per hour, whenever pumps are dry.
3. When pumps are dry, manually rotate pump
shaft every 15 days. Record breakaway and
running torques.
4. Wnen ptnps are wet and coolant system is
operable, energize pumps for 5 seconds every 15
days.
r. Pumps with stellite thrust shoes do not
_... . ... require turning or purging.
Valves 1. After in3pection, cover and protect frum
.ec 10" 0-1 O-i,? damage until installed in ship.
Hydraulically Onerated %" 2. Protect on shipboard with sheet metal covers
Main Cnolant Stoo it" In accordance with paragraph 2.1.1.5.
20-7
-P .C 0 to4V L.44 C
>1 4) 4(U)U C3 4 1U4
41 .C 14 41 :F-4 MO 430 -4A0 -4 4.) 4). 1
5. 0 bb 30c 10V0 c.W4 m E CU 0 c
0. 4 E-4 r.4 4)1w P 414 41 .- 440 Z U
r-4 #-4P-404 W U) KV 0.0
O N. 0UU .V :30 E£ýo0g 41
4.) N O IV .014 -4C . 41 ~ w4
0 0 w 4.31 m
z 4)41O0 0 E 0 V cm Zu
~>
E) 0 -0 m4.>0 .0 4 0. 0 '0 r-4(1W 0U
C -4N H w1 U . " w1 01 4 S.. 4.)
M1qq 4 0 F4-4,
$41S S4 .1U C0 4.,
0 >;4 U 0~L
r-4 r-4 W ".4 0 I) sr-4 41 41
.(4JMU -4 X(M.k .46UA.) AJ4 C. L4 >
c'
Cki 4.) r4 0 0 m( C U) V)C r_ U) 4) t
04 a
04 wl IL).= U) 0 4) 4) U 33 -V c.
W44C 4) X -4 U) 4) U) t.4 ) 5L 0o4 0,4 10
0. 4.)41LS Cv .0u241 4.) )V mn
01 c000 VV4C C- ) 0 r-4 c4) C S. 441 >
COI1 41 W4 l -Ihoc 4) -4 0 C 4 Vi002 Al 4 4)
C~4 0341 (d S .0Q 3

-4 ~ 0 F-4
0
10
43010
4)
~-4 XC
En ~ ~U)bn
0 d .-44)
"4-2
~ 4)
41
~k)04)
u aiii4
0.U
~C04) ~$4
0Q: mi
-.1c
co
c
(U
c
30903
OS..4)
4) 0 A3C 4-4 C
4)CC C.414 E --- 0 *0Ei CS*0r-4 C*)V4 (
5-.
>) 0 ca0.0. )
4) 04. r-, 0 C) J4 -40 (UVC3 :4
0otC.) in iS.C
r4 bC JVc 0 L,0ac43 -4 *(4 C- 1i 4OEI
> C4 .-
43~~ H ~ r4r ~ (d0 0b 4) b D o 01 41ý
D )3
z C r4 '041 - c 1 )w 4--))0 $41OCC4
w -4 'a 41C-C (uv C.)
0I 4) 0d Ok :3 ct-4 0 ) 3W
r4 .C4 ) W43
L4 CL 4) - M OM
0a U - $NC.- C
A-4;- co) -4 0 co cd- c -4 - r.
oaD Cd s-I VqHL . 4) ej Ci.C4
;41 S ~-4V
i. 0(U. C
:3>(U.--
V00
90-4
r.c
L 4) $
Ho C ) c 0 ; .0X- 0 4P V)ii.L
04 0 >%-0 0 $4 U) 3 t L S-~- 4 .4) r-4 0-4: 0 -
0 go1 -4.)
0 3X4.) 0 c o 0 U)0 ocm U) k.010 Li).-0 0 Q
E- 4t
.c 0.40"4
'0414
c
U 0 5z)-
0%C )
.
i)
4
ro
v 0.41
C-4V
r030c041
ta 4) .- i40..-b
4
CL0.4
3 )CC4)
wC
0.) 4)034) >00 CO(OOW

. 4- ý Lr4t . C)' 04 1000 $ 4
04)
0
>. 0
Vs4J.
-i.o
C
00
064A .6.
04141"we) wo
k *
FL r4 -P Wqc
CC-4
4
oo
V
E0 44
;4i
-4 4 4
4-40410
14)
o
0
(
>C0D.
V40~
S.
414W W44
0r- C
0 41
H ) .0 0 4 = 0A -4 3CY -441 .I - - -1:7 UE 06 0410

4.C
H) 31 C Owi Ci4 4) 4) tV )ý CY ) f-4 C S4.0 4)5. 0.
4 0 41V410, P-4 $4 ca C) c V4 0 5 4)4 w>ý.4
s4)
k1 "4 4)1..v 00
A-1 t 41-4O4 .-. tq. -41
41.C( 4)L
0 ~~4)
CiCo 00) t =-4--
4)~4
C00>.1 4adQ4.
Li C (0
r .4
c~i~4 E-i14
-40 CJ(y -41 4a1Q-(\4M4)
A41C
- W k 0 a0. 06 w4i2~l
-4- UU~.
04 0 X0 ;4 0 c 4341 44V
MOk0
44 1
0E4 4F ) )w ;4 C 43~00 >b
0C00
C) 0 C >b I 410 r4 r-4 0
0b41
>CIr414) E 41 r;. -
C. 00.q4 4) c .0 F4 tE M..o C fdr-4 0 r-4C
H C-44 -4 CO0 q W4O-C :3 .-. Cts(dc
-I4 4)
0 r I) w4 r4 0-?4 0 W 043) L0O C
90 CO
4) v-10 -4 00 CL-44 '0
V1 N
4-1 IdcoW-030-H0 *4)C 94 4 0)

old C 6 r- 4LPA-PC40.>ls 9- P41(
.4 C 041 e0s4)
P Go -40zt
r- 0 r V4:
)0 L C)@ 0)
ed 0 C) v 0 0
C 0.04- 9)
0041I :14) MO4) 001> .40 0)
0r Li0i
0w " C W04 rk4.) 4 C 000- C'-k
$4r4 :3 E C V)O a C>>4 1
04)> 5 4-1W -P 44 >b W4V0-0 LCa-4..g
c
v A: k* 0 41004 4-10.41 C)-.I- U to co
4.1 t W X 03 0,4. *f...i> .k C r4 .I '4)

r. 2 A vq '03a4 P-441H
4)0. 4)L -4i40 LiOr
4J 0C 0E-4 06.010 S-4
C4
c4 (C
ci E-4
0S0 4.Li)Uw1:r
0.0 14 w C 4)3
>1 4 0 4>u1o0c
)P41 044 0W0w

C E-
20-8
2.5 VIBRATION "TESTING"
Vibration "testing" is often used in product ion. Usually coc n-

ducted as a much lowe:r stress level than wilI be encounterec.
operationally, it has quite consistently disclosed l.oos, hard-
ware or solder that were not detected by very thnrcu-qg'h inspection.
And frequently it turns up an inadequate support problem that
design engin-ers could not fotesee. On the. other hand sorle desig-ns
are necessarily such that the life of some parts is a direct
function of the time they are under vibr..tional stress,. If such
design cannot be avoided economically, such vibration "testing"
must be limited in such a way that sufficient life remains when
the component is delivered for operation. But blanket prohibi-
tion of vibration "testing" may in effect degrade reli.aility.
3. INTEGRATED TEST
If every part, assembly, component, subsystem, and system were

individually tested tor all parameters of importance, the cost
and time for test would Le prohibitive. Thus most cuntractors
have develoned what "as cz-z to be called an integrated test
pla... Its essence is to so plli-n all testing that. (a) for econ-
omy any one part is tested only once or twice, (b) such testing
is done soon enough that there is ticie for correction (including
procurement lead time) of defects discovered before the comtpon-
ent is needed for the next higher level assembly, and (c) the
tests should reproduce true operational environments, stresses,
and especially interfaces with all other components.
"3.1 PERFORMANCE TESTING
To do all of the above is impossible, and to approach the best

compromise is extremely complex. From standpoints (a) and (c)
above, one should simply test the finally completed system
through all its complete operational cycles and modes, loaded to
operational streszes or higher, i,,combined temperature, humidity,
vibration, shock and radiation environment, and perhaps corrosive
or abrasive atmosphere, altitude, even weightlessness.
The best we can do for environment is to develop a matrix of

operational modes vs. environmental contribitors, and use enqin-
eering analysis and judgment to select the apparently worst com-
binations of environments that are achievable.
Then there are many components of a system, such as where redun-

dancy is useco, that would not be adequately tested by a complete
20-9
sy;stle t.esc-. So we back off to a series of com'tonent tests that

s:ul bo -ouducted as soon as complete for reason (b) above,
-it prr'ferably with their contiguous compnents to detect inter-
f-ce pr ob(ems, and preferably in fu~l environru nte
n . Simi lar ly
somco , ,]ponents r7equire prior testing at the assembly level, and
some assemblies demand prior part tosting. But not all. Finally
we emerge ,with en .i-itegrated test plan that cor.stitutes the most
economical and adeqcuate testing, but it avoids duplicate testing
of parts to th extent feasible,
3.2 RELIABILITY TESTING
Now let's turn to MTBF testing, a primary kind of reliability

testing. The principles are discussed in chapter 11. Ideally
we could run tie completed system thru its operational modes,
fully loaded, at full operational environment, for a long period
of time-, and note whether or how often it fai' . This is often
done for systems such as a radar or a wing structure. But it
can be impractical for other systems such as a ship or a launch
vehicle because of the time and cost involved, and impractical
for some feww-of-a-Kind extremely-high-reliability components
sucn as Micr,.lectro...ic assemblies that would become obsolete
before tbe first failure.
Thus it has become logical to keep records of the stress time

and failures that components accumulate in engineering prototype,
manufacturing, and final system tests, throughout the integrated
test plan. When the system is shipped to the user we then have
at least some data on its reliability, ranging from "x hours
with no failures" (for an MTBF estimate with very low confidence)
to an estimate of MTBF with good confidence if there were a
dozen failures., Sometimes this technique is supplemented by a
relatively short MTBF test as outlined above, to obtain reason-
able confidence thaL the reliability is adequate.
On the other hand MTBF testing is impractical for some systems

and components, particularly structures, because failu.es so
rarely occur. As discussed in chapters 7, 1I, and 13, the only
feasible "reliability" test is one oc more overstress tests to
f dilure. Such tests to failure are normally accomplished during
the desiqn phase, as such a test after manufacture wou!d normal-
ly be too late to have an impact on the design.
However many o'.- rstress tests not to failure, such as 1.5-times

operating pressure tests, provide considerable confidence in the
design strength and quality.
20-10
3.3 MAINTPINABILITY TESTING
Maintainability tests do not have the time and cost problem

associated with reliability tests, so can nearly always be con-
ducteu. But the planninq and desigr of such tests can be qui'e
complex. Again it is desirable to conduct them on the complete
system, this time surrounded by a mockup of its operational
location. Most-likely failures are simulated and technicians
(of skill and training matching the users technicians) timed to
determine how fdst they can find and fix the failure. But
again somp maintainability tests have to be conducted at lower
component levels so that there will be time to make corrections
as a result.
3.4 FAILURE DIAGNOSIS
At the risk of seeming to emphasize the point, since some con-

tracts actually limit the number of diagnoses, absolutely every
failure occurring during test must be diagnosed. Whenever the
cause cannot be determined, tl..: component is forever suspect.
Mdny contractors follow a policy of scrapping every such com--
ponent that is in a critical application.
4. DELIVERY AND INSTALLATION
4.1 PACKING AND PRESERVATION
Just as in section 1 above we were concerned about the supplier's

packaging and preservation of completed systems and components
sent %o the contractor, the contractor must be at least equally
careful about packing and preservation of completed systems and
components sent to tCe installation site.
Many design engineers fail to realize th-t the temperature

humidity, vibration, and especially shock encountered in a
cross-country van or freight often far exceed the operational
values to which he designed. But if it is not designed for
these values, and sometimes it cannot be, i* is up to the pack-
In 9 expert to in~tall whatever protection and supports are
needed. Failure to do so degrades reliability by overstressing
components "almost" to failure, so that the later operational
stress may complete the failure. And it is up to the design
engineer to advise the packing expert about sensitive components.
When the system arrives at its operatiopal site, there must be

clear unpacking directions to avoid inadvertent damage. If the
20- 1 l
Jamage is niot vis ible (say a w,,irc a 'rnost broken w,,ithin unbro:,ken
insulation) t'Ie reliabi lity has b~een dedralded.
4 .21 INS TALLAT ION
inistallat ion invol.ves the same hazards to rel Lability as Packing

and Preservation, in that very cae f handIi otiqoýf many comýýonents-
may be(_ required to- preven,(2t ovrtesadton~rhi~dde unre-
'l3
alb Ii ty . S uch c:lu ipm shot i bde u leair lv labelI led to, a Ltr act
att e~t jon, ý,i th handling~ instructio)ns. Such ercdrsare nor-
new, bu~t cons iderat ion of the reliability ':oer7~A time)
implicatio~ns will o-fte2n result in addit :onai ha-.nd I Lao and instal-
]ation constraints.
4.3 CHECKOUT
Check31-out is undertaken, -when installat ion is physi~cally complete,

normally done by technicians to instruction manuials, uinueir the
surveillance of one2 or mo-re enqineers 1'rr fam
7 1ik -, ,~ ,a ,",4-1 the
system. Checkoýut otfersq many opportunitiesz for

reLiability do-
gradat ion. When the technicianis screwdr os aind lam-,s into, a
i-eir s !
mnechaniism, he may 'Inspect It carefully and ti y work inq the riech-
anism. if it seems still to work (with in' h is own f~ramewor.-k of
knowledge) hte cons idors: that the end of it B ut it maoý hnave been
overstressedi, almost broken, iqed 0is
ec. in a- way that he
see, and I ~at or fails when needed oeai
cannot aly. Ti s
not uncomumon. I t h appens all thte t Imc And, thrIt'I-CISa I ttheC
k in .lf man who) k nows ';aW n it buit d~tý r o21or t i t.
110nt 0f
course the deal qn ý,Iioul,
In ave been "fool proof"V in t he( fi~rst place.
Thus There must be vk- 'y t trouqh indoct ri nat 'ion and train inq of
t ch n ic ain s , emi ph~as iz rin t he conse -eq n ces o f anyLa I lr ~r
port posr ibie overs tr. ss, ind there shod dbe no punitive Action
k1
for such reportinq.
r. OPERATION ANI) MAINTENANCE
The opportu,~ it ies tor deqradat ion ot re 1! abli ity and ma int: iamb i -
It y i n o)perat ion andi ma int enancc are.. eno.rmous. The lornoest. i nq le
cause of iini-ellabilit~y in ooerat ional systems is probably not the
hardware at all, but human error. Foc some systems, suc'h as larqe
computer installations, it has been estimtatedl that- 40C'N' of the
downtime i~s due to human mistakes, although many of these are
charqed to hardware failure. People are woll1-intentioned, often
careful and dedicated, but fal lible. What c.-an we do about it?
As discussed in chapter 14 we must use people only for functions
they can perform better than hardware, then design the haz ~warc
20-12
for compatibility with human capabilities and frailties. Then w-.

have to thorouqhly tra~in and motivate them, showinq the conse-
quc-nce of r-rror.
5.1. SPARES
Spare components and their logistirs of supply also have an

impact on reliability and maintainability. Spares needed for
preventive maintenance obviously degrade- reliability if they are
not available -when needed. Spares needied for corrective maintcn-
ance after a failure obviously degrade operational maintainability
(but not hardIware maintainability by the current evolutiorary
definition) if they are not available t~o restore the systei,.
Lack of either of course degrades systemi availability and effec-
tiveness. Thc o)nl~y solution to this is of course a complete
maintenance policx' a.id logjistics program, ý,hich are beyond the
scope of this ccmr'e. The Rureau of -ýuppl 'es and Acrounts is
vigorously al-tacking this p: oulem unvder tiie METRI program.
5.2 "ARNOR1-1AI, C(ONDTTTONS
Systems are diesigned to operate within specified envirorcmental

and stress ranges, to utilize specified inputs, and to perform
~pecfiedfunctions. ButA such speci ficat ions cannot always en-
compass what actually happens. Unfo-rseen environments ana stresses
are sometin~es ap~icid, the inputs are so)MCLiMes far out of tole2r-
ance, r an attempt is m,,ade to perftorm a fu-'-t ion bo vrnd capabil-
ity of the system. S-uch abnorma l c.-no it ions are often not appar-
ent in the naperwork %,-ena "failed Part" Ncts back to the tender
or man,, §a( Lurer. So the system conttactor .iets a "black eve"
that he may not deserve. B~ut the sys temn itsel f is indeedi -,irelia-
ni e in the real environment thlat was abnormall o-nl~y in re la-t ion to
an inadequate speci fica-ti.,on. There fare it i~s import ant to Make
every -:ffort to .,et the, r~ a sit.ia-t ion intc the ~r i inal1 deSign
reluui rements, and to report the real situation s ur> lund ino eaich
fai lure.
5.3 MAINTEN4ANCE
fHowev,.er, it is in max ntenan-ce that the priimary opra oaIunre-

liability is ,4enerat-,d , ind the.re are sinme unresi Ived ro h1
First there is the mranuofact~urers rcmn.eprevont ive --
ainten-
ance scliedu le, which hie has cat c foliv wkdout tol aIch ieve oýpt i-
m,,u reliabi lity'. Perhaps more often than no~t, such schedules' are
no~t follow-ed by the user. The resiult is le~ss reliaibility than4
that of whichi tne component and systemi are capcab he. We can call
this part ot the numan error, since thev hardware is -rtainly
20- 13
jt
per focm ng to sroecification. Therefore tlhe user should have man-
Oatorv m;-intenance procedures that require adherence to the manu-
f-,ctur',• plan (as specified in the Navy manuals), -_,nd either ca-
iorce the procedures or depart from them only with conscious
knowledge of the reliability consequences.
Second is the corrective maintenance, involving If-tection of mal-

function, diagnosis, acquisition of spares, rep' cement or repair,
checkout, and sometimes reload. Detection and diagnosis, and to
a lesser extent repair and checkout, require certain skills that
may or may not be available. Of course the h-irdware should be
designed for maintenance with specified skill levels, but if the
manpower and skill levels actually availabler are something less
than specified, which often occurs, maintainability and therefore
avail bility is degraded. Therefore the equi~pment must be designed
for the real skill level available, and maintenance personnel
thoroughly trained.
Third, and applicable to both preventive and corrective mainten-

ance, is the reliability deqradation uue to maintienance errors.
As discussed in section 4 above, when the technicians screwdrixer
slips and damaues a mechan,6m (but he does not think it is dam-
aged), or he accidentally shorts two electric-il terminalz which
damages a transistor, or he pluqs a comnnect, r into the wrong
socket, or he uses the wrong replacement part, etc., -- all these
fact-of-life oc-urrences do deqirade reliabil1.tv. And often very
subst ant i ally. As stated in 4.3 above, there must be very thorough
indoctrination and traininu , f technicians, emphasll'inq the con-
sequences or any failure to report. and fix possible dmnage, and
there, should be no punitive ac- ijn for so reportin,;.
5.4 DATA RECORDIN(-
These humnin erroýr.;- are very di tt icu It to t. cord, because -'f human
ruluctance to aulmit mistakes, and therefore diftfi .:ult to ket back
to the des iqn eng iineer so he can make the next desiqn more fool-
proof. Bot it is a 'iost as difficult, f complete data
in spite o-1
ccllection systems, to qjet good ,peratinq stress timo and failure
dat3 on truly defective failed parts. In bofth military and in-
dustrial systems (such as large leased computcr systems where
maintenance cost comes out of the manufacturer 's pocket) , it has
been found that the maintenance technician ,ften -_.unnot effectiv-
ely collect thfe requirel data. He is highly motivated, and
properly, to 'got the system going" again as fast as he can. In
industry his pay raises may &::-pend on this capability relative to
his contempo)raries.
20-14
On hipor rm c o s fthe eqo-ilp7ent , the samre cirqency

obtains. Technnicians are ny rreqult io-n required To(- fill oýut the
Electronic Ecpuipment Failure Report o-n ab~s alutely e- "'ry electronirc
equipment failure. But (a) hie is usually unable to record the
stress time or cycles, b-at is asked to _hommae
, (b) he
seldocm recordls human failure when it Is ti-~ acctuýal c7 -use, (c) he
-ftn f.1ails to) recoq(ni ze a 2-ailure as i,:h, s o i t is not reco,-rdoed,
and (d) in times of uri;ency he may h-ave to- defer repo.rtinqj until
he has to 1;,.iLss what happ.enod.
As a result, data reoprt inqj dos been fcar from ade bate for the
desiqOn ena ilneer t-,) idont if'y the needed des iojn corrections. Non-
electronic eu netfai lure rcportinc appears to be e.'.en less
adequaite.
The Na-vy Ma-initenance, Manaoeo-ent Svstom, (see chapter 9) has been

devel aind it
1o pe , shou~ld mrv the iltuati~nn, _"rt fo,.rther im-
pro)vement is needed. to incc.-nroorte huviman fai lure dlata.
6.S YUMM "11Yy
in this chapter ,:e have brit-if lv (iscussed the pirimary act iv'itics
for rwli-ibility cintjrol., rather ha n "quaIi ty c,,n tr,- I~ dour i -I,
the 7manufc~ct-t in, p:hase The(-sec are primarily sýuppl icr c-crntrol,
*
critical item h1-ancd 1 mo,

control of non- inspectab it., detects, vi-
brat ion tcstinq , i nteor at ed tei~tlnmo fo)r rel iabil1ity and- maInt a in-
abilif~i ur oains sand care.ful packinu, andi rse'a n.
Then we 1-r.'t sruC sseu the r-Act ices uionq

no nst ialitio)n and
chock~ ut, fIll-ýt-
ieo U te ct ivit it. iis actual otera'tionan
ma i n t e n n ce In t 1" s Per'at na l P""so the or ilmirv at
ciffect in vclabl
1 ito andl" :airnt1n :i hi 1.)lity are spares, ab.'normall
o )niition-, u II prev.-nt 1-vo an 1 correct ive atrircan
diatare ro
We co',i t t a r ;.'11St mIt al P!it ot.

"t te uIn!'..1abi lity
is caust'. 1 t 1-c
o h rd ae t.sd ti , but by,, thc ,;av :t is us!"'.
and mi' irc
Chcipter 2
CC)%NTRACTCOR OR '?AN IZAT TON
1. WORC
PK LW W .21- 2
OPROA-NIATION STRUr'TURE 21- 5

2.1 Functional orm7niz t i~on 21- 5
2.2 Project Organization 21- 9
2 .3 Balanced Orqanization 21- 9
2.4 Why Speciallized Grcucps 21-11
3. POLICY AND PROCEDIJRF 21-12
4. REýýPCNSIB I TITY ASSI NF' .21-13
5. EDUCATION AND MANUALS 21-17
6. TFCFLNL0W3Y DtA ELOPMENT 21-1.8
7 . OANGE CONTROL, 2 1-2 1
8. CORRECT7'Eh ACTION CONTROL 2 1-221
s UMMAURY 2 1-22
I. REFERENCF.5 21-23
21-2
Chapter 21
CONTRACTOR ORGANI;7 AT ION
If the contractor produces what he contracts to produce, on time,

and within cost, BuShips personnel need not be concerned w'th
how the contractor organizes to do the job. Of course this is a
"big if". But if BuShips cannot be sure the contractor will do,
or knows ho-., to do, his job, there is a temptation to tcll him
how. Ani the contractor, needing the contract, may accept such
direction. Chapter 23 section 3.4 quotes the MIL STD 785 guid-
ance..
But if BuShips tells him how to organize, BuShips is substituting

its own judcrment (remote from the problems of the contractor) f-r
the judgment of the contractor, who is in a much better position
to understand the resources an, -onstraints unique to his opera-
,.ion. So it is always preferable, when feasible, to negotiate a
contract with sufficient incentive that the contractor will be
willing and able to organize properly to do the job. He may need
suggestions from BuShips, but the decision has to be the contrac-
tors.
There are almost as many kinds of organization as there are con-

tractors, and the same is largelý true of their reliability and
maintainability activities. Yet there are some fairly common
patterns. In this chapter we will toy to show the more "typical"
patterns of organization for reliability and maintainability,
but we cannot say that "most" contractors use any one pattern.
We are using the word "organization" in a broad sense, to mean

how he arranges resources and work flow to get the job done,
rather than the narrower 'organization chart" sense.
1. WORK FLOW
Referrinq to figure 21-3, let us review the sequence for a large

project. While this total work flow is given for illustration
of% the scope, most of the steps are required to some degree in
._ arly every contract. For example procurement of an off-the-
shelf hardware item would not involve an RFP or system design.
This *_hart does not imply any particular organization structure
or juribdiction of Reliab4 lity and Maintainability (R&M) groups.
The Request for Proposal (RFP) for a large project inv, iving
system design is thoroughly analyzed by an engineering group
21-3
< IIL
0z E . W f-U-,
I ~ I .z! K.
QR I I
z saIIu
12
sIW
z L
Iii.
IL E
0~C Z~ J~
H~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ c r 11~Q
< Go
21-4
(or an advanced systems group) to examine the requirements and

-feasiility. feasibilitv can only be evaluated by considering
alternative preliminary designs and selecting one that will be
proposed. The contractors R&M spe Lalists must provide (a) the
necessary tools and techniques for analysis that accounts for
reliability and maintainability, (b) the tools and techniques to
design for required reliability and maintainability, and (c) may
perform the analyses if they require techniques in which only
they are experienced.
When the proposed design is established, a proposal is developed.

The R&M Program Plan within the proposal is developed by the R&M
specialists, working very closely with the design specialists.
After BuShips evaluation and selection of a contractor, a con-
tract is negotiated containing the negotiated R&M Proqram Plan.
Full system design then gets under way, using the tools and
analyses pro,7ided by the R&M specialists, resulting in block
diagrams, schematics, analytical models, and the detailed speci-
fications that constitute the hardware design requirements.
Detailed hardware design proceeds in the same way, this time
involving evaluation tests of selected components or "bread-
boards", which tests require R&M specialist analysis. As design
problems are resolved and component designs completed, detailed
procurement specifications are written, and the R&M specialists
may write the R&M requirements thereof. Component designs are
"released" to manufacture as fast as they are completed.
Purchase orders on contracts, including the reliability and

maintainability requirements, are issued to suppliers. As
suppliers complete each major item, the contractor audits his
final test thereof and accepts it for delivery. If for any
reason it is not fully tested at the suppliers plant, or where
components from different suppliers must be tested together, the
contractor tests upon receipt. Fabrication and assembly then
proceeds thru subassemblies, minor components, major components,
and subsystems, testing as required along the way. As tests
encounter problems, corrective action is executed, followed by
retest of affected areas.
Finally the contractor determines to his own satisfaction that

-1I1 specifications are itiet, and "accepts" it. The SupShips or
Insmat representative, baving audited the final inspection and
test, accepts if he concurs. Then it is shipped for installation
and oceration.
Now let us refer back to the three levels ot engineering design

21-5
I activities (Preliminary design, system design, hardware design).

What., exactly, goes on in these blocks, so far as reliability
and maintainability are concerned? The design cycle is shown in
fký,ure 21-6 to emphiasize the highly iterative nature (-f design.
The design engineer must satisfy a surprisingly large number of

requirements, including the R&M requirements, and do it within a
jurprising number of constraints, such as size and cost. To the
extent he can calculate what the design should be, he is ahead.
But in complex systems such pre-analysis bogs down in inability
to think of, let along account for, all interfaces. So he re-
sorts to trial and error on paper. Over and over, dozens or
hundreds of times, until finally he has something that should do
it. He uses analysis after each trial to evaluate whether his
design meets all requirements and, if not, to point the way to a
better solution.
So it is with reliability and maintainability. Starting with the

R&M requirements, he first selects a design that he thinks will
satisfy them, as well as all other requirements. Then he (or
his R&M specialist) evaluates the design using the reliability
apportionment/prediction techn.ques. If it is "not good" he
uses the analysis to guide hi- next trial design. Then he goes
around again until finally, perhaps weeks later, he works out a
design that is "just right" and can be released to manufacture.
Now the point of all this is that, R&M achievement in design is

the objective. This entire course has no other purpose. In
order to achieve it, design evaluation (or analysis) is vital,
but does not do ay__good by itself. Thus if the selected con-
tractor has not organized in such a way that the design engineer
achieves the required reliability and maintainability, then he
does indeed need help.
2. ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE
2.] FUNCTIONAL ORGANIZATION
Today we call the traditional organization structure a "function-

al" organization, meaning that the marketing, en4ineering, manu-
facturing, financial, etc. "functions" report to the top executive,
and that all personnel report to one of these functional managers
(or vice-president, director, etc.) according to their skills.
It is a grouping by skills rather than projects. Functional
organizations have the advantage of smoothing manpower require-
ments for each kind of skill, and therefore building and conser-
i
4-b 4
-44
21-7
ving knowledge and experience in each technology required, and

profiting from cross-fertilization of ideas between experts.
Figure 21-8 shows the more cummon structural location of R&M

groups in a functional organization. Pernaps the commonest and
a very effective appru.,ach is an R&M group (by whatever name)
reporting to the Engineering manager, giving it equal stature
with all other engineering management activities. If Engineer-
ing then has major project groups, such as "Project A", the
latter may either use the services of the top R&M group, or may
in addition have its own R&M specialists or group. But if there
is no policy-setting and technique-generating top engineering
R&M group, one might question the effectiveness of the lower
level project group.
Many companies have established Piroduct Assurance groups (also

called by other names), reporting to the top executive, which
essentially combine Quality Control and Reliability (rarely
maintainability). This is an outgrowth of the Q.C. philosophy
that reliability is "controlled" more than it is achieved by
design. As a result, such groups commonly extrapolate the
excellent quality control doctrines, techniques, viewpoints, and
disciplines into design,
Bit this arrangement can work very well if the Engineering and
Product Assurance managers actually understand the problem and
actually support the R&M group technical activities. All too
often this does not occur, and the design engineers have as little
communication as possible with the R&M engineers.
Sometimes the R&M group is placed at the next lower echelon with-
in Product Assurance, which makes it work "uphill" to the major
Engineering groups. This does not work, because the R&M group
is unable to get the "ear" of the principal engineering functions.
Most experi-ncpd and crnpetent R&M people know this situation
only too well, so will not accept or stay in positions so
structured.
Some contractors have tried to orqanize R&M as part of Quality

Control, which demonstrates to knowledgable customers their lack
of un:1 erstanding of the meaning of reliability and maintainability
achieveient. The reason is that Quality Control commonly has
many people labelled "engineers" who are not engineers at all,
so competent design or R&M engineers fear associative damage to
their professional stature and probably their qalary. For the
same reason the design engineering groups understandably resist
21-8
:3 0
00t , J9
I
I 0 ) :
04~
NO---
21-9
"control" (the QC philosophy) by people they consider unable to

understand the design problem. Now this is a rather drastic
s~mplification, but these situations do in fact adversely affect
achievable reliability and maintainability.
2.2 PROJECT ORGANIZATIOMT
One great disadvantage of at least a large functional organiza-

tion structure is the tendency for any one project to get lost
in it. There is little management of the project per se, sched-
ules slip seriously before anyone is aware of it, and costs
begin to rise. One solution to this problem is to have only
projects reporting to the top executive, each project having its
own independent functional organization. This does indeed
manage each project much better, but results in little or no
communication of technology across projects, gross duplication
of effort, and very difficult manpower loading and turnover.
2.3 BALANCED ORGANIZATION
In attempts to find the best balance be:ween the above two

extremes, the "matrix", "hybrid" and many uther schemes have
been used. But the principal trend seems to be toward the
balanced organization shown in figure 21-10. The general scheme
is that both functional and project managers report to the top
executive, which makes quite a management span for him.
Takinq all engineering employees, for example, the central

Engineering department is their home", and responsible for
hiring, salaries, and firing. The central Engineering organiza-
tion maintains long-term, centers of technology, such as R&M,
where outstanding experts are located more or less permanently
to develop techniques and provide consultation. Such an R&M
group takes care of all R&M analysis And programs for new busi-
ness.
When a project is formed as the result of a contract, the nec-

essary engineering people transfer to the project for its dura-
tion, ircluding R&M specialists. But the R&M policy and
technique generation renains with the central organization, as
well as the arrangement of regular meetings where R&M specialists
keep each other up to date on techniques. At the conclusion of
the project they are transferred back to their homne grcip to
work between projects.
In such a balanced organization the R&M group most commonly

reports to the central Engineering manager as shown. Or it may
21-10
coc
-- I _•
"Z 0
I I
-0
UI
21-11
be zalled by broader names, such as Product Effectivesc, 7ystem

Effectiveness, or Design Assurance. As discussed in 2.1 above, it
would be ineffectiv'e operatinq 'upl..11" from a lower echelon.
"Project A" would have it- own R&M (or another name) group re-
porting either to the Project manager (if R&M is a quite major
consideration) or to the Project engineering manager in the
commoner case. It then is on the same level with all major en-
gineeiinq groups of the project, which enables it to work well.
Alternatively the central R&M function may report to the central

Product Assurance function if there is one. This is an uncommon
arrangement, but can work if che Product Assurance, Engineering,
Project A, and Project A Engineering managers all understand the
problem and support the central R&M technical effort.
Again, as above, putting R&M in a lower tier or reporting to

Quality Control does not work.
2.4 WHY SPECIALIZED GROUPS?
Many thoughtful manaqers question the need for special Reliabil-

4 ity and Maintainability groups of specialists, and it's a legi-
"timate question. If reliability and maintainability can be
achieved only by the design engineer, then let's teach him how,
and why do we need the specialists?
One reason is th.it the reliability and maintainability technolo-

gies are new, very fast-growing, generating a fantastic number
of technical articles. If the design engineer tried to read all
this material, to sift out what he needs or can use, he would
have-no time left to design anything. The specialist has to
cover it, extract what is useful, then either use it or convert
it to concist' form for the desion engineers.
Another reason is th-t although many of the tech.Aiques are well-

developed, others are not, but urgently needtl. Structural
reliability prediction and hardware cost-effectiveness analysis
are examples. The desiqn engineer can seldom take time out to
develop a new tecnnique.
Another is that reliability and maintainability design and

analysis is a small part of the design job. Many design groups
could not iustify a full-time reliability and maintainability
specialist. The need for reliability and maintainability anal-
Sysis is sporadic. In the interest of efficiency and technolo-
gical continuity it makes more sense to establish a central
21-12
"ban;:" of such capability upon .,hich the design engineer can

draw as he needs it (or upon which management can draw for audit).
The widespread practice of establishing "stress analysis" groups
is directly analogous.
And last but not least the establishment of a reliability and

rr:iintainability specialists group is probably the most effective
way to get initial attention and action, as well as continuous
emphasis. They won't let the design engineer overlook reliahil-
ity and maintainability because of other pressures.
3. POLICY and PROCEDURE
A good-loo t ing organization structure is worthless until there

is clear and concise direction from. management stating (a) what
is to be done, (W) exactly who has the responsibility and author-
ity to do it, and (c) how it is enforced.
Such policy direction concerninq reliability and maintainability

is usually issued by the top executive, by the Engineering execu-
tive, or by the Product Assurance executive. It makes little
difference who issues it so long as all three real)y come to
agreement and understanding on the subject.
Detailed interpretation of Policy is usually accompli-hed by

Procedures written by the depaitments primarily concerned, care-
fully obtaining agreement of the affected departments. These
include specific work flow between named departments, stating
which department has responsibility and authority for what., and
what standard documents are to be used.
There are some chronic problems with both policies and procedures,
,owever, that may be of concern to BuShips when there is trouble
with a contractor. Perhaps the worst offender is their issuance
in such weasel-worded form that responsibility and aut.iority are
not actually pinned down. Sometimes this r( flects )onest differ-
ence of inte.rpretation of the words, but all too often it re-
flects knowing compromise to the extent that the Policy ou Pro-
cedure is meaningless.
Another problem is that while the document may be adequately

concise, it is either not kept up to date or not enforced. Com-
petent managements have established periodic audits to dibcover
such discrepancies, and to either correct the document or
arrange enforcement
21-13
Another serious problem is the tremendous flow of specifications

out of government agencies, many of which c-nflict Aith each
other. Each agency's representative has his own interpretation.
leading t- weasel-worded procedures to satisfy several conflic-
ting masters.
Reliability and maintainability policies and procedures ý-e

particularly vulnerable to these problems because of the newness
of the techniques to more contractors. If BuShips will state
exactly what reliability and maintainability is required
contractually, particularly if it is fixed price incentive,
contractor manaqement will quickly face the reality and decide
exactly who does wiat t- Willie.
4. RESPONSIBILIPY ASSIGNMENT
Havinq established the importance of contractor assignment of

responsibility, where should he assign it? Many of the tasks
that have an important impact on reliability and maintainability,
and which are called out in reliability and maintainability
specs, do not belong in a Reliability and Maintainability group
because of their much broader nature. Parts control is one of
these. Design review is another, although often conducted by
the Reliability and Maintainability group.
Figure 21-14 shows a fairly typical assignment of task

responsibilities (a) between centralized functions and projects
and (1) between desiqn and Reliability and Maintainability
engineerinq groups. Any one line across the chart represents
a single principal task, as outlined in Chapter 22, but with
modifiers in each column to indicate roughly what part of each
is done where.
But aqain if there is contractor-wide recognition of exactly who

is responsible for each task, and there is competent management,
it makes little difference 4where it is done.
To go a step deeper, Figures 21-15 and 21-16 from (1) NAVSHIPS

94501 show a typiý-al listinq of tasks on the i, esumption that
there will be Reliability Analysis, System Reliability, Parts
Reliability, and Reliability Tvst grolps. While this is an
excellent organization (Federal Electric Coiu)- it is on!, one
contractor. Most other contract-Ors wculd ha. •-. tn do sometning
differ_ n'ly toc fit their own structures.
21-14
""It )
Ur
r e.~
00
CL.
) U
l o-
P-4 .-.- w
0
w 0-
r4~ U 0 -W)
-4 0
.. o)' 10 o
-ý Ii
bo .0 U) (
Q) U) 21 U
4- CL 0 co~eU)
0
N b
cs co 1
Q) Q -m
00
21-15
1
¾1 -
I n
d
____________
.I
2
- * *I
'Jo
I "I P
i
1A1 !ii
________________ _______
______ ___
p
o
-d j
I 1I!
j
IIIk
I I
I K -
z0 K,
o
FL4
H
I iw
- - 217 -__
i III
I
I
If
______ 11111
tit iIII
IJL
111 ______
________
________
- - -
Iii ________________
S 2 1-16
I K
__________________________________ _
-_______________ j
I
I.---
21-17
5. EDUCATION AND MAMTALS
As recognized by BuShips in its Procur-ment Request for this

course, reliability and maintainability education has to begin
";:th
• .......... ..... .... .... i l be 3pent, not an hour of
work allocated for reilability and maintainability effort, until
m-)nagement can see why it's necessary. All too frequently, faced
with the need to "do something" about reliability and maintain-
ability, management will hire a reliability and maintainability
"expert" and expect him to "take care of it." Without any co-st,
of course. It doesn't work, unless the 2xpert somehow beains by
educating management. And let's -ot be too hard on management.
Part o': management's job is to avoid spendin'7 money until
convii:ced of the reason for it.
Then comes Engirneering, and we mean the peop]e who invent,

create, and design the system, subsystems, and componetits to be
rtiy-lactured or procrrcd. until all the contractors design
cnginceLrs have some knowledge of reliability and maintainability
achievement and analysis techniques, and some design engineers
become real experts, management can hardly expect achievement in
the design itself. And there is no other place to get
One solution to this one is for management to establish a policy

that at least one engineer in every design group takes a rather
thorough reliability and maintainability course and becomes the
group expert. Then lie in turn can educate the group. Obviously
this will not be effective unless the man chosen is one of the
group's very be;t people, who enjoys the respect of the others
in the group. And we said educate one of the existing people,
who knows the group technologies, and not to add manpower.
And lastly, only because there is not much trouble with

contractor management recognition of the need for it, there must
be a core of reliability and maintainability specialists, who
naturally must be well-educated in the technology. But since it
is a very youthful technology, even in its infancy in some areas
such as structures, it is a very fast-growing technology. Many
new techniques are published each year, and the number of
technical articles published is fantastic. The reliability and
mointainabi.ity specialists must keep the sclves up to date with
the tecniology, and serve ideally to in turn keep the design
engineers up to date on the techniques the, ,se. And it is
particularly important for them to train new h.Les, as few
universities are doing anything about it.
21-18
But let's consider the design er.;nneer. No matter how moch we

educate him in the theory and techniques, he cannot use them
without the necessary tools. Pe cannot justify the time to
research the literature. He cannot takoe t., ,ime to reduce a
fai-out mathematically complex theory to a simple equation that
fits his problem. He cannot use the equation if he cannot lay
his hands on applicable and convincing data to feed it. In
short, his primary tools are very concise equations, tables,
charts, specs, organized references, etc., that are convenient
to use every day. So an educational program that does not
concurrently provide the tools doesn't buy anything.
Figure 21-19 indicates %ne kinds of tools needed, which may be

in the form of Reliabilitv and Maintainability Manuazl. And
since the tools must be concise, there must be handy references
to permit him to dig deeper into any specific aspect of
importp":.x to his design. But while we have discussed the design
engineers problem, there is a corresponding need of the relia-
bility and maintainability specialists for concise analysis tools.
And there is a need of management for concise management tools.
Figure 21-20 shows a typical standard content of Manual sections.
Many contractors have developed "Reliability Manuals" roughly
equivalent to this course. Relatively few contractors have
developed manuals in a form really usetul to design engineers.
6. TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT
In Section 2.4 we mentioned that although mtny of the relia-

bility and maintainability tcchniquez are well-developed, others
are not. Structural design to specified reliability needs a
better approach. Data collection systems are still inadequate,
though we know the data is obtainatle. Design simplification
techniques, based -)n reliability gain, are unexploited. Design
for optimum redundancy (of mode, level, and kind) is still
largely off the top of the design engineers head, rather than
analytically logical. Cost-effectiveness criteria, for day-to-
day use in hardware design, are undeveloped. There are many
more examples.
Many small contracts have been let, by vzrious government

agencies, for the development of handbooks and specific
techniques. Unfortunately most of these involve new documents
or specific hardware analyses, as opposed to actual design
achievement methods. And most of them are actually initiated
by a contractor, and often the RFP is so worded that very few
other contractors can understand the scope or propose to comply.
There is a need for Bureau development of a reliability and
2 1-19
S-4J
F-4
0
-
2-
C-Q 0
C.)
Cd C
4&:
H 0 A
0 ____________
n
cu co
21-20
z
F
w
z
1
0
z0 z
z
zz w l i -
04
21-21
Smaintainability technoiogy research program to +-ake advantage

of latent contractor specialized capability.
But must larqe contractors also conduct small reliability and

maintainability technclojy development programs out of their own
profits. A good example (2) is the dcvelopment of a technique
for cost-effectiveness ranking of design alternatives to deter-
mine optimal reliability and maintainability. This of course
is done (a) to provide an advantage in the customers' eyes
relative to the competition, (b) to provide more efficient
(therefore, less costly) means of achievinq required reliability
and maintainability, and (c) to interest and hold top-notch
people between projects.
Another very important contribution to the reliability and

maintainability technology is contractor active participation in
government committee efforts, industry-&-government committees,
technical society conferences and symposia, etc. Next to actual
application of a new technique, there is no better way to its
development than trying to sell it to one's colleagues having
diverse application backgrounds.
7. CHANGE CONTROL
Currently known by the fancie'r natme "configurdtion management,"

change control is an old problem. It is the control of engineer-
ing, design changes in such ciway that all potential consequences
are adequately considered be fore the change is released, and then
the caretul iocumentation and assurance that every consequence in
design, procurement, manufacture, test, installation, operation,
and maintenance is in lact handlod properly.
Now chanieo control i1 not normally a "reliability' matter, in

the sense that an Rs.M group is responsible for it. But all too
frequently, almost 'normally," change decisions are made without
,idequate consideration of the,Ž reliability and maintainability
consequences. And that makes it an important consId.eration in
this course.
A good contractor wi 1l enforce change control procedures that

Frevent release of a change until its effect on (a) system
reliability and maint,,inability, (b) reliability and maintain-
ability acquisition cost, and (c) reliability and maintainability
ownership cost have been evaluated and deemed acceptable.
Ii
:I
21-22
8. CORRECTIME ACTION CONTROL
The road to unreliability is Faved with good intentions. Human

nature being what it is, planned actions often get superseded or
forgotten in the subsequent Fressure of other needed actions.
Quality Control people have developed a technique, cailed

Corrective Acti- Control, +hat very effectively prevents drop-
ping a required action throuigh the crack in the floor. It can
be and is applied very effertively in engineering, especially
for design review follow-up as discussed in Chapter 15, and failure
diagnosis as discussed in Chapter 16.
Whenever a certain design or other action is decided upon, to

achieve or preserve reliability and maintainability, it is
given a number and title in a "Corrective Action Log." The log
states very briefly what action is to be undertaken, and most
importantly who is resp nsible for doing it. And a single name
is more effective than .3hared responsibility. Then it shows a
date by which time it is to be done.
The log is published weekly, distributed to those whose names

are on it for action. When action does not occur in a reasonable
tic.e, a copy io distributed weekly to the delinquent's supervisor.
The result is that people are periodically reminded of the due
date, the action cannot be forgotten, and people like to get
their names off the list.
Custody and distribution of the Corrective Action Log should be

controlled by an independent group, so that items cannot be
scratched until complete. For example, a decision to make a
design change for higher reliability must result in one or more
sequential Corrective Acticn Log items until the change is
completely implenented. If it is already in production that
means all retrofits installed and checked out, spares on hand,
technical mrnnuals chacqed, etc.
9. S U4MMARY
In this chapter we have attm.mpted to describe "typical"

contractor organization to achieve the required reliability
and maintainabilty. Work flow from receipt of an PFP to
delivery of ,perating systems is shown in a gross ý.ay though
the details vary widely among ccntractors. In particular, the
reiterative design cycle, alternating reliability and maintain-
ability achievement and evaluation, is described.
21-23
Orqanization structur• is imr -'rtint to- Rrhizs only to assure

itself that it is one of many that are effective. But an
understandiniý of t'pical structures will also aid .,onuerstandinq
ano evaluation <of przrosals.
It is shown that "here is usually .... --.......cialized re-

liability and maintainability groups. The Burea: has recognized
this and has started implementation in its oroanizations. The
need for very clear policy, procedures, and responsibility assign-
ment is emphasized, and typical allocations shown.
Eciucat ion is even more effect ve o the contract<:r than to

[:Ships, and must encompass managemen+- desiqn engineers, and
reliability and maintainability engineers. And education of
design enoineers is worthless without the day-to-day tocls, or
concse manuals.
Technoloqy devc lowm~nt, change control, and corrective action

control are also discussed, as significant elements of the
contractor 's activities.
12. REFERENCES
BBureau orf i.ps Reliabil. t ,esiP. ; - ndlook, NAVSHIPS 94501,

Fleet Flectronics Etfecti cness Branch, BuShips, March 29,
IC)63 , I7upt. ot Pocuments.
Re'dundlancv Maintenance : ý-t 0','t i:'l:;at ion for Manned Orbital

Space, tat i, ns , by T. K. , -rs, -Serp-Space ivis ion, The
pceii Company, Seattle, I', Jko;' -.64
22-1
Chapter 22
TASK DELINEATION
1. PROGRAM PLANi UPDATE 22- 3

2. EDUCAT ION AND MANUALS 22- 3
3. DESIGN TO SPECIFIED RELIABILITY AND MAINTAINABILITY 22- 4
4. APPORTIONMENT 22- 6
5. MODELS AND PREDICTION 22- 7
6. COST-EFFECTIVENEbS ANALYSIS 22-11
7. FAILURE MODES & EFFECTS ANALYSIS 22-12

8. STRESS/STRENGTH ANALYSIS 22-12
9. HUMAN FACTORS 22-12
10. DESIGN REVIEW 22-12

11. PARTS CONTROL 22-16
12. REPORTS & PROJECT REVIEW 22-17
13. CORRECTIVE ACTION CONTROL 22-18

14. CHANGE AND CONFIGU'RATION CONTROL 22-20
15. SUPPLIE:i CONTROL 22-20
16. MANUFACTUJRING R & M CONTROL 22-22

17. FAILURE DIAGNOSIS 22-23
I3. DATA ACQUISITION & REDUCTION 22-2S
I) . VERIFICATION 22-26
20. SL]MMARY 22-30
21. REFERENCES 22-30
22-2
Chapter 22
TASK DELINEATION
Although there have been a dozen or so government specifications

for reliability program management, DOD has consclidated these
into one concise codument (1), MIL STD 785, based largely upon
MIL R 27542A. It may be applied to all DOD military systems and
their major subdivisions. Ho-ever MIL R 22732B(SHIPS) is also
available (2) for electronic equipment reliability and (3) MIL
M 23313A for maintainability.
Like all concise top documents, it cannot go into the detailed

requirements applicable to a specific system, thus is subject to
differences of interpretation. For any one project or subsystem
a given 795 paragraph may or may not make sense. And even when
the paragraph applies, the 1epth or lev-l of effort on it is
subject to wide differences of opinion. So we must find ways to
nail down exactly what is to be dor.c.
To the contractor, the language cf these specifications cuts

across his normal orqanization structure. That is, he must trars-
late it to tasks that be can assign to specific groups with clean
lines of responsibility. It is in this translation that xur-d)tec-
ted misunderstanaings and omissions occur.
Fc.r 'he BuShips engineer, these tasks constitute (a) the basic
proposed work content to be included in the Technical Development
Plan (TPP) and (b) the -ork to be -pecified to the contractor and
monitored thereaftei. Chapter 23 provides the TL.) program lan-
guage that integrates these tasks, including intended Bureau
actions to assure successful completion of the tasks.
Tn tnis chapter we will qucte those sections of 785 that result

in specific contractor tasks, and then suggest for each any other
language that mry be used for more specific requirements. In ad-
dition there will be some tasks not directly called out by 785,
but which experience shows are needed for large, and some small,
projects. All such language applies to majio projects, and the
depth to -'ich each task is needed, if at all, is discussed in
chaptui 23.
Finally, most of the tasks apply equally well to the achievement

of required maintainability or availability. Since as yet there
is no DOD maintainability standard, we have inserted the words
"(and mzaintainability)" etc. as appropriate, in parentheses. It
is suggested that the parenthests be removed when used for RFP
22-3
instructions for the co'ntractors reliability an"` maintainability

Program Plan.
1. PROGRAM PLAN UTDATE
During contract negotiation many items will be dropped and added.

After contractual authorization and during design and production
there will be changes. Experience shows that consequent maintenance
of the program plan as the current primary instrument of understand-.
ing between BuShips and the contractor -s a substantial and impor-
tant task.
"The contractor shall prepare a firm reliability and maintain-

ability Program Plan as a result of contract neqotiation, and
update it quarterly to agreed-upon changes."
2. EDUCATION and MAINUALS
A primary deterrent to reliability and maintainability achieve-

ment is simple management and engineering lack of understanding
of the problem and what to do about it. Very few, if any, of the
contractors people have had such training in college. Some very
competent cont-actors have trained some of their people; many
very competent contractors have not trained any. Thus the "in-
doctrination" (of management) and training (of engineers) must be
assured at the very inception of a program. See chapter 21.
Ctherwise there will be substantial resistance, inaction, redesign,
excess cost, schedule slippage, and poor reliability and maintain-
ability.
Actually this is part of a bigger problem (4) in that "halt the

knowledge of today's engineering graduate will be obsolete in a
decade, and half of what he needs to know then has not yet been
discovered.' General Motors has a full-time faculty of 200.
General Electric spends $45 million a year to support courses for
35,000 students. North American Aviation enrollment is 10,000
costing $4.5 million last year. Philosopher-mathematician Alfred
North Whitehead says "Knowlc-:qe keeps no better than fish."
MIL STD 785 states (indented paragraph numbers henceforth are

those of 785. If in parentheses it is a partial quote):
"3.5.8 Reliability-Indoctrination and Training. The relia-

bility program shall contain provisions to supplement the
basic training and indoctrination of company and plant per-
sonnel with reliability and maintainability training to assure
22-4
that their skills and knowledge keep pace with advancing

technology ahd the requirements or peculiarities of the
system or equipment."
Since the problem is often deeper than the contractor, these words
may be added:
"The proqram shall provide for corresponding indoctrination

and training of appropriate supplier personnel."
It is rot enough to just lecture engineers on the technology, and

qive them references for further reading. The average design
*nv9inem will not begin to have the time, nor the patience, to
reearch the vo~uminous literature to find what he needs fcr day-
to-day design. It is essential that they be supplied with one
or more very concise references manuals, wherein they can quickly
find nearly everything they need to know day-to-day. ThcEs in
turn can reference other literature for deeper specialized anal-
ysis. So the following may be added:
"The contractor shall provide one or more concise reliability

and maintainability reference manuals, as well as the necessary
data for cornon general uqe by all engineers on all projects.
If necessary he shall provide them to suppliers."
3. DUS•GV TO SPECIFIED RELIABILITY AND MAINTAINABILITY
Anothw major deterrent to reliability achievement is the general

lack of design techniques in a form convenient to the design en-
gineer for day-to-day use. As Rear Admiral Emerson Fawkes has
stated (5):
"We must obtain a major advance in weapon reliability and

maintainability. It is here that the greatest cost is
experienced, and here that the greatest improvement in system
effectiveness can be obtained. A five or ten percent
inovement is not enough."
NIL M 715 states:
(3.3.3) "The contractor shall identify specific technical

problems to be solved, review problems considering program
requirements, and develop a detailed program to solve the
prblems ..... All designers and associated personnt~l shall
be made aware of the reliability requirements pertaining
to their area of responsibility and shall be included in
the information loop to correct known deficiencies."
22-5
"3.5.3.1 Where estimates, data, and experience indicate a

need for a parts reliability improvement program to achievc
desired system reliability, the contractor shall propose a
program to increase the standardization and reliability of
parts to the required level."
"3.5.11 Maintainability. The effects of the reliability

program on the maintainability of the design shall be
considered during the initial and subsequent design phases
to assure minimum degradation to system availability."
"3.5.12 Effects of Storage, Shelf-Life, Packaging, Trans-

portation, Handling, and Maintenance. The contractor shall
determine by test and analysis, or shall estimate, the effects
of storage, shelf-life, packaging, transportation, handling
and maintenance on the reliability of the product. He shall
design the product to withstand these effects. Any special
requirements or limitations on shelf-life, storage, packaging,
transportation, handling, and maintenance shall be made
known to the procuring activity."
The approaches that may be used to design to specified values of

reliability and maintainability Are discussed in chapter 13.
Generally they involve (L) designing around (to eliminate or re-
duce criticality) the questionable component, (b) compensating
for its deficiency via redundancy, etc., (c) improving it, (d)
testing to find out more about it, etc. This is probably the most
important single element of the program plan. But parts improve-
ment is probably the most expensive and theref -e the last resort:
"The reliability and maintainability program shall title and

describe the anticipated reliability and maintainability
design problems, with a statement of the data and component
sources investigated and the logic of such identification.
It will include situations where either (a) the available
data ind'cates that state-of-the-art components cannot
sitisfy the requirements, or (b) there is insufficient known
experience with the component to develop adequate confidence
that it will meet the requirements."
"For each reliability problem above, the program shall state

the design approaches to be used, considering as appropriate
(a) simplication, (b) standardization, (c) parts selection
and application, (d) stress/strength design, (e) tolerance
evaluation, (f) failure rate prediction, (g) human engineer
ing, (h) failure cause & effect avoidance, (i) preventive
maintenance, (j) producibility, (k) supplier evaluation &
22-6
control, (1) evaluation tests, (m) local environment control,

(n) failure prediction devices, (o) component integration,
(p) redundancy, and (q) parts improvement."
"For each maintainability problem the program shall state the

design approaches to be used, c<,nsidering, as appropriate
(a) simplication, (b) standardized design, (c) modular design,
(d) adjustments, (e) failure effect provision, (f) accessi-
bility, (g) safety, (h) evaluation tests, (i) identification,
(j) total maintenance policy, and (k) failure detection and
isolation devices."
"For each problem above, it shall state the test or other

means of verification to be conducted to shown quantitatively
that the design approach solves the problem, using only short
one-or-two sentence statements that relate the problem to the
overall Verification Plan beloa."
4. APPORT IONMENT
Apportionment of reliability and/or availanility (accounting for

maintainability) is the "budgeting" of the overall system require-
ment down to subsystem and component levels, so that individual
design groups know what is required of their designs. It is done
very approximately at first, then refined as the system model and
prediction is developed. Ultimately the prediction and apportion-
ment are (inversely) identical. See chapter 6. To the extent
that design is accomplished within BuShips, so must the appo-tion-
ment be accomplished by BuShips. The contractor, however, will
nearly always have to apportion.
MIL STD 785 states:
(3.2.2) Apportionment of reliability and maintainability

requirements from the system to system elements shall consider
complexity and importance (effect of failure) of the system
elements including alternative modes of operation."
"3.5.5 Mathematical Models. The contractor shall provide

mathematical models based on systems analysis to apportion
reliability and availability over major system elements;
and to predict reliability and maintainability at various
states of design. The mathematical models, apportionment,
and initial prediction shall be included in the program plan."
initi4al apportionment, if done right, can have a tremendous effect

22-7
upon the desiqn and cost of the system (such as choice of subsys-
tems or components and decisions on redundancy needed), thus
deserves some detailed attention. It also contributes to the
comparison of competitive contractor designs and competence.
These words may be used:
"The program plan shall provide a block diagram of the entire

system system at least down to the subsystem level, and lower
where feasible, showing on each block (a) its functional name
and the apportioned (b) reliability, (c) criticality (contri-
bution to system failure rate), (d) maintainability, and/or
(e) availability that satisfie the overall system require-
ments. For simplicity he should where feasible use (for b & c)
failure rate (per million hours), (for d) MTTR (hours per
failure) and (for e) fraction of operating time, also showing
(fc:? f) manhours per failure. This will facilitate direct
addition and visualization of the relative criticality of
components. The contractor will fully explain the methods
used for such apportionment."
5. MODELS AND PREDICTION
As design progresses, a system analytical model is developed and

refined to represent behavior of the ultimate system. When the
anticipated reliability and maintainability of each system func-
tional block is established, the model is thenceforth used to
periodically predict system reliability and/or availability.
Such models permit the design engineer to analytically test and
decide between alternatives before commitment to production, and
tell him where his design reliability or maintainability is not
adequate, or may be too good. They also provide some management
visibility of progress. See chapters 3 and 5, and figures 22-8
and 22-9.
MIL STD 785 states:

"3.2.2 Reliability Requirement Studies. The reliability and
maintainability program shall provide for preliminary and
continuing studies of reliability and maintainability estimates
and achievements. The reliability and maintainability program
for all program phases shall provide for progressive refinement
of the reliability and maintainability analysis and validation
of specified requirements for all eldnned missions or opera-
tional modes of the system. These studies shall include de-
finition of functional performance limits, duration uf opera-
tion in tine or cycles, etc., and the environmental conditions
22-8
Ib
Iz
- z ' 2
~~ z
0.4 -
vi C: -0
't a d t
W~ UCU> H
-~ I>
o
an
~(1
u) -
.0f
22-9
0 o
1- bc
cu
C0 r
E E ~.0s-
o Obo
0 -1
04:
C/2d
4 0
-o cohe
.4 C)4 E (
0 0.
x m 04
00
030
22-l10
of operational use. Apportionment of reliability and main-

tainability requirements from the system to system elements
shall consider complexity and importance (effect of failure)
of the system elements i ncli&*.nj alternative modes Df opera-
tion. Progressive reliability and maintainability goals shall
be established for each major phase of a program which are
phased with program review points (3.4)."
"3.5.2 Furnished Equipment. Where other equipments, such as

Government-furnished or associate contractor supplied equip-
ment are to be integrated to provide a complete operational
system, the contractor shall use kncwn or estimated reliabil-
ity values for these equipments. When such empirical data
are not available through the channels to which the contractor
has access, the contractor shall request such data from the
procuring activity. The contractor shall report potential
reliability problems introduced by deficient Government-
furnished equipment or other associated equipment over which
he has no control and shall indicate and justify the system
changes necessary to accommodate or the improvement necessary
to make this equipment compatible with the system requirements."
"3.5.5 Mathematical Models. The contractor shall provide

mathematical models based on systems analysis to apportion
reliability and availability over major system elements; and
to predict reliability and maintainability at various stages
of design. The mathematical models, apportionment, and
initial prediction shall be included in the program plan."
Here again these techniques can have i powerful effect on the

efficient and timely allocation of design effort, as they can
show up potential deficiencies long before any metal is bent.
For more detail these words can be used:
"The analytical functional model of the entire system shall

permit (a) prediction nf system operational availability and/
or reliability, for each operational mode, as a function of
its component reliabilities and maintainabilities, and con-
versely (b) assessment of component criticality (increment
of system failure rate), and (c) prediction vs. apportionment
of component reliability (failure rates where feasible) and
maintainability (MTTR hours) and where feasible (d) manhours
per failure. The model shall include human operators and
maintenance personnel as components of the system, taking
their reliability into account. The progran plan shall fully
explain the methods used to develop the model, and the pro-
cedures that will feed actual component data into the model
I
22-11
as rapidly as it becomes obtainable, as well as estimates

where necessary."
"The model shall be kept current as design pý-oqresses. The

contractor shall issue a monthly updated prediction of relia-
bility, availability and/or maintainability, as appropriata,
of thL entire system, all subsystems, and all components.
He will show current apportionment figures aiongside each
prediction figure, and hiqhlight problems."
6. COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
Cost-Effectiveness analysis today is rarely required and Infre-.

quently used by contractors, -- at least by this name. But there
is a growing need for its use, as discussed in chapter 26.
While such analyses are necessary to (a) establish requirements

(chapter 23), they are also ucful to (b) periodically re-exanine
requirements as design progress turns up unforeseen considerations,
to (c) provide management visibility of progress, to (d) provide
the design engineer with a day-to-day criterion for decisions
(for example if thereby he knew that doubling the MTBF of his
particular desiqn would save $100,000 of total cost, he would be
alert to such opportunities as he considers alternatives), and
(e) provide a sound basis for supervisory allocation of design
manpower according to potential payoff to BuShips and the con-
tractor.
Cost-effectiveness analysis should not be confused with Value

Engineering or Value Analysis. While these very important
techniques have the same objectives, and contribute substantially
_o cost-effectiveness, their almost universal application (C,7)
is limited to Acquisition Cost reduction of paper and assembled
hardware designs.
MIL STD 785 has no provision for cost-effectiveness analysis.

If it is desired, these words may be used:
"The program plan shall provide for continuous update of the

pre-contract cost-effectiveness analysis. The contractor
shoil issue a quirterly-updated (a) prediction of system
cost-effectiveness, showing (b) the trend from prior pre-
dictions, and (c) the total cost saving, if any, that would
result from 2-to-l MTBF or MTTR improvement, for each sub-
sjyteem and component."
22-12
7 FALREMrL -3 FFECTS ANALYSIS
This is an old qualitative proceýdure that 1 ooJ enqjineers will scp'

is done intuit ivelAy anywa>. What is- rel'atively recent, bes1Ides
the name, is the meticulous andi systematic d_"et~ail. See chapter-
12. If a reliability model is availab-le, it should be able to
predict. quantitativ-.ely the effect of such failure ~oe.MIL
STD 785 para. 3.5.6.1 ý'3) says :only that. 'des-ign review analysis
shall include, to the ,,.ict appliý_ ible, arn~vi of effe~cts of
failare." But. it is a idlusdworth-w,,hile tool. These words
are recoiamen:Ied-
"The program plan shall include r ursfor ~-ery syýstematic

consideration of th-,e significant ways in .uch critical (whose
failure v'culd cause system failure) components miLoht fail, in
relation to potcent ial causes and eftects. Such- analyses shall
be conducted durinq desi~gn, with appropriatrc dlesign modifica-
tions to minimrize adverse system effects, prio.1r to desiin re-
view and release to manulfacture.'
8. ~STRESS,ýSTRENG'Tf AVNALYS1_S
When failure (ti-me) rate data is not obtainable, at: is Otte-i thne
case for mechanical and structural components, stross/stren~ith
analysis may be the only feasible methqd. :Veeit so ldbe
used wherever it is feasible, whether or no.t f~aJ lu.:e (lime) rate_
data is available. Traditio)nal stress,,stirenoth analysis li5nai
"sa~fety f~actors' or "safety m~oza ins' is totally m
achievement and pred-iction of roliab-ilit\y Ch a ter 1-5 c nta ns
a design procedure and. Chapter -7 the anal\ 'sm te.chniqiues.
mIL STD 787) has no provision for -h is a o~*- ''re De'
used:
"For s tructurv:- and: othler- des ins here 4e lsib lf the*" ro:
tor shal.l co~nduct stress., L-tren, th .'atet.ae- rnl
liabil1itv fro)m thie separat ion. and1 .-Arianct. st ressz jinl
strenqth distributio.ns. He will then i.th' Aesi- to
provid~e adequate reliabilitv.'.
9. HUMAN FACTdORS
In quite a real sense all fai lures are, traceal~lc tý,h-omarerr r

but unfortunately no--t all pr:.,blems can "be so l,.-c b-.. t*dehun
factors "technoloqiy." Let's co,:nc-~ntrate o.a few oiesio.nifi
cant areas. MIL ST[) 7,` rtaj~es:
22-13
'3.5.9 Human Engineuring. The reliability program shall

apply the principles of human engineering in all operations
during design, development, manufacture, test, maintenance,
and operation of the system or subsystem. The design shall
incorporate human engineering features that minimize the
possi!_l1it, of degrading reliability through human error.
Contractor's human engineering personnel shall participate
in design activity and proposed tests to assure that the
principles in MIL ST-. 803 ha-e bo•en incorporated in design
and are reflecte-d in test plans."
Since the "human engineering" phase no ially does not include

the human factors considerations in ,_nceptual design discussed
in chapter 14, the following may be added:
""Phe contractor shall a, Ayse the functiions required of tLhe

overall syý,tem aand eacin subsystem, to determine whether the
best effectiveness in relation to long-torm cost (accouoting
for reliability and maintainability) is achieved with homan
or hardware components, and modify the design accordingly."
If further translation in terms of the specific contra -for task

is desired, the following words may be used:
"The contractor shall analyse the functions required of

human operators vs. skill lxe l available, to determine
optimal display and control configuration and tne achievable
human reliability and mo.intainability, and adiust the design
accor " -Iq
I L.
"The contractor shall analyse the funct ions required of

maintenanct, personnol vs. skill level, spares, and facilities
avail~able, to determine optimal hardware configuration,
diagnostic aids, and achievable restoration time, and adjust
the design accordingly."
1Id. PES IGN R .'IF1"
Many design engineers resent the idea that anyone else should re-
view' and critI•-ze thoir brain-child. Yet it is a fact that (a)
no engineer can know all there is to know about all aspects, 'b)
often enoinerir, under schedule pressures, do not have time for
adequate consideration of alternatives before procpedinq wlth
"-detail, (c) some enuinecrs ,jet so preoccupis'd with an "eleqanti
anproach that the- fail to see si;pler a pproaches, and (d) hardly
a,iything has eve- been invented or designed that an independent
2•-14
or "second" look cannot improve upon.
The objective being the best design effectiveness in relation to

long-term cost, particularly as reliability and maintainability
affect it, we can hardly do less than apply the best available
brains to review every tentative design. After such review the
design engineer (or his supervisor) can decide exactly what re-
commendations to adopt, but not before. See chapter 15.
A few military specifications require that a military representa-

tive be invited to every review. There have been a niunber of oc-
casions where the adoption of a recommended design improvement
resulted in the military officially a'sking for some money back on
the ground that the original design effort was improperly executed.
Needless to say, this has the effect of inhibiting future improve-
ment recommencdations, or complete nullification of the benefit of
design review. Perhaps some contr-actual protection of the contrac-
tor will solve the problem, as military participation is other-
wise very beneficial. MIL STD 785 states:
"3.5.6.1 Periodic design reviews for reliability (and

mainta.nability) and evaluation of designs shall be conducted
as an integral part of the contractor's engineering iesign
review and evaluation prn -dures. These reviews shall
evaluate the achievemen f reliability (and maintainabiiity)
relative to the reliability (and maintainability) goals
established for each major phase and review point of the
contract; with contractor evaluation before designs are
finalized. The reliability and maintainability design review
analyses shall include, to the extent applicable:
jiote that design review for reliability and/or maintainability

leparate from other design review is not desirable, as it would
introduce unnecessary cost and delay. MIL STD 785 paragraph
3.5.6.1 (goes on t say:
(1) Reliability (and maintainability) estimates based upon

prediction (785 suggests MIL STIE 756 and MIL HDBK 217, but
NAVSHIPS 93820 applies to BuShips) and accumulated test data.
Estimates shall be made for each mode of operation.
(2) Review of potential design or production problem areas.
(3) Analysis of effects of failure.
(4) Identification of the principal, critical items in-

hibiting reliability (and maintainability) achievement.
( ,
22-15
(5) The effects of engineering decisions ana tradeoffs upon

reliability (and maintainability) achievements, potential and
qrowth.
The program plan shall specify appropriate personnel from the

contractcr'z reliabiliti? (and maintainability) organizations
,who shall participate in the design reviews and denote approval
by signature. These reviews shall be continuing in nature to
provide for the earliest possible ietection and correction of
any potential deficiencies. A system shall be established
and mairtained by the contractor to assure reliability (and
maintainability) participation 4n control of designs, speci-
fications, drawings, and all changes thereto.
The design review shall compare the design with previously

defined qualitative and quantitative requirements. The
results of the review shall be documented.
The Procuring activity shall be notified at least 10 days prior

to each scheduled formal desiqn review (as distinguished from
continuing), to permit procuring activity participation. The
minutes of such review.s shall be made available to the pro-
curing activity upon request."
Experience has shown that design reviews literally complying with

the above may _till be quite ineffective. There must be a clear
policy on just what designs will be reviewed, to what depth, when,
and bi whom. Thes for more specific instruction in terms of thL
contractors task, these words have been found effective:
"The contractor shall conduct design reviews of all new designs

and design changes, as well as any other designs whose relia-
bility or maintainability are either unknown or suspect, in-
cluding review of all interfaces and the cffect of environment
surrounding each subsystem, component, and part."
"He shall conduct suc" reviews at least of (a) complete con-

ceptual design of systems and subsystems, prior to hardware
component selection and detailed design, and of (b) complete
hardwar.e design prior to release for procurement and manu-
facture. However they should be planned for whatever design
level or grouping of components will most economically pro-
vide adequate review of each new design and new interfaces
only once.
"All design reviews shall be scheduled to follow appropriate

design completions, allowing scheduled time and budget for
22-16
design changes resulting from the review. Review partici-

pants time must be budgeted, but the cost is normally more
than offset by retrofit cost savings. The cost can be mir-
imized through use of standard checklists during design, -which
are then reviewed by the specialists prior to and during
review."
"Every design review shall specifically consider quantitative

reliability and maintainability relative to established re-
quirements, as well as acquisition and ownership costs. Any
deficiency from requirements, as well as all recommended
design changes, shall be carried as Corrective Action Contiol
items (see 13.0) until the deficiency or recommendation is
resolved."
"Design review participation shall be limited to small groups

including the responsible design engineer and appropriate
specialists from other than the responsible design group,
specifically including the chairman and at least one relia-
bility/maintainability specialist."
I1. PARTS CONTROL
Many contractors have excellent parts control procedures, but

many do not. The basic problem is to prevent the selection of
parts about which there is inadequate knowledge. It is particu-
larly serious in the electronics or mechanisms areas, where the
green young engineer can become sold on an elegant new part in the
vendors catalog. It is "just what he needs" but has no history,
no pedigree, no MTBF rating. See chapter 18. MIL STD 785 states:
"3.5.3 Parts Reliability. Parts shall not oe used without

knowledge of their capabilities and reliability potential
determined from current or previous testing. Information
shall be sought or generated on stress levels and limits of
application as well as on failure rate. Available data and
central information facilities shall be utilized to avoid
needless duplication of testing. In using existing data,
the risk and limitations of extrapolating part performance
data at one set of environments to that expected at a different
set of environments shall be recognized and documented. The
best available estimate or determination of failure rate for
each part type shall be made; the i-art vendor's accumulated
test history under part specifications requiring fal'.ure rate !
verification shall be sought. Reported measure of achieved

reliability should not be based upon short duration tests
22-17
which predominately measure performance. If time does not

permit adequate testing at advanced ayes, the contractor shall
show the age range actually tested and shall justify use of
such data."
(3.5.3.1) "A preferred parts list shall be maintained and

utilized as a source of high reliability parts."
In terms of the contractors tasks the following detail may be

added if necessary:
"The program plan shall provide for: a Parts Control activity

responsible for (a) selection and cataloging of preferred
parts that must be used by design engineers in preference to
all other parts wherever feasible, (b) approval, or securing
BuShips approval, of the use of each non-standard part in
each application, (c) review of all parts application in
Design Review, (d) consultation to design engineers on parts
reliability and maintainability, availability and selection,
(e) collection and dissemination of parts data needed by
design engineers, including failure rate and cost, (f) writing
all parts specifications to vendors, using military standard
format where feasible, (g) controlling engineering stockroom
content to minimize non-standard parts, (h) providing parts
handling policy and procedure, and (i) providing traceability
policy and procedure, so that failed parts may be traced by
serial or lot number to eliminate their doubtful brothers."
12. REPORTS & PROJEC'1 VEVIEW
Most contracts generate voliunes of reports that never get read,

or at least by the people who can understand the significance and
take action. The information they contain may be important, but
is not in a forim that a busy man can take time to read, and the
distribution (because of report size and cost) may be inadequate.
And while BuShips needs regular reports from the contractor to
control the program, the contractors internal distribution of
ic nificant reports has far more impact on efficient and timely
action. MIL STD 785 states:
"3.4 Program Review. The reliability (and maintainability)

program shall be organized and scheduled to permit the con-
tractor and the procuring activity to review its status, in.-
cluding results achieved, at preplanned steps or che(-'ooints.
This formal review and assessment of reliability (and maintain-
bility) normally will be conducted at major program points
22-18
and these points will be established by the procuring activity

during negotiations. As the program develops, reliability
(and maintainability) progress shall be assessed by use of
such information as predictions of reliability (and maintain-
ability) and results of reliability (and maintainability)
design reviews and tests including effects of human perform-
ance.
More specifically, the specification may state the specific in-

formation needed for the OPNAV 3910.15 reports, as well as for
contractor internal control:
"The contractor shall conduct a summary reporting system

which provides to each engineering supervisor a monthly one-
page updated prediction of the availability ',/j, reliability
(failure rate) and/or maintainability (MTTR) of each design
for which he is responsible, with apportioned values shown
beside each figure, flagging adverse discrepancies. It shpll
show the prior month and quarterly values to indicate trend.
The contractor shall combine the abcve reports for higher-
level one-page monthly reports of subsystem and overall system
availability, reliability, and/or maintainability, for con-
tractor management and for regular reporting to BuShips."
"The contractor shall provide a monthly report of audited

task progress via (a) a status-vs.-plan copy of the task Sched-
ule shown in Chapter 23, and (b) a report on each Task
of the Program Plan, of not cre
a than one page per task, for
BuShips and contractor management, with copies of each page
to contractor supervision who should take any needed correc-
tive action."
If the contractor plans to conduct a running cost-effectiveness

evaluation, Figure 22-19 shows a compact type of such report.
"If available, the contractor shall similarly show the

cost-effectiveness trend quarterly."
13. CORRECTIVE ACTION CONTROL
Human nature being what it is, many recognized problems never get
fixed because they are forgotten in the pressure of bigger pro-
blems. A very effective solution to this problem is a fairly
automatic problem logging system, with a named individual respon- A
sible to fix each problem. When such "needle" logs are regularly
issued, audit of progress is simple, and most :eople want to get
22-19
ce))
C0Cjc 'q
0
0 cr(~
0 D0 0
0 -L C.)
0o t 00 ccM
w -0
;X42
00t- CD -
4.5
z u)
0 Lo~f
00 t-
-4-4 4
4 a4
0 0 xt~
u a)
0 0
04.
22-20
off the hook. MIL STD 785 states:
(3.3.3) "Records shall be maintained on the status of actions

to resolve problems."
Since the above words require no more than paperwork recording

what happened, as opposed to methods for assuring action, the
Project Engineer may wish to pin it down further:
"The contractor shall conduct a Corrective Action Control

System wherein (a) every predicted failure to achieve required
reliabil ty and maintainability, (b) every unresolved design
review recommendation, and (c) every production and operational
hardware failure is logged and remains as an $action required'
item until resolved to the satisfaction of the reliability and
maintainability group(s). Each item will show the name of
one individual directly responsible for resolution, and the
date by which resolution is planned. In the case of produc-
tion hardware failures, resolution must include steps to pre-
vent the same failure again in that or other hardware."
14. CHANGE AND CONFIGURATION CONTROL
The problem of keeping track of detailed changes, thpir inter-

faces, and their impact on logistics for a complex system is a
big task, It goes far beyond reliability and maintainability con-
siderations, yet has quite an impact thereon. See chapter 21.
Unless control procedures are established, change control groups
often make decisions without realizing the consequences:
"The contractor shall provide control procedures whereby

design and configuration changes cannot be approved without
quantitative consideration of resultant reliability and
maintainability of the design and its interfaces, in the
local environment. The procedures must insure that such
changes are immediately incorporated into the predictio'n
model."
15. SUPPLIEP CONTROL
Since subcontractors and vendors normally provide the bulk of the

hardware, and often Substantial portions of the design, it is im-
perative that all provisions of the Program Plan be executed by
all suppliers to an appropriate depth. See ciapter 19. This
appropriate depth is sometimes difficult to determine, and the
I m
22-21
contractor can only ask himself, "If I were designing and manu-
facturing this component, knowing what I do about my application
of it, what tasks would I undertake to make very sure of getting
the required reliability and maintainability?"
There is also the problem of the excellent supplier who says in

effect, "I know my product is good, and I don't need your business
so much that I want to bother with this reliability 'Legerdemain."
If he is the only source, it's a tough nut. But some contractors
are pretty resourceful.. MIL STD 785 states:
"3.5.7 jurplirr and Subcontractor Reliability (and Maintain-

ability) Piograms. The contractor shall be responsible for
assuring that supplier's and ._abcontractors' achieved relia-
bility (and maintainability) levels are consistent with over-
all system requirements. The contractor shall impose, direc-
tly or indirectly, quantitative reliability (and maintainabil-
ity) requirements and acceptance criteria on all echelons of
supp'iers and sul-contractors; and shall incorporate applicable
portions of this standard in subcontracts and purchase orders.
The reliability (and maintainability) program of the contrac-
tor siall contain provisions for surveillance of supplier and
I sub intractor reliability (and maintainability) activities
inclucing failure reporting. The surveillance shall consist
of but not limited to such items as maintaining a supplier
selection progra'• based upon review of the supplier's relia-
biliy (and maintainability) program, quality control system,
examination of his facilities, and past performance, to assure
that suppliers are capable of attaining and maintaining the
required level Df reliability (and maintainability). The con-
tractor shall take all actions necessary to assure that no
changes made by any supplier will reduce reliability (or
maintainability) of the system. Records of each supplier's
performance shall be maintained and reviewed with him period-
ically."
In terms of the contractors task, a comprehensive program would

be established with these words:
"The contractor shall conduct a survey of the reliability

and maintainability capability of each finally-considered
supplier to evaluate (a) his design engineering knowledge
of reliability and maintainability requirements, (b) the
means to achieve such requirements, (c' Lhe analysis techniquep,
44 (d) his minaoeeni- understanding and support of the tasks re-
•, quired, and (e) existing conduct of such tasks. The survey
shal- consider the above reliability and maintainability cap-
22-22
ability, as well as quantitative evidence of achieved MTBF

and MTTR, as prime factors in the selection of every supplier.
"For every suppliers component whose criticality (effect on

system reliability) exceeds a predetermined level, the con-
tractor shall i.o_' ',e in the specification to the supplier
the required quantitative reliability and maintainability,
and the test or other criteria by which they will Le verified
prior to shipment. Specifications detailing all technical
requirements, including tolerances, shall be used for all
critical components whose failure would cause system fcilire-
order~ing by vendor catalog number alone is prohibited."
"The contractor shall require reliability and maintainabili'y

test data, and monthly predictions of product reliability
and maintainability from each supplier of a component whose
applied criticality exceeds the predetermined level, whethcr
in design or production. He shall require monthly progress
reports of each such suppliers Program Plan task, and take
appropriate action."
"The contractor shall conduct .e- urveys every 6 to 12 months,

identical to the pre-award surve and evaluation. He will
maintain for each supplier a currer; rating of reliability
and maintainability (a) engineerinc capability, (b) task
performance, and (c) actual quantitative achievement vs.
prediction, for use in future source selections."
16. MANUFACTURING R & M CONTROL
Once a design is released to manufacture, it has an inherent re-

liability that will either be achieved through good Quality 'on-
trol, or degraded through lack of it. See chapter 20. Whilc
Quality Control is outside the scope of this course, there are a
few tasks that otherwise might not be part of the QC prograr.
Here MIL STD 785 refers to "Critical Items" by which i.-I meant
"items whose failure would cause system failure." In many
systems this can be 80%, of the hardware, so that the "sprcial
handling" aspect beaomes meaningless, and such requirementb are
thus sometimes waived. MIL STD 785 states:
"3.5.4 Critical Items. The contractor shall establish an

effective method for identification, control and special
handling of critical pArts, components, subsystems or other
end items from design through final acceptance. Such methods
shall be described in the contractor's formal policies and
procedures to assure awareness by all affected personnel
22-23
(e.g. design, purchasing, manufacturing, inspection, test,

handling, etc.) of the essential and critical nature of such
items. The methodology used in generating the critical iten
list shall be furnished to the procuring activity. The
method used and the list subsequently generated shall be
subject to review and evaluation of the procuring activity."
"3.5.14 Manufacturing Controls and Monitoring. The contractor

shall have a planned, controlled and scheduled system of pro-
duction control and monitoring to assure that reliability
(and maintainability) achieved in design is maintained during
product ion."
When reliability models are used, every coiponent can be assigned

a "criticality" number, the simplest form of which is merely the
system failure -ate increment due to all of that particular com-
ponent, considering its own failure rate and the way it is used.
Thus the above "critical item" control is better handled as con-
trol of items having a criticality above a predetermined value.
Other aspects, in terms of the contractors detailed tasks, may be
worded:
"The contractor shall plan, control, and audit the procure-

ment, manufacturing, test and transportation program so that
(a) only known-reliability and traceable parts and components
can be used (b) parts and components are packaged and
handled in a manner that does not degrade reliability by
shock, wear, etc., (c) each component carries with it a log
of the serial or lot nuznbers of its constituents, and (d) a
log of every test showing the operational time duration, stress,
environment, failure time and descriptions, and the downtime
actions taken, with time for each, (e) no overstress is
applied to deliverable items, and (f) storage, shelf-life,
ind transportation do not degrade reliability."
17. FAILURE DIAGNOSIS
Failure tn design evaluation, manufacture, test, or operational

use may or may not be due to faulty parts, since a technician may
have adjusted something improperly, or let his screwdriver fall
into a sensitive circuit. And usually he won't admit it. Also
operators have been known to make mistakes, reporting a failure
to protect their hides. But without hunan error, and without
faulty parts, components can still fail to work due to design
tolerances o- interfaces between parts. See chapter 16.
I.
22-24
But if reliability is important, these must bL one ironclad rule-

about all failures. Never, bhit never, should a failure go un-
diagnosed, nor unrecorded. F- the failure, yes, but it is far
more important to take meticulous steps to prevent its recurrence.
MIL STD 785 states:
"3.5.3.2 Emtrgency Reporting of Defective Parts. When a MIL

specification or a MIL part is deemed suspect by the develop-
ment contractor, the contractor shall: (a/ indicate reason
with supporting evidence of this conclusion, (b) perform
failed part diagnosis and analysis of those parts 0eýemcl
suspect development, acceptance tests, and other r( 'ated
activities, (c) whenever possible, reach a con-ilusion relative
to the cause of failure, and (d) repo-t by most expeditious
means to the procuring activity with concise supportinc data
when, and only when, it has been concluded that a part is un-
satisfactory for any of thp foll-)winq reasons:
(1) A part which was accepted as meeting a MIL specifi-

cition but which failed to perform to expectations, iuci
failure - 1at•
+' 1on•!,,•,Ždributable to: (a Ia dNuf':tur
ing procedures, choice of material, or Wesiqn of rart,
(b) test and inspect.on disciplines.
(2) A military part spec" fication which -s inadeguatt in

that it (a) dcces not take advantage of the state-ot--the-
art, (b) requires amendment to encourage advancement ot
the state-of-the-art, or (c) requires revision fb:r :-laritv."
"3.5.15 Failure Data Collection, Analysis, and Correct iv,

Action. (a) The contractor shall have and shall reuiro
major subcontractors to have a closed-loop ;yitem fo>r collec-
ting, analyzing, and recording all failures that occur .Iuring
phases of tests required for system elements includir' those
that are performed in-plant and at installation sites. The
contractor shall describe his fai'lure repotrting procetduris,
inclL'•ing flow charts, for the analysis, feedbacýk aaid
corrective action as part of the prooram plan (see 3.3.)1.
Tne failure reporting system shall include provision4 to
assure that effective corrective acticns are taken tn a
timely basis to reduce or prevent repetition of the faijires.
The contractor shall establish scheduled audits tc rv-ie-w all
open reports, analyses, dates for corrective action :ind
report all delinquencies to management."
"(b) The contractor shall commence failure reporting with

initial development testing or operatio.i includiig operating
22-25
e,.uipent at receivingj inspectIif-n, at a vendor's plant. in

fin-laso1, hcor or duringl acceptance testing. A.-
unscheduledl ad just-ýent, ,t'her Ithan a calibrat ion mAde dur ing
other -naintenancc boc.ause_ r cnv.enience, sha'!I be de tined as
afailure for reportinQ purposes. Failure of components ptior
to incorporation into an assembly shall1 be rccorded separately
and reported."
"(c) The contractor shall submit failure re,'port sumkiaries

as specified by the pro curingi ýctivity."
1.DArA 2.xCQUISITION & REDT-CTTO-N
Wit'hout convincinq evidence that his beloved brain-child is un-

reliable, the Lies-ocn enoineer cannot take serious ly the claim that
higher reliaibility is nee2ded. Tnat evidence is operational stress
time- and failure dlata. The source of such data can only be the
user oIf the system, in this case the Navy. A real. s-lution to
the iproblem is not yet in sight, though several Qroups are working
hard on it. Soe Chapter 9,.
one problem is that the mraintenanceý technician himself is never

a depe..ablte (Aata coll1e to,-r. He often has tremendous pressure
toc resto_.re oper-ation, .0nfrin-4 data necis until a timie that it
can ni.longe be- 'ýbtiined . One survey (8 p.217 No.10) states
Ohat 1) ton> -wo. f N cv faill'res are. -,ettinq re;rýcrted. See
Chaputer 42t,, 1ecins 8 .1
An Litcr pz-bhiom is t;.:t '. er _ir)inq oie(ý- fo,-r data wIll. result in
- 1.'e
mIten:1Aict, Sit(- p.'P+ro0 k uniless, thiey are consolidated
irtsjmle
a ! a~ n'tm-t1er is~-hat even when diata gets back
t- a contric ttiftr ",,,enis t,inde to- analyze it properly
i+roerl f ~r Bu'v!hip.-; ýr even his Own t~uture ;u id.Anc-c Mi 1-
(3~.'~Tlne c _ntrac7tor- shall exp~lain thte !trthoG by which

t~~.ro e.~ t a 'init iatd. r a'yui anid recordinng of
failures sh-ill ifrtie between, but not be restricted
to, those d te a'ent. f.-Ailure in,! those due to_ hua
ro;
r Ir e Sai iesng Wn
AT1 i nc;, t r an s p.cr t. i
stor ti";i1ntatin ino, anmu outprAt '&n the eýu imvent . F I ~Ps ei
time indicato-Irs c'- u.vtcnt c,-oters sha'1 1.) be t ili zed or a
lqx shill be mai~nt ained to repcri accurulat edl or~orat ion
timie oc op-e: at io.n cycles onsystem cj.oi\rients that aire t, , n
or operation-Cycl- se~nsit ixc. The fainlu~re repeort~inq syotem
~.nll e es icne *cb c)jitibe with the maintenance
dat a collection syst em of th-e procurtno: o,-r vo inn act ý%'ity so
22-26
that, as the system nears the operational inventory phase,

transition to in-service failure reporting can be accomplished
with the minimum disturbance and maximum continuity of effort."
Lona before the contractor has any hardware to fail, his design
engineers need the best obtainable data in order to achieve the
required reliability and maintainability. Then as the hardware
is produced he needs it to evaluate test results, and then
operational data permits refinement of that and future designs.
BuShips can got better designs if it is in a position to offer:
"BuShips will provide pertinent obtainable operational

reliability (stress time and failures), maintaindbility
(MTTR), manhours/failure and cost ($ per failure other
than manhours) aata to the contractor. During design,
manufacture, test and checkout, it will be on components
similar to those to be furnished to"the contractor. During
operational use it will. be on the system, subsystems, and
componeihts furnished by the contractor, furnished period-
ically until the syste.• is retired."
Another problem is that only a few contractors have developed

continuously-operating data-reduction systems that provide
information to design engineers in convenient form. See chapter
18 section 4.1 for such a system now uncder development.
"The contractor shall collect corresponding data from his owr

design, suppliers, production, test, and checkout activity.
He shall combine this with data furnished by BuSl.'ips to main-
tain current records of reliability, maintainability and total
cost of all components, with due regard to environments in-
volved. This shall be made available for convenient use by
all design engineers on current and subsequent system designs."
"He shall analyze such data and, using his reliability and/or
availability, model of the system, quarterly repoi.t the current
system and subsystem reliability and availability and (if
available' cost-effectiveness to the Bureau."
19. VERIFICATI IN
Seldom can we wait until an entire system is assembled to find

out by test whether it has adequate reliability and maintain-
ability. For by then the accumulation of errors would almost
certainly equarantee serious schedule slippage and cost overrun.
On the other hand we cannot afford a separate sequential test
for every unknown or unverified parameter. Thus most contractors
22-27
develop "integrated test" plans which seek to get the aiaximum

information but of the fewest possible number of tests, and at the
earliest f-easible time to permit scheduled correction of defi-
ciencies. Mil-Std-7e'" states:
"3.5.1 Test Requirements for Developmefi Qualification and

Acceptance. A Planned and scheduled program of functional
and environmental testing of equipment shall be conducted
during design and development phases to estimate achieved
reliability and to provide feedback of data as a basis for
making reliability improvements. The development testing
program shall confirm adequacy of selection of components
and parts, determine capabilities and safety margins,
evaluate drifts of component parameters with time, and
determine failure-modes and relative failure-rates."
"If such data are not available, all items of the system
deterrtined by the reliability studies (3.3.2 and 3.3.3) to
have a significant bearing on inherent reliability shall be
tested early in the development program, unless other valid
proof of adequacy can be presented."
W
Keeping in mind the di.qcussion of "critical item" vs. "critical-

ity" in Section 16.0 above, Mil-Std.-785 states:
"3.5.1.1 Environmental Requirements for Equipment Design

and Test.ng. If maximum environmental stress conditions have
not been established by the producing activity these shall be
estimated from experience on past proqrams, and a test program
for development, qualification, and acceptance shall be
generated on this basis. Development and qualification tests
shall be planned! to evaluate the adequacy of design of equip-
ment for the expected conditions in the use-..envircnment (e.g..,
ground operation, launch, flight and orbit). The test plans
shall include consideration of equipinent, location, insulation
shock-mounting, truss mounting, etc."
"Environmental problem areas shall be identified at the

system, subsystem, component and part level, and the effects
of these problems on system reliability shall be estimated
on equipments, components, or parts identified as critical.
Detailed end specific review of environmental factors
affecting .reliability shall be performed. In addition to
qualification and acceptance testing, additional testing
shall be performed on critical items, such as life testing
or failure-mode testing, to assess the affects of the
environments on such critical items, and to determine
22-28
adequacy of safety margins incorporated by system design,

subject to approval by the procuring activity."
"3.5.1.2 Component Part Testing. All• co)mponent parts to be

used in production equipment shall be assigned a reliability
index, failure rate, or expected probability of failure under
stated stress levels. The reliability test procedures of
applicable military part specifications and testing spec-
ifications shall be used. Where the contractor deems these
test procedures not applicable, he shall submit a just-
ification of non-applicability 3nd a description of the test
procedures which he plans to use. A current record of the
results shall be maintained. The test data shall be retained
for a minimum period of two years from completion of contract.
The test data shall be made available to information and (lata
exchange activ.4ties upon request of the piocuring activity."
"3.5.1.3 Maximum Preacceptance Operation. The contractor

shall provide and maintain a current list of items having
critically limited useful lives (total operating time or
operating cycle) in their application. Derivation of
maximum allowable operating time for cycles of operation)
shall be clearly defined with element" of data and me-hods
of computations. The contractor shall propose ior approval
the time or number of equivalent operating cycles that is
not to be exceeded prior to acceptance of (.het contractor's
product. He shall ensure that each such item, has its total
operating time or number of equivalent opera-ing cycles
recorded, starting with and including its initial functional
test, whether at the contractor's facility or a supplier's
facility. Upon mutual agreement between the procuring
activity and the contractor, any item may be dropped from
the above list, or its limit revised, when changes in the
items useful life indicate the need for such revisions."
"3.5.10 Statistical Methods. The contractor's reliability

program shall incorporate optimum utilization of statistical
planning and analysis. This shall include application of
such methods as design of experiment, analysis of variance,
and other methods applicablt. to design, development and
production phases."
The basic final verification of achieved reliability is the

"sequential" life test, which is usually what is meant by
"reliability demonstrations". However the fcllowing Mil-Std-785
paragraphs do not limit reliability testing to such sequential
life test, :
22-29
"3.5.16 Rc'liability Demonstrati,.n
"3.5.16.1 Initial Plan. An initial plan for demonstration of

achieved reliability (and maint-ainability) at specified mile-
stones, including estimated number of test articles and if not
specified by the procu ing activity ; quantitative estimate of
the confidence level, shall be prepar,<' by the contractor and
submitted in a section of the reliab:'lity program plan. The
jeneral plans for demonstration of reliability shall include
trade-off curves showing number of test articles and operating
test time ,;r test effort versus confidence, and will encompass
testing at the system major element level, and major sub-
system or component levels separately and in combiaation.'
"3.5.16.2 Final Plan. Eiaal plan for demonstrating achieved

reliability (and maintainability) shall include any revisions
to data in the initial plan, and the groLund rules and con-
ditions for deciding whether a test shall be classified as a
success or failure, or shall be excluded due to invalid test
data. Reliability demonstration plans shall apply all results
of testing and operations from whiich valid reliability measure-
rment or assessment can be obtained. Engineering tests and
analysis, e.g., test to failure concepts, shall be included
to supplement statistical measures. The milestones that are
to constitute demonstration of contract compliance shall be
established and incorporated in the contractual documents.
Specific plans for conducting a reliability demonstration
shall be submitted for approval at the time specified by the
procuring activity."
"3.5.16.3 Test Plans. .%- test plans contained in. (785 says
Mil-Std-781, but BuShips test plans are contained in Mil-R-
22732B), when applicable, shall be applied."
But often reliability life tests are utterly impractical time-

and cost-wise, so verification has to be achieved by other means.
See Chapter 11. Since testing is often the most expensive part
of a reliability program, this section of the Program Plan
deserves considerable emphasis. There should be provision for
the other techniques where they are necessary. And simple
economy demands some kind of integrated test plan:
"The contractor shall completely list and briefly describe

the parts, components, and system to undergo any kind of
verification of reliability or maintainability. Most of
these will be part of a lrger list of all components to be
tested, included in the Technical Proposal, and should be
22-30
coded thereto."
"For each component above to be tested, he will refer to a

description of the 4pplicable reliability and/or maintain-
ability test procedure, and state quantity to be tested,
test criteria, and results anticipated."
"For each component above to be verified by othitr than test,
he will briefly state the rationale for such decision, the
anticipated analytical procedure, criteria, and results
anticipated."
"The contractor will provide a chart showing the time, in

relation to overall design, manufacture, and acceptance
t.est schedules, at which each above test or other verification
will be conducted."
20. SUMMARY
In this chapter we have described, in words that may be used by

the Project Engineer to the contractor, 19 quite basic relia-
bility and maintainability tasks. 'A comprehensive program on a
large project will require the contractor to do nearly all of
them. A small project, or a parts supplier, may need to do only
a few of them. The determination of such selection and depth
is covered in Chapter 23.
Mil-Std-785 is quoted verbatim herein wherever applicable to the

19 tasks, and all its remaining paragraphs, since they do not
apply to specific tasks, are quoted in. Chapter 23. It will be
apparent that Mil-Std-785 must be supplemented by additional
tasks and detail wherever a comprehensive program is needed
21. REFERENCES
(1) Reliability Management of Department of Defense Military

Systems, Military Standard Mil-Std-785.
(2) Reliability Requirements for Shipboard and Ground Electronic

Equipment, Military Specification Mil-R-22732B (SHIPS),
Amendment 1, 10 March 1964.
(3) Maintainability Requirements for Shipboard and Shore

Electronic Equipment and Systems, Military Specification
Mil-M-23313A (SHIPS), Amendment 1, 29 January 1964.
(4) Industrial Universities, Time Magazine, August 28, 1964,

22-31
page 44.
(5) Presentation for AIAA-SAE-ASME Reliability and Maintain-

ability Conference, by Rear Admiral Emerson Fawkes, USN,
Assistant Chief, BuWeps R&D Test & Evaluation, May 7, 1963.
(6) Value Engineering Handbook Hill, 26 March 1963, Office of

the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Installations and
Logistics), Washington 25, D. C.
(7) Value Engineering of Naval Ordnance Equipment, Mil-V-21237.

Also BuWeps Note 13052 dated September 1961. Also Value
Engineering of 1,Taval Electronic Equipment, Mil-V-19858.
Als,-Navy Specification and Requirements Impr:Lvement
Program 4120,14 dated 1 May 1962.
(8) Design of Equipment to Optimize Reliability for Manufacturers

and Customers Minimum Total Cost, by Dr. D. Kececioglu and
R. C. Hughes, February 1963, Proceedings of Conference on
Advanced Marine Engineering Concepts for Increased Relia-
bility, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Contract NONR-3931(00) (FB?).
Pl2qe
1. RI'.UliýMENT ESTABLISFIMENT 23- 3

1.1I nvironrnent and Stros,• 23- 3
1.2 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 23- 5
1.3 y2uantiative Design Re-Iu iicr -nents 23- 5
1.4 Applicable Documents 23- 5
2. PROPOSAL MANAGEMENT7 23- 5

2.- Request for Proposal 23- 6
2.1.1 Requirements 23- 6
,.1.2 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 23- 6
2.1.3 Program Plan 23- 6
2.1.4 Proposal Due Dates 23- 6
2.2 Bidder Selection and Confcrence 23- q
2.3 Proposal Evaluation 23-11
2.4 Contract Negotiatvinm 23-11
2.4.1 Traditional Approach 2--i1
2.4.2 Advance Develop-rent Approach 2 -3i
2.4.3 Reliability Incentive Contracts 23-11
2.4.4 Contracting for Cost-Effect ivenoss 23-11
2.4.5 Task Neg3otiation 23-13
2.5 Change Prop,)sals 2,-
?
3. PROGPAM PLP,, 23-1')

3.1 Requirements 23-1])
3.2 Proqram Chart' 21-21
3.2.1 Task Number and Tit lfe 23-21
3.2.2 uoc,-ment Sections 2-
3.2.3 Output 23-23
3.2.4 Responsibility 2 3-23
3.2.5 Manpower 23-2 3
3.2.6 Task Schedule 23-24
3.3 Task Delineation 23-24
3., Organization 23-26
3.4.1 %:,nvar,y Structi.!r 23-26
3.4.2 Policy Direction 23-27
3.4.3 Respxnsibi lity and Althoritv 23-27
3.4.4 Program Control 23-28
1.5 ComnP C-enC e 2 3-2,q
3 • 5. I Progr ares 23-2 i
3.5.2 Technolog'. Pevelopm•-nt 2 3-2o
3.5.3 Industry Participation 23-29
3.5.4 Resumes 23- 2)
2 3-2
L...5 TasK Experience 23-29

3.5.6 Supplier Competence 2 1--
3.6 Shipbuilding Procuremen's 23-30
4. PROPOSAL E"VALUATION 11
4.1 Broad Evaluation 23-31
4.1.1 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 23-31
4.1.2 Proqram Requirements 23-31
4.1.3 Program Planning 23-32
4.1.4 Organization 23-33
4.1.5 Comptterice 23-34
4.2 Task Evaluation 23-35
4.3 Program Plan Rating 23-43
4.4 Evalu:tion Summary M.:rrix 23-1*5
4.5 De-Briefing 23-47
5. COST-EFFECTIVENESS PROVISIONS 23-47

3.1 Cost-Fffecti-eness Analysis 23-48
5.1.1 Cos:-Effectiveness Analysis 23-48
5.1.2 Contracting for Cost-Effectiveness 23-51
5.2 Proposal EvaluatLion 23-54
5.4 Broad Evaluat ion 23-54
5.1.1 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 23-54
5. Evalvation Suimmary Matrix 23-57
6. INARY 23 5I
7. R FLFR ENC5 2FS-60
5I
23-3
Chapter 23
CONTRACT PLANNING
This chapter deals with the broad content of reliability and

maintainability programs, with emphasis upon the Project Manage-
ment actions necessary to plaln and organize such programs to
matci, the requirements. The Project Management act~ions necessary
to conduct, evaluate end control such programs will be found in
Chapter 24. Detailed treatment of specific program elements will
be found in Chapters 3 •hrough 22..
Tihroughout this chapter and Chapter 22, the MIL-STD-785 Specifi-

cation language is quoted wherever it is applicabie, and supple-
mented by other language as needed. Thus these two chapters
contain all such selected and recommended specification language.
However, Chapter 17 contains extracts from many other specifi-
cations, useful as a reference for special situations.
1. REQUIREMENT ESTABLISHMENT
DOD has issued (1) Firective 3200.9 requiring a Project Defini-

tion Phase I preceding A'cqulsition Phase II (for actual hardware
development and production) applicable to all new (or major modi-
fication) RDT&E Engineering Development or Operational System
Development projects over" $25 million, or requiring production
costing over $100 million,. PDP Phase I results in a PDP Report
which actually contains tie requirements for Phase II. Whether,,
or not PD? is applicable to a given BaShips program, the require-
ments (2) listed in Figure 23-4 express the DOD point of view,
and can serve as a policy for any program.
The purpose of any reliability and maintainability program is to

actually achieve the optimum quantitative level of reliability
and maintainability. To achieve less produces inadequate system
effectiveness and/or excessive maintenance cost. To achieve more
may require excessive contractor program costs. Thus it is
obvious that solid requirements must be established befort it is
possible to determine an appropriate program. The detailed steps
for definition of requirements have been given in Chapter 2.
1.1 ENVIRONMENT AND STRESS
The BuShips Tc&nnical Code should first thoroughly establish the

conditions, in as much detail as feasible, uinder which the planned.
system must operate for all probable missions during its u'se".N
2 3)-4
0C >
Cd ' Z,-
-~ C C
- d
o -~
CL 0
-~ -~ oo0
> -~
=
-d0
0
-- ¾4-6 w ~ 4E 0
-
OU
23-5
ful lifetime. The Project Engineer should:
"Completely state the operational environruent and external

stresses acting on the system, by mission and operational
phase or mode, for the anticipated system lifetime, using
stress distributions whenever feasible.
1.2 COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
See Section 5.1 for future provisions.
1.3 QUANTITATIVE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
Satisfaction of these requirements is the basic objective of

the entire Reliability and Maintainability Program Plan. The
Project Engineer should therefore:
"State the required minimum acceptable (mandatory) and opti-

mum reliability (MTBF, % success for specified mission time,
etc.), maintainability (MTTR, MAXTR, manpower, etc.) and/or
availability (% uptime on demand, continuously, etc., toget-
her with the test acceptance criteria or other means by
y• which each will be verified prior to BuShips acceptance, and
wherever feasible, the quantitative required confidence levels."
1.4 APPLICABLE DOCTUMENTS
Several documents are always applicable by DOD, Navy, and BuShips

policy. However most of these are quite broad, so that some in-
dividual sections of them do not logically apply. Thus it is
very important, in the interest of economy and to avoid the
propagation of unnecessary paperwork and confusion, to select
the applicable sections. The Project Enginber should therefore:
"Based on the actual reliability and maintainability values

to be required of the contractor, and taking all BuShips
policies into account, list the applicable top documents.
For each document specifically list the section numbers
that apply, together with any modification of a section
language that may be necessary. Identify which are mandatory
and which subject to contractor recommendation. Provide a
file. record of the reasons for the above."
2. PROPOSAL MANAGEMENT
So far as reliability and maintainability are concerned, this may

be the most critical phase, deserving the greatest attention.
23-6
For it is a fact that there are far more "lip service" relia-
bility programs, even amonq otherwise very competent contractors,
than there are bona fide reliability achievement urcgrams. Every
poss-ble step must be taken to make sure the potential contractor
understands what he is getting into.
i.. 1 PLQT.EST FOR PROPOSAL
Again let's review in Figures 23-7 and 23-8 what the DOD view-
pcint is for R&D over $25 million. We continue to find heavy
emphasis upon definition of requirements, encourauement of con-
tractor alternatie-er. an the balance of cost,
schedule and p,-formance (i.e., effectiveness). We find in-
struction to advise the contractor concerning proposaol evaluation
criteria and the requirement for specification of quantitative
We will concern ourselves only with those elements of a Request

for Proposal (RFP) or Procurement Request that. affect reliability
and maintainability, since all other elements are thoroughly
covered elsewhere. In each of the following sections we will
give a bit of background, followed by paragraphs (in quotes) as
examples of wording that BuShips engineers may use in writing
the RFP.
2.1.1 Requirements: As a result of the prior definition and

analysis work outlined in Sections 1.1, 1.3 and 1.4 above, the
Project Engineer is in a posit.ion to state requirements in the
RFP. Should he temporarily be unable to specify reliability and
meintainability requirements, the contractor should nevertheless
be asked to state what be will achieve.
2.1.2 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: See Section 5.1.1 for future

provisions.
2.1.3 Program Plan: This principal element of the RFP, Proposal

and resultant contract is treated separatelý in section 3. and
its detailed Task DeMination in chapter 22.
2.1.4 Proyosal Due Dates: It is an unfortunate fact that many

proposals are assembled in a great deal of pressure, without
adequate tirme for analysis, supplier consultation, and thorough
costing. What is worse, the reliability and maintainbbility
specialists are often asked to "write a page or two," with no
opportunity for influencinm, the proposed design and its costing.
The reasons are largel, in the contractors own house, and the
suggested RFP wording in this chapter should get attention by
k
23-7
00 '
o co
d -IC.
0
0 4
& r.
m C4
41
0 0 4
0 r.
4. 010
M ~ Aj >
o >o-
02
00
23-8
LID )
-0 c I 0 (
Ct-
04
0-
C)C 0
S- f. r-)Ic
44 01- f-La Cz C CIDC.

0
U C) C.)
- .- 4.
0 -
CO C) M 0. m~~~
"od -d .
$44 C . W
Ci)~~~~
-u C~. 0 0
tooj ?c.dr. .
ci;
>1 4-4
Q) -0 CID m) .
C.) - ~'cC 0.P)a
oo cd >d .)
0Z~ 0 0u
aC. () Q)t CID
U) c') CLOC
Q) CT CO
C 54
23-9
h:z right people.
Under no circumstances should the known desirable bidders be

. ! thant 60 days after receipt of the RFP and attendance
at the bidders conference. If a thoroi.gh analysis is required,
such as the cost-effectiveness analysis in section 2.1.2, it
should b, 90 days. Another suggestion is to provide a series of
d.ue dates, requiring the analysis, design, and management/cost
prop,-•sals sequentially 30 days apart.
2.2 BIDDER SELECTTON AND CONFERENCE
Of coOurse bidders arc always selected from among those known to

have. t'e technical and management capability, particularly in-
cluding tho-se having experience with similar design and construct-
ion. The folluwing is quoted (5) from DOD Defense Procurement
Circular dated 4 March 1964-
"In working toward better defense procurement, nothing is more

basic to satisfactory procurement than that we deal only with
responshble prospective contractors. Contract awards to con-
cerns of marginal capabilities can load only to delays or
failures in obtaining delivery of needed items and t. increas-
ed eventual costs to the GoverrLment."
"The present regulatory guidance on responsible prospective

contractor's (ASPR Section I, Part 9) is adequate. It is not
that new rules are needed, but that our present rules must be
understood and followed. Importantly, ASPR requires an
affirmative determination that the prospective contractor is
responsible before any contract award may be made: there must
be a-,ositivee judgment that he will. perform the contract on
schledule in accordance with its terns.
This e•;-'udes the company whose qualifications are no better

than bortderline as to production capacity, financial capability,
pa,_;Leriormance, or any of the other minimum standards. It
excludes the company whose continuing capability throughout
the period of performance is jeopardized by a pending bankruptcy
reoyganization or other evidence of financia'. difficulty which
may culminate in loss of %oeededfinancial capabilltties during
the perioc' of contract performa nce.
It mc.ans that, in predicting whether a company will perform

the contract satisfactorily, it must be assumed that the
Government will use vigilant and forceful contract admin...,tra-
tion. It is not acceptable to make a determination of res-
2 3- 10
ponsibility which envisions completed contract performance

only, after extreme Goveriment financial assistance and marked
lenience in enforcing delivery schedules or other contract
terms.
"Full understanding of the •.Iportance of affirmatively deter-

mining that the prosFp ctive contractor is responsible should
assist our effoL-ts to increase the use of formally advertised
procurement. Use of negotiation is never justified by a fear,
that advertising may lead to award to a contractor who is un-
likely to perform satisfactorily. The standards of responsi-
bility for contractors are precisely the same for advertised
as for negotiated procurements. If a company would be rejected
as not responsible notwithstanding a low offer in a negotiated
procurement, the same company should be -cj ,"twitistaning
A low hid on an enuivalent advertised procurement. The con-
tractiiv officer has tne same rlght and duty to deLermiiie non-
responsibility in one case as in the other.
"I have asked the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Installations

and Logistics) to take the necessary steps to bring the import-
ance of responsibility determinations to the attention of all
contracting officers.
" iqn•,
ed
ROBERT S. M(-4AMARA
Secretary o- Defense"
The recent incorporation of quantitative reliability and maintain-

ability requirerients certainly does not change these very sound
selection criteria. On the other hand these techniques, and the
tasks necessary to achieve specified reliability and maintain-
ability, are new to many BuShips contractors. Some will not know
what "MTBF" meat~s. They will have many questions, and there is
no satisfactory substitute for a bidders conterenct at wb'ch the
Bureau design and reliability/maint, nability people 4 Lntly
respond to the questions. But unless the e,.,ntractors reliability/
maintainability specialist is specifically invited, the contractor
probably won't send one even when he does ha '(!such competence.
The Project Engineer may write in the r P:
"The contractor will send questions concerning reliability

and maintainability, in writini, to (state name, address) to
arrive no later than (state date). He will then send one
reliability./!'nintainability specialist, as well as other
invited representatives, to the bidders conference to be
held (state date, time and place)."
23-11
2.3 PROPOSAL EVALUATION
Background, formats, and procedures for proposal evaluation are

discussed in section 4.
2.4 CONTRACT NEGOTIATION
This is a large subject. We are concerned here only with those

aspects related to reliability and maintainability. But these
aspects are so serious that they have unquestionably caused much
systeirr unreliability.
2.4.1 Traditional Approach: Wherivr uie design techniques are

well-establishpH, a..d dli contractors know very well just what
,hey have to do to satisfy the stated needs, the traditional con-
tractual approach works fine. BuShips states its exact require-
"'Pnts, the contractnrs bid, and-award is made to the lowest bidder
who has the necessary capability.
2.4.2 Advance Development Aproach: When the design techniques

are not yet established, and no capable contractor can be sure
what development will cost, the cost-plus-fixed-fee approach has
been widely used. However it has been abused and is currently
discredited. But it does recognize the basic problem of con-
tracting for uncertainty.
Now reliability, in its youth, reflects a design uncertainty.

Not only that, it is an uncertainty of much greater impact on
cost and effectiveness than many typical cost-plus development
uncertainties. Small wonder that it is difficult to get realistic
fixed price commitments on new developments with guaranteed relia-
bility.
2.4.3 Reliability Incentive Contracts: Recent DOD instructions

(6) for incentive contracting treat Reliability (barely) as part
of "performance", (not Performance Capability), and Availability
not at all. They do not reflect recognition of the problem that
has arisen.
There have been a few ccntracts that adjust the percent fee in
accocdance with achieved values of % reliability. Typically such
a contract has paid the order 0.3% added fee for each percent of
reliability improvement above a stated target, and conversely
below it. This is in addition to the cost-incentive fee that
pays 10% of any savings below a target, and conversely above.
Figure 23-12 shows how it works.
2 3-12
>-44
F-i 0
UHH
23-13
?Tnfortunately the cost to contractor of achieving so-y 2% higher

riIhbilitv is much greater at 9/0' than_70%. The difficulty
and cost depends directly upon how close the reliability is to
... o. So the more reliability a contractor achieves the. less he
is paid for it. It works out so that the contractor is actually
penalized if he tries to get over 90%. See Chapter 26, section
7.8.
2.4.4 Contracting for Cost-Effectiveness: See section 5.1.2 for

future provisions.
2.4.5 Ta'sk Negotiation: Every proposed task should be analyzed

for content, output, who needs it, and manpower. 'Who needs it"
must account for Bureau as well as contractor needs. Figure 23-14
shows how reliability can be substantially affected by task select-
.on, even without increasing Acquisition Cost, but that actual
design for specified reliability requires additional design costs.
The ultimate determination whether each task is needed should be

made cnly by nt - -.__* Z ,,,ee- -n -- .. . D_ýIL]s
reliarility/maintainabilitv specialists. The ultimate decision
concerning proper manpower for each task shoul~i be made only
the contractors reliability/maintainability r.:resentative.
Negotiation will. often be detrimental to reliability and cost-
effectiveness unless both are present. See Chapter 24, section 4.
The reliability of many systems has been degraded by negotiation
decisions made by people unaware of the consequences.
2.5 CHANE PROPOSALS
Change proposals, either hy the contractor or BuShips, should be

evaluated identically to new proposals. It makes little sense to
carefully evaluate the original proposal and make decisions vital-
ly affecting reliability, then ignore the effect of altered ._lia-
bility and maintainability in changes.
On the other hand, it is very demoralizing for a contractor to

propose chang#- after change that his reliability prediction says
xv needed to achieve required reliability, only to have them
turnea downm by the customer for reasons like "logistic problerns".
This keeps happening.
The answer would appear to be that the contractor should only sub-..
mit change proposals 'Then his own inst-effectiveness analysis says
"they're worth doing. If he's right BuShips will agree. Or at
"least BuShips should us, such analysis to decide on their dis-
pos it ion.
23-14
______- -1
~~m
HL
K7
Iy 2
- z
cc
~ -E
ISOD 3VILLO-D
o IN3-1u3
23-15
3 PPPo~~ LN
ca, ni )m 1 Cal
AIi cdIu a ten e (I e;co i r J 1a1 iS a ch udb h do i -,g
t h f ri1 ht th i-1 a t che r i Pit t m e. ti a ctiiir acteor i st P.rw"- ch
canno~t be imuarted at any ojne( .. t htc nbt h ur 'ih
cajn bc dtes ;nttio t niin -i'e or z ion. Tn

conta1s''St em. rei abilityt 'ot herl,1 1, t c.,ons oýu 4n ce o f
eut-,ry hIus I i Iec is i,- inI SSt em mid hardwaI-r, levI'jpifent must be
cI ~-alconmzed andc! s o d to-. (itt the ri-ihit "-isult.
This i-'1e a &e j 9'i n techn cail .md proorair minaý4o-
mren T 0 i ff; ýul,
1.i' vi s v e :v d e 'I'lln t Ko t r adit ion al
communicit ic~n net.'sa-rk ofirutra manoot( -t~nt.
ThV- 'aqraml
.1 rm thir t cre tc rte ',has b) en tý-ndl titeressary for
7,anaoern..*lnt ~ rccoonit 'n ft t`-i rt>1 eu' oint
0 (b) assur-
aaceI tha~t the necess iry tis-, z3at planned-I s 'rne ouled, fundled and
-Icc tn LShod ~nt-'(, (C" technical visibilitv oýf tho ultimate
conseo:uence §altt~
a mat iveýe iq U"ClL'As, and (~ii)v iltY,
tnooat d.es i-n, of tie pro'bable rcsult vs. repjuirements . W ith -
out such, at l-n t-eK ab i I i tv -achiev em~ent, i s ve ry c xioons ive and i n-
V ri, c 1 aIh i tv an a nt ai rih IIiltv

ai a,ý t a n.;r is onily what the
t'S I M"'" noor 'o -I+S t"' Tt' -e.-' trite, hut vei4: true. Ye t
'el ~11
teh"'K h "e s , c.ýl lx,
' and th~e l1itera-
tui' S V 1 -'Irvu.s, t "i~t t'( .-cre ýi u e0s1 -r' e n, i n eer c..inno't ia5-)
'bv e>zmu M ot i t n I _ti,,'be
aua n enuineer. Co
t~r
ad t ''t'' Imu lt VAr' -- ot a; nib i i tv
s'ei S~t.t U
Su t iv oie" Pt rel i -Abj litv
in~ ,utter~' iwte 1 it it is- nct an :Lnf -ura I pal t
o~t''-'- nu
*- n ~h f t s to be used~.
etI 'iaeý
I1 p0Li~riy i n, b o-n a in--
ti i 1to 'Kn
TI e I' S M
The Et i 0- 'it in. Y,t 1n t i mil4

i I 'epend ti
(oiiv
r I11it' PruoqraI-m
¾ eie
' 1; U n'. t dot a lo
7''tn t. of I viuncte.rstan-din'T
1 -
.o-t<' t IV 'What -I'l 1 1 I e is3ht'dM t a ch ev' r equl r vd r eli
1i 1 1It\ -IT.. : ll tit in-iLlnitv In 1 ia 1i t c )nsti'tlut es Bureau
i%,
a ;r eener~t w t ý 'lie i t*v >i itv Then it~ be-ones the Bureau
.Agr-conent ,N-ith tli.Ac n rlict.r. F'inally it I's thle contractors
:rr''SI %'c' . t -t
.oderst
emcnt tiS I u! andIi n% at the problm~, what
hewIl I ho)W1'kh II it, -.'.hen he w-ill c.-nplIet e vach i tem,
WI i tv
iI 11c iroralin-. havc bfeen ;uitc tb) rouohly devcecoped
0 by ,ntna ra c ar s' ovr *)hýe pa st ~ v' ea rs. Mvint:a in -
ailt ~npan-s have been cI %ybr i efIy devecloped , and they
Al
i
23 -16
essentially parrot conrentional reliabili t program plauns ,er

has been some effort (9) to combine the two, but without much
consolidation of tasks common to both. The tc.liowinq treatment
cover,; both, and wherever one task will accomp'lish botli it -s
stated. This will minimize paperwork, cost, ,nd cc.nf-'sion.
While BuShips may wish to add, delete, or alter many itemns of the
contractors proposed plan, there absolutelv must be aureement on
its c'ntert and meaning before work starts. Keeping in mind that
we have added the "(aud rnaintainibi ity) wherever it is equally
applicable, MIL-STD-785 states:
"3.1 Reliability (and maintainability) Assurance Program..

The contractor shall establish and mainlain an effective and
oconomical reliability (and maintainability) assurance program,
planned, integrated, -nd developed in conjunction with other
planning functions. The program shill be mdjusted to suit the
type and (design, development, or prod'c::tion) phase of the
procuremcnt. The program shall be based upon the severity of
the requirements, the complexity of the design, the quantity
under procurement, and the manufacturing techniques required.
The program shall as 4ure -dequate reliability (and maintain-
ability) consideration throughout all aspects of the design,
development., or produc+tion a., necessary to meet the contract-
ual reliability (and maintainability) requirements."
"3.3 Reliability (anC Maintainability) Plan."
"3.3.1 Proposed Reliability (and Maintainability)

Plan. The
contractor's proposed reliability (and maintainability) pro-
gram p~.an, in accordance with the requirements of the work
statement and this standard, shall be submitted as a separate
and comnple-e entity within the contractor's proposal for the
system. The proposed plan must be an integrated effort within
the total program plan; it shall provide specific information
as to how the contractor will meet specified quantitative
Leliabilit-, (and maintaiuiablity) requirements during develop-
ment anu manufacture including the desi.,n conce ts to be
utilized. The proposed manner of demonstrating reliability at
stated confidence levels shall be described. The proposed
reliability (and ma~ntainability) progralA plan, as approved by
the procaring activity will become a contract compliance docu-
ment; reliabilitv (and maintainability) test plans must be an
inteo-al part. of the program test plan."
In order to encourage uniformity across proposals to permit valid

evaluation, the Project Engineer may add these words:
23-17
"'rlMis Plan shall contain sections on (a) Requirements, (b)

Program Charts, (c) Program Tasks, (d) Organizatio-., and (e)
Competence, as detailed below. The content of every section
must state primarily (a) what will be done to be exactly res-
ponsive to BuShips stated requirements, then (b) the con-
tractors alternative recommendation, if any, and then invari-
ably (c) what portion tne. eIfis already in contractor opera-
tion or has been done on past stated contracts."
"If the contractor is Successful, all proposed sections (ex-

cept Ccopetence) will be negotiated in detail and, upon agree-
ment, will become the contractual Program Plan. Though
it may later be modified by mutual agreement, it is the sole
contractual statement of reliability and maintainability work
and results to be obtained."
The necessary content of the Program Plan, and especially the

Program Tasks included, will vary widely depending upon (a) the
gap between needed and available reliability and maintainability,
(b) how well the available reliability and maintainability is
known, and (c) the design level (system vs. parts). Figure 23-18
shows a recommended "starting point" for a very comprehensive
program, but actual selection of tasks must rest on the specific
situation. The table applies only to "critical" reliability and
maintainability it*= as defined in Chapter 27. However, there
may be many items of such low "criticality" (sytem failure rate
increment due to that item) relative to others that such control
of ther may not be cost-effective. "Criticality", incidentally,
is a numerical value on a continuous scale roughly equivalent to
the stepped "levels of essentiality" and "classification of
characteristics" used in quality control techniques where a
prediction mode] is not available.
In an activity as urgent as that of reliability achievement, a

tendency toward over-emphasis often occurs. Since much of the
effort in such programs is support rather than design, its appli-
cation to unnecessary areas can incur significant unneeded expense.
Each Program Task must be weighed carefully in terms olf is con-
tribution to cost-effectiveness. Where Navy experience shows tnh.
traditional deeiqn practice or construction methods produce trou-
ble-free hardware - such as perhaps is the case with internal bulk-
heads, for example - extensive reliability assurance activity is
not warranted.
Even in areas of the design where there is some concern over

reliability, task applicability will vary with the type of hard-
ware. While great care may be needed in receiving inspection
23-18
C.00A _ -
r ~ j O C) OO ~ L)U UQQ>Q
~C
0 d
Co QUQUQQ UQUQU UQOQ
0
uI
44 Cd)
cn~.- c:
C:
o
mu~'~ o\ CuQ
23-19
ard process control for structural materials, with little emphasis

on sophisticated reliability analysis, these latter techniques may
prove most effective in disclosing opportunities for reliability
improv,-.ent of electrical power supplies.
3.1 REQUIREMENTS
Reliability requirements are the foundation of every Program Plan.

To d te, the defense prccurement record is bleak in terms of relia-
bility requirements definition. Studies updated as rjcently as
February 1964, indicate that less than one third of the system
development programs in which reliability is stated to be an
important factor specify this requirement adequately. The result
is that system design and manufacture either ignore or grope
around the edges of reliability technology, with neither customer
nor contractor possessing a yardstick to measure achievement
against. As in any activity, rel ability and maintainability
achievement, and the Program Plan, degenerate to pure motherhood
and sin without quantitative, measurable goals.
The requirements stated in the Dependability Plan must be pre-

faced by adequate operati.o,al information. This includes such
items as planned deployment, reaction time required, duration of
each kind of mission, turn-around time, overall mission relia-
bility, availability, combat ready rate, environmental conditions,
and planned utilization rate. The broad operational maintenance
philosophy and policy must be stated.
Although the BuShips reliability and maintainability requirements

will have been stated to the contractors in the RFP, the contractor
should be required to state them back in the Program Plan, with
recommended modification, if any. The objective is to make very
sure of caomnon understanding and agreement on the baseline upon
which all tasks are based. See Chapter 2. MIL-STD-785 states:
"(3.5.1.1) If maximum environmental stress conditions have

not been established by the procuring activity these shall
be estLmated from experience on past programs ..... Detailed
and specific review of environmental factors affecting
reliability shall be performed."
Since environment and operational stress have a major influence

on reliability achieved, the Project Engineer may wish to add:
"The contractor shall evaluate the BuShips statement of

operational environment and stresses, and recommend any specific
23-20
modifications thereof that in his own experience are appro-

priate. However the proposal must be based upon a least meeting
stated environments and stresses."
Concerning quantitative requirements, MIL STD 785 states:
"3.2.1 Quantitative Requirements. The system reliability

objectives and minimum acceptable requirements shall be as
specified cortractually. The minimum acceptable reliability
requirements for some major subsystems arid equipments may be
included in appropriate sections of the system specification.
The values not established by the procuring activity shall be
established by the system contractor at a contractually speci-
fied control point prior tr- release of design fr r initial
fabrication of specified irticles."
The Project Engineer may wish to add:
"The contractor shall evaluate the BuShips statement of min-

imum (mandatory) and optimum quantitative reliability and
maintainability requirements, and recommend any specific
modifications he cares to make. However, the proposal must
be based upon meeting the stated optinaun requirements."
Concerning documents, MIL STD 785 states:
"2. Referenced Documents

MIL STD 721A Definitions for Reliability Engineering.
MIL STD 756A Reliability Prediction.
MIL STD 781 Test Levels and Accept/Pp.ject Criteria for
Reliability of Nonexpendable Electronic
Equipment.
MIL HDBK 217 Reliability Stress and Failure Rate Data
for Electronic Equipment
MIL STD 803 Huim.n Engineering Criteria for Aircraft,
Missile, an, Space Systems, Ground
Support Equipment."
Since the applicability of the abo,.e documents to mos.t specific

proposals will be very spott- indeend, the Project Engineer
should add the appropriate paragraph numbers. He may also state:
"The contractor shall acknowledge the BuShipo list of speci-

fications, standards, performance specifications, work state-
ments, etc., and their required section numbers, in the Pro.-
gram Plan. Under each the contractor shall state (a) the
required section numbers that are acceptable, (b) those for
23-21
which moditiCation is recommended, and the reason, nnd (c)

additional sections recommended, and the reason. Then he
shali add any other document.s upon which his proposal is
based, calling out applicable sections thereof and providing
copit s.
3.2 PROGRMJA CHARTS
Accordinq to MIL STD '785:
"3.3.3 Management and Control. The progrmn plan shall in-

clude detailed listing of specific tasks, man-loading per
task, and procedures to implement and control these tasks.
It shall include a description of each task to be performed
whether or not it is already documented in contractor direc-
tives, the organizational unit with the authority and respon-
sibility for executing each task, the method of control to
insure execution of each task as planaed, and scheduled start
and completion dates of each task. This data shall be in a
form that permits technical auditing by the procuring activ-
ity. The information provided shall include the method of
analysis to be used as a basis for dchieving the proper ualance
of effort and resources from a reliability standpoint.....The
designation of milestones, definition of inter-relaLicnships.
and estimation of times required for reliability program
activities and tasks shall be employed as part of overall
program control which applies the program techniques. If
PERT (Program Evaluation and Review Techniques) is part of
the program it shall be utilized."
In order to provide a practical index of all reliability and

maintainability Program Plan tasks, as well as ar auditable
summary of their schedule and progress, the Bureau may develop
and specify a management presentation system such as the follow-
ing:
3.2.1 Task Number and Title: In Figure 23-22, all Tasks dis-
cussed in chapter 22 have been listed and given an index letter
for easy reference. The Project Engineer may specify in the RFP:
"The contractor shall provide and maintain a one- or two-page

Task Identification chart which lists the title of every Pro-
gram Task to be undertaken, preceded by a reference letter or
number thenceforth always used to designate that task. Tasks
shall be listed in the approximate sequence to be undertaken,
as in Figure 23-22."
23-22
Cl
i
-44
0 0 0
CLa a) 0.
a o) a-ru . r- u )
Q) t) - C
a)~ ) V) VI (L) 0C ;4C U
.4~C c. - G) 2 Z i aa 0
>Q Q) >) Q) C. mU)l M 0
Q)~~ - L - t -C a0 S0 0
C) c ) ItIU)" Oc
N U) .n- t- m m IC.I .- 1
0 1 1 1 1 E1- X C1l cl c C-
Cl t- 00
Lo c- - M. 0
C,)C Cl r) - C C l~ C a)
Cl~~~~~ -~ ~~ c
0) 4-
c o E -57.
C.)
c- Cl
CO ) O V) LO 't 1L CO
4.h .l -n I- m~ C--) C
23-23
3.2.2 Document Sections: Since many specifications contain

overlapping requirements, this chart provides the cross-index of
multiple call-out, as well as easy reference to specification
section numbers:
"The contractor shall provide a column for each major dgcument

that requires reliability or maintainability tasks, listing
in each the docui. "nt section nuamrers applicable to each task."
3.2.3 Output: Unless the output or tangible end-product of

each task is clearly identified, there is no way for either Bu-
Ships cr the contractor to audit accomplishment. This require-
ment is intended to neutralize Parkinson's third law. It is not
so uncommon to find groups performing tasks whose output, if any,
nobody needs:
"The contractor shall provide for each task (a) the name of
its principal output (identifiable end result), (b) the
number of such outputs to be produced, and (c) a unique out-
put number range assignment for schedule identification. If
there is more than one significant kind of output, another
line may be used. The Task Delineation (chapter 22) must
state who uses each output."
3.2.4 Responsibility: One of the prime problems in many re-

liability programs is undetermined, contested or weak responsi
bility and authority, leading to redundant costs and loss of
good people. One way to cause contractor management to face up
to unequivocal decifion is to reouire clear statement in the
reliability and maintainability Program Plan of exactly who is
responsible for each task and gets replaced if it doesn't go
well. It also tells BuShips who to put the finger on.
"Thp contractor shall provide a column showing by code letters

(such as the organizational group name initials) exactly
which one qroup has responsibility and authority for the task,
and which other groups will expend support manhours."
3.2.5 Manpower: Relative effort to be applied to each task

provides an important clue to contractor understanding of work
content, and of course is neccssary during negotiation to fix
exact task content. And sometimes the cost of reliability
achievement will be an eye-opener to BuShips personnel, but must
be balanced via cost-effectiveness analysis against the potential
1iaintenance manpower.
"The contractor shall provide a column showing the total

23-24
manweeks required to produce all outputs for each task for

the entire program."
3.2.6 Task Schedule: During the proposal pha!se this provides

some evidence that the contractor has thought through the timing
of each task output relative to the design and production sche-
dules. As design gets underway it provides a convenient means of
visualization and audit of contractor progress.
"The contractor shall provide on a separate page a Task

Schedule chart such as Figure 23-25 with a column of short
task titles and their numbers in the same sequence as in
3.2.1 above, with week numbers across the page top, i3enti-
fying key contract weeks by date. The chart will show under
each week number, opposite each task, the task start week(s)
and output numbers as they will fall due, all su,-n due dates
being events that must be consistent with the overall PERT/
Cost network."
3.3 TASK DELtNEATION
A comprehensive reliability and mairtainability program for a

large program contains a lew Uozen fa-rlv distinct Tasks, the
principal ones being listed in chapter 22. Lesser emphasis and/
or smaller projects require fewer elements and/or less depti -. f
effort withir. the element-,. The contractor should be encouraged
to state his own estimate ot the tasks and depth needed to satis-
fy the stated requirements, yet always show adequate considera-
tion of the tasks listed in chapter 22. Again referring to MIL
SID 78¶ :
"3.3.3 Management arnd Controi. The program plan shall in-
clude detailed listing of specific tasks, man-o13ding per
task, and procedures to implement and control these tasks.
It shall include a description of each task to be performed
whether or not it is already documented in contrac-tor direc-
tives, the organizational unit with the authority and ?espon-
sibility for executino each task, the method ot control to
insure execution of each task as planned, and s-cheduled sta,
and c<•nplction dates of each task. This data shall be in a
form that permits technical audittiyq b/' the prucurinq activity.
The information provided shall include the me'thod oi analysis
to be used as a basis for achievinq the proper balance of
effort and resources from a reliability standpoint .... .'ae
desiqnation of milestones, definition of inter-relationships, 4
and estimation of times required for reliability program

activit'ies and tasks shall be employed as part of ovevall
23-2 5
t '-
eq
N~I-
cq
C) 11
C/)9
Cl
41 -
Cl -1
-4
z2i f
23-26
program control which applies the program• techniques. If

PERT (Program Evaluation and Review Techniques) is part of
the Program it shall be utilized."
Thus in relation to the contractors tasks, the Project Engineer

may specify:
"For each of the Tasks listed in (chapter 22), the contractor

shall (a) state whether or not effort on this task is planned,
and if not why not; and if planned (b) describe concisely
how the task will be accomplished, showing the depth of detail
anticipated, (c) slate what tangible or recognizable and
auditable output will be produced, and (d) state what specific
organizational groups will use the olitput and for what purpose.
Do not use more than one-half to one page per task..
"Then the Program Chart (section 3.2 Tbove) shall show (e)
what document sections call it out, (f) what groups arz re-
sponsible for doinq and supporting the work, (cf) what ntinpower
(manweeks) is required, and (h) when each successive output
is scheduled due."
3.4 ORGANIZATION
While BuShips cannot and should not dictate the contractors in-
ternal organizition, it is nevertheless often a very -mportant
indication of his appreciation of the reliability and maintain-
ability problem, and thirefore his competence. See reference
(9, secs. 4,5,6). MIL STD) 785 states:
"3.3.2 P-,liability (and maintainability) ()ro;ani3at i,!. The
pror •,,m p lan sh,I (a) identiitv the orqlnj :At it n -Ind thet' por-
sonnel responsible for ,mmaliinq tue i reiverai
,.,libility (1,ind
"naintatinabi lity) and ( b) shall lro-ram,
,c ,arly Ietino it
ret-sonshi l it ies inrl tAnct ions ncluo i ln b th p licy in,!
act ion. It Ist :;halIt ullte the author-ity l,.,i at', ' thi
,rIm•LnI -mt ion to t'ntorct' Its' i
,,'icIs . The, r-,*,itit: 'n's i'-
between lire, str'vi-', -t itt, i•An po)licy -,-_ani-ziti)ns .•i}ill
be jdtni IIi e-1
int
3.4.1 '" n v.nStructurv: Here the ob lective is to t nd out

whether rele i bilit v and miintat nabinlit,,iti ro ups (h) .ictuall
exist, )oM (bW e -l,';e 01-101nuoh tc desion enqineers tfo be ei:eco-
t ive or wh't t thr thev ar'e " i tower"
',o-r-v iener-,i ori- .+ Lr,'cedur es
and rep...-t ta n>ab:,dy r'-ais and n, which n.ob, dy takes act:t. r
Althou-0h such cnt r..i roups irc usu.ily e 1
Eng4ineering," there is a stror. t rend tow,,ard 'oAnbinin, suco
2 3-27
activities and calling them "produc:t 1 effecti'.'eness, system

effect iveneýss, or (recently) cost-effectiveness. In order to get
proposal uniformnity for e~valuation purposes the Proiect Engineer
may speci fy:
"The ccontractor shall provide an organization charL showing

(a) the major functional and project groups reporting to e
top executivo, and (b a line of authrit breakdown to those
engineering, reliability, and maintainability qroups that will
directly contribute to the program. The lo-tter iust show
every superviso,_) level in the hierarchy, identifying the
working groups kc-he _order of 5 to 20 people) with code letters
or numbers called out in the Program Chart (section 3.2.4)
r espoorsibility column."
"Each organi-,ati.0i.-Al block must. show the name of the group,

the name of its supc-v-;so-r, and the total number of its per-
sonnel, ,isiý_3 1ar~enth.eses around each planned but not. existing
en~tr" .
3.4.2 Policy Direction: Not much gets accomplished until the

top exe:cutlve or his top subordinate-- issue directions in un-
equivocal and clear terms. Such directives are usually signed
by the top executive and state what is to be accomplished, by
who~n, and how he verifies +-hat it gets done. The Project Engin-
eer may specify:
"The contractor sha'1 providie ~py or quDtat ion of the re-

liability a-nd maintainability policy directives and standard
procedures bindinq u-'on all engineering, reliability and
mailitainability personnel, with signature, title, and date.
He shall1 include botlb company-wide direct ives an-- proccdures
and tirose, if any, conrernink. this program, and state how he
ass ares that tlhiey are Ikept cur-rent and complied,ý with.:
3.4.3 Respons ibi lity And Authority- The des ic.n eni inecr inq
rops must have the tfinal odccis ion o, Al11 esibin ioc is ions, or
else they could not be heold account able for their des iqns . Yet
there must. b.e procedures whereby such Jecis ions cannot be made
u.1ntilI there is adequai e zwns ideration of reIiaibi Ii ty an,, rr.ain-
tainabilIit-y impact. In most cases the des icn enoiineer i~s too
coeto- his des ion to be 3 qood iadqe of such zioekquacv. so the
reliabi lity and maintainability groups must rvwevery new
lesiqn and make recconmend.%tions. if Z~nly.
if the desim`-iecis ion is contrary tosch. a reccr=nondat ion,

which should be rare, there must be indel-endent channels by wh ich
the rocccnmvr.dat io-n can be taken up the hierArcivy for recons icera-
23-28
t ion, even by the top executive in rare ,,ases. For comprehensive

programs the Project Enqineer may specify:
"Referring to the Organization Chart (3.4.1), the contractor

shall briefly list the responsibilities and authorities assigned
to design vs. each reliability and maintainability group in
matters ccncerning reliability and maintainability achievement,
analvsis, and verifica•t.on. The contractcr shall explain the
flow of work between such aroups, and state how differences of
opinion are res)lved. He will specifically list the documents
that require reliability/'maintainability group (a) r.2vipw,
and (b) signoff.
3.4.4 Program Control: Unless a specific group has the respon-

sibility for keepina tra:ck of task performance, keeping task pro-
gross in balance, and directing relative task effort accordingly,
schie"les will certainly slip and reliability suffer. The Project
Engineer may wish to be more specific:
"The contractor shall name the groul responsible for reli

bility/imaintainability program control, and stite the proce-
dures it will usc to keu-p task progress in balance and on
schedule, and to direct relative effort apportionment thereon."
3.5 COMPETFNCE
Often a co'ntractor will seem to thoroughly understand the prom'lem,

and will propose an excellent progra~m plan, yet mare many costly
and schedule-slipping mistakes betore producing the required re-
.iah" iitv and iiaintainability. There is no substitute for ex-
perience, and the RFP must require the proposal to provide quite
speci fic inswers.
3.5. 1 ri.wgrams: Until a contractor has Iad to desion to spec-

ified reliability and maintainability, ne usually considers it a
big prnpaqanda and quality contirol drive. In order to ferret
out0 excCtly Wh,C a contractor has accomplished the Project Engin-
oer may qp,'cify:
"The contractor shall list thc programs he has uinJertaken

'i.::h conti-c-tually required (a) design to specified relia-
bility and/or maintainability quantitative values, (h) design
to "high" roliability requirements, or (c) design and produc-
tion with t. ecution of specific reliability Program Plan tasks.
For each the contractor will state, if known, how the achieved
quantitati',e reliability and/or reliability compared to values
2reiict ed in the initial Projram Plan."
23-29
3. . Tech 1 M iny projress.:e

Devlo________t: -omparaies :le-
";i'- reliabilit ana maintainability technical capability
by" fonc~in 1.
on -ter• research projects or by funding shorter-
term oro.i-cts thiat .--ill cz il1enge and hold their best people
between orrms. To i: -atort
ify tý ccpability, the
Project Enqineerm ay specify:
"The contractor shall list and briefly describe the reliabil-

itv and ir maintainability techni:lue research or development
proeects he has undertaken either on contract or company
funding, and for: each the actual application --f results."
3.5.3 Industry Participation: The extent of participation in

govetnment and industry coramittees and conferences is also an
indicator of company appreciation of the problem and contribu-
tion to its solution. The Prcject Engineer may specify:
"The contractor shall list the reliibi'ity and/or maintain-

ability aovernment and industry committees on which he is
represented, and for each the name and company pc-ition of
his representitive. The contractor shall ,iso list the re-
liability, maintainability, system effecti-,eness, and cost-
effectiveness papers and conference sessions prepared or
moderated by his personnel during the previous year, and for
each the parson's name and position."
3.5.4 Resumes: Most proposal resumes do not indicate the ex-

perience that personnel may have had in desi2n for reliability
and maintainability, t.iough cnaiys~s experience is covered. The
Project Engineer may specify:
"The contractor shall provide one-third-page resumes on each

of the -.ey personnel that will be responsible for achievement
of required r:liaibility and maintainability. These should
include design as 1-cll as reliability and maintainability
people, stating their r-liability and maintainability design.
analysis, and supervisory experience."
3.5.5 Task Experience. Nearly ill proposals will contain pro-

posed tasks that the contractor has never done before. Often as
not he may consider them as unnecessary embellishments, but of
course wants to be strictly responsive to the RFP. Since prior
experience has a great. effect on his understanding and support
of the task, there must be sz-ne way to identify such task exper-
A ience. As stated in section 3., all Task delineations in chao-
ter 22 must state what portion thereof is already in contractor
operations or has been done on past stated contracts.
23-30
3.5.6 Supplier Competence: It is one thing to propose an ex-

cellent program with tasks that sulbcontractors and vendors are
expected to accomplish, but quite another to get some of them to
cooperate. Even when the contractor carefully discus-es relia-
bility and maintainability requirements with every significant
supplier prior to assembling his proposal, there have been
many, serious problems after award when the supplier says "I didn't
think you really meant it'" or "Oh, is that what you meant'"
The Project Engineer may develop confidence in the contrcictors
selection of suppliers by specifying:
"The contractor shall provide evidence of the competence and

willingness of his proposed suppliers of critical components
to conduct the tasks he prescribes. Copies of sup~iier letters
acknowledging the reliability and maintainability requirements
and expressing management willingness to perform the necessary
tasks will suffice."
3.6 SHIPBUILDING PROCUREMENTS
A complex specification situation occurs in a major procurement

such as a class of ships. The detail specification for the ship
class provides the requirement for equil.pent with environmental
conditions, operating conditions and installation conditions.
Weight, space, and size limitations on the various equipments
may be defined. Systems to be installed in the ship may be procured
by the government or the shipbuilder. Those systems purchased
by the government are, in general, systems that are used in
many applications. The selection of specification clauses and
requirements must be reviewed to assure that:
(a) The environment specified in the equipment specification

is compatible with its planned use in the ship;
(b) The reliability specified is compatible with the opera-
ting requirements;
(c) The maintenance philosophy (types and numbers of skilled
personnel, spares allowance, level of repair) is compatible
with the situation outlined in the ship specification.
The systems procured by the shipbuilder must also be considered

as having an impact on the reliability of government furnished
systems and on the effectiveness of the ship. The quantitative
requirements, level of reliability control, and means of assess-
ii ing the achieved reliability- and ma±.ntainability must be speci-
fied for these systems furnished by the shipbuilder. Quality
[ control provisions, although they have little impact on the de-
i
23-31
sign reliability, must be specified to assure that thu operational

reliability is not degraded be_,,. an acceptable level.
4. PROPOSAL E\;ALUATION
After the reliability and maintainability portic:ris of the RFP

have been prepared using the appropriate language as discussed
above, it is issued to the selected contractors. Their questions
are consolidated and handled in a bidders conference that speci-
fically invites contractors reliability and maintainability per-
sonnel. Then the Project Engineer refines the detailed proposal
,,-,a1iation criteria and orgqnizes to handle the reliability and
raintainability sections of the proposals when they come in.
Proposal evaluation, it goes without saying, is a very complex

and very difficult subject. Evaluation techniques run all the
way from sincere but subjective judgment of a perhaps unwittingly
biased evaluator, to very complex numerical systems that generate
precious little understanding and confidence in their result.
But we must take into account quantitat, ve contributions to the
extent feasible.
Now what, precisely, constitutes the "best"proposal? It would

be easy to say it is the one that will give us the best cost-
effectiveness, and we'd be de.,d right. But we are not quite
ready to use the DOD cost-effoctiveness critc ia, so it is dis-
cussed separately in section 5.3 et al. Let us discuss an
approacn which will help compate contractors apparent adequacy
of proposed prograns for what they say will be achieved.
4.1. BROAD EVALUATION
First we will have a look at the broad aspects of the contractors

proposal, quantifying wherever feasible, after which we will
evaluate his detailed tasks.
4.1.1 Cost-Effectiveness Anialysis: For such provisions,

useful at a future date, see section 5.4.1.
4.1.2 Program Requirements: As discussed in section 3.1, it

is imperative that the c-ntractor thoroughly understand the re-
,',,4rements. These evaluation questions may be used:
23-32
Weig Rating
1. Are the stated environments and stresses
fully responsive?
2. Are the proposed modifications thereof

des irable? 20
3. Are the environments and stresses adequately

considered in design and analysis approaches? 40
4. Are the stated reliability and maintain-

ability requirements fully responsive? 40

desirable? 20
6. Are the stated applicable documents, in-

cluding MIL STD 785, and sections thereof
fully responsive? 40

desirable? 20 . _
Total 200
4.1.3 Program Planning: As discussed in Section 2.1.3 and

3. on Program Plans, and Sections 3.2 on Program Charts, we
can evaluate the plan as a whole:
1. Are all necessary tasks listcd on the

charts? 25
f
2. Are columns provided fVr' ill appropriate
major d.Lient s? 15
3. Are the appropriate dcuct-ment section

numbers referenced? 10
4. Is there a sinqle responsibility shown

for every task? 25
5. Do the manweeks for each task seem reason-

able and sufficient, and are funds allo-
cated for all of them? 50
23-33
Weight Rating
6. Do the total manweeks seem reasonable, com-
pared to a typical range of 5 to 20% of
engineering manhours? 25
7. Does the timing of task outputs seem reason-

ably relative to each other and to the design
and production schedule? 15
8. Ha. every listed program task been considered,

and adequatc reason given for those not
planned? 10
9. Is there a concise description that gives a

good picture of the depth planned for each
task? 50
10. Is there a clearly identifiable, tangible,

auditable output for every task? 50
11. Is there a statement of what specific groups

will use the output of each task, and does it
seem reasonable? 25
Total 300
4.1.4 Organization: As discussed in Section 3.4, BuShips must

take a close look at the implications of the contractors existing
and proposed organization:
1. Is there an existing, as well as proposed,

reliability and/or maintainability group? 100
2. Does it report high enough to attract and

hold first-class engineers? 50
3. Is it independent or part of the engineering

organization, as opposed to quality control
or factory operations? 50
4. If there are any past or present defic-

iencies, will they be remedied by the proposeI
organization? 50
23-14
Weight Rating
5. Has the top executive or the top engineering
manager issued policies clearly requiring en--
giiieering design use of the ccit,,i Lity and
maintainability technoloqy? A,- thes- sup-
ported by adequate department policies an,
procedures? 50
6. Do contractor reliability and maintainability

groups have the authority to make analyses
and recommendations concerning all designs
and design changes, only after which design
decisions can be approved? 100
7. Is there an independent channel whereby

design decision contrary to recommendation
can be taken up the hierarchy for reconsider-
ation, by the top executive if necessary? 50 I
8. Is the work flow between design and reliabil-

ity/maintainability groups reascnable and
sufficient? 50 _
Total 500
4.1.5 Competence: As discussed in section 3.3, we must heavily

weight evidence that the contractor has faced similar requirements
before, and can make available the technical and manaqement
people who know what works and what does not:
1. Has the contractor done much design to quan-

titatively specified reliability and main-
tainability, giving specific exampl(.s? 50
2. Has he done much des1ign to "ij rellabil-

Sty reMUirements, qivinc sptecific ,oxamples2 100
3. Has he done much design and production in-

volving1 execution of specific reliability
P rogram Plan tasks, giving specific examples? 50
4. Has he achieved the reliability values

predicted initially? 100
5. Has he undertaken many reliability and/or

maintainability research projects whose re-
iults were put t) work, and will they
continue? 50
23-35
We i•ght Ra t ing
6. Are his people active in goverament and
industry commi-ttees and conferences? 50
7. Will the contractor use key design enqineers

on this program who have had reliability and/
or maintainability desigin experience? 150
B. Are the backgrounds of the planned teliability

and maintainability specialists adequate for
program?_ 100
9. Has the contractor performed, or is he per

forminq for other programs, nearly all of the
required tasks to about the same depth? 100
10. Does his understanding of tasks not previ-

ously performed seem adequate? 50
11. Is there aaequate evidence that all critical

component suppliers are copetent and
willing to ,Indertake the pr posed reliability!
and maintainability tasks? l 200
Total 1000
4.2 TASK EVALUATION
Having covered the broad aspects, we can turn our attention to the
detailed t asks called out by 23i-ure-2-22 in -section 3. and the
Task Delineation in Section 3.3, discussed in ct3i.1 in chapter
22. All weights Thown in this section will later be multiplied
by a factcr of up to 15, depending upon com7,pleteness of response,
in the final iuvaluation sumn'ary. Other weiqhts may of course be
used instead, but it shgould be kept in mind that emphasis will
var very widely, dependini upon theli ck round e -perience of
those who select weights. The follow:inq evaluation questions may
he used -
1. Progiram Plan Updatc,: 10

Is a reasonable update prcxpram pt )pk)sed? 10
Total 10
2. Education:
a) Is there an adequate ianagement reliabil-
ity and maintiinabiliTty indoctrination
r)ro r am ?L.
23-36
Weight Rating
b) Is there an adequate design engineering
reliability and maintainability training
program? 10
c) Are concise reliability and maintainability

reference manuals provided to engineers,
as well as selective current literature on
ne- -nethods? 10
Total 30
3. Design to Specified Reliability and Maintain-

ability:
a) Does the design indicate depth of under-
standing of the reliability and maintain-
ability problem? 5
b) Will the design meet the reliability and
maintainability requirements? 10
c) Is the proposed design quantitative relia-

bility and maintainability optimuma for
best cost-effectiveness, the available
tradeoffs having been executed? 15
d) Are maintenance, ]ogistics, training, etc.
requirements ade-juately considered? 5
e) Will all design specifications for cri-
tical comPonents and changes or r-odifica-
tions thereto contain (M) reliability and
maintainability requirements, (2) verifi-
cation criteria, (3) protective packaging
requiremen-s, (4) traceability identifi-
c,.tion, and (5) operating, storage, and
trans portation envirornent? 10
f) Are requirements beyond state of the art

identified correctly? 10
g) Are conponents of inadequately-known
reliability identified correctly? 10
h) Do the proposed design solutions show

au,.cquate knowledqe of available approachhes? 10
i) Is adequate rationale given for the
planned approaches? 10
_______
,___
L___I
_________________
23-37
j Is the vei I ficat )r method and crit rid Weight Rating Ii

stated for each case? 15
Total 100
4. Apportionment:
a) is the basis of apportionment of availabil-
ity, reliability and,'or maintainability
logical for the missions required? 2
b) Is the apportionment based upon best
available information according to the
re]lability group? 3
c) Is the apportiorrment mathematically
ccrrect? 2
d) Does it show any critical problems not.
identified in 3. above? 3
Total I 10
5. Model 3nd Prediction: I

a' Is the model adequate for the system and
missions recuired? 5
b) Does it account for hum an reliability and
maintainability, if they are involved? 5
cý Is the model supported by a practical data
update system? 10
d) Is there adequate provision f:'r continulous
update and monthbl,. pre.dictions and com-
parison with appirt ion.ments: 1)
e) Is desiin action requirod as a restsit,*
adverse prediction' 10
Tot a 4?
6. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
a) Is there provision tor ,juartserly upda.te
of system prediction? 5
4 b) Is there provision for ieprrtinq reoularlyv
the total cost saving th it would result
from 2-to-I MTBF or MTTR iiý,provement"?
23-38
Rat inl~
c) Is .,siqn action reqjuired as a result of
analysis indicatincg improv'ement
opportunities?' )
Tutal 20
7. Failure Modes & Effects Analvsis:
a) Will an analysis be conducted on every

component, oC somethino less?
b) Is a procedure described for identifica-
tion of causes, ¶odes, and effects of
each potential failure? 5
upcdated ;uarterly) 5
c) Will the analysis be
d) Is design action required as a result of i
r
analysis indicatin, impro'eement
opportunities? 5
To ti, 22
8. Stress/Strenqth Analvsis:
a) Are such analyses planne voere.er feasi-
ble, or just w'here i l.:re -tata is not
obtainable, or not it all'
b) Is desion acti on ro.:j r,', as a resuit o
anav sis sh1>1, in.eieou.te reliabi Ix.
T')t :I11,
9. HUM-maan F'act )1s-
a r
hertee c' eti.cs a oh ' 's tti'v ar.
Corns , at n C. IC t
r.1 . -
0>,'' ' 7•.Y
t I a Ict.'
tt n''aki "1'. .T- ,w a.

ine ,! a t c'
d] I.l des<;'' ¢.;t re~ c•5 a r.'•:'::

t I•:] t .'
1 'ct
tvn~~ta . a r A
2 3- 3'3
W e i Th t R~lit in,
10. Design Revie~w:
a) Will docuxmentedi desi gn re e<be conducted
on all new, desiins, dezsicn changjes, and
cases of unknown or suspcct rrdiabili-ty,
or something less t'han this? 10)
b) will they be conducted at both concepl'ual
and prior-to-release phases? 5
c) kre they scheduled and hudgýeted so t~hat
thece will not be difficulty qettiniý
expert participation?ý
d) Are design checklists to be made a-aila-bio
to design engineers prior to deýsign, for-
their required usu? 5
e) Is consideration of qjuanti~tative rellia-

bility and maintainabii~ty required in
every review? 5
fIAre recornmendat ions required Lo be c-trried
as Corrective Action loq items until re-
solution satisfactorv to reliaoilitv and
maintainabi lity speciaj ists ? 5
9) Is part.1cipation limiteu to small, effec-
tive tparzs 9,rimariiv of specialists froim
other than tac reronil des~qgn qroup,
but spocitically ncuigreli ibilitly
maintainabil rtv and Jeis rn liicup r epre-
sent at ion.
Tot al
11. Parts Co)rojol.:
a) Doothe contract"..r have ine fetiv

PYre teT red p, ;ts~cn oIpx
T)) )oes the iparts3 qro.up cont~roi

-a.s~ua
i.Ll ic-aioin andi appr
o-rce-
a I
cý Doles i~t a lways part ic ipate in Des i-n
Rev iev of vart s assemblies-.
dl Des it pro".vidle application iss ista+
(cu.;ch as deratingj) And' data to ciesiun f
eT);n ne
v rs
23-40
to WeightI Ratin 1
e) Does it write all parts specifications
DOD format? 5
f) Does it control parts handling procedure- 5
g) Does ic control traceability identifica-

tion? 5
Total 40
12. Swnmary Reports:

a) Is there an effective reporting system
that keeps each Tesign supervisor advised
of the predicted quantitative reliability
and maintainability of his design, com-
'pared to the ,pportionmenL? 5
b) iz there an effective system of such quan.-
titative reporting to contractor mana(ý-
ment and to BuShips? 3
c) Is there an effective system to audit and
report monthly progress on all tasks of
the Program Plan? 2
Total 10
A3. Corrective Action Control: 7

a) Does the contractor have a system t-ý
assign individual responsibility foi
corrective action on every prediction/
apportionment discrepancy, with regular
reporting until resolved? 5
b) Does it apply to every design review
recommendat ion? 2
c) Does it apply to every production and
operational failure? 3
Total 10
14. Change & Configuration Control:

a) Does the change control system require in
variable consideration of quantitative
eftect on reliability and maintainability?
mdnC nbliy
23-41
Weight RaIt in q
b) Does it require sUch effect to be incr- egt
porated into Jhe model? ___
Total~ lC!
15. Supplier Control:

a) Are pre-award surveys made of supplier de-
sign enoineering reliability and maintain-
ability capability, and the design and
analysis techniques employed?
b) Do the pre-award surveys evaluate supplier
management understanding and support, and
existing conduct of necessary tasks? 5
c) Do the pre-award surveys evaluate achieved
Quantitative MTBF and MTTR?
d) Are cost-effectiveness analyses (relia-
bility vs. cost) conducted prior to or
during supplier negotiations? 5
e) Does the contractor include quantitative
reliability and maintainability require-
ments in every procurement of a critical
cnmp-:nent, as well as the verification
criteria?
f) Are specifications, including environments
and maintenance requirements, issued for
all critical component procurement, as
opposed to order by catalog number? 5
g) Are monthly predictions of reliability
-ann maintainability required from every
supplier on critical components? 5
h) Are monthly progress reports required on
each supplier Program Plan task? 5
i) Are resurveys regularly scheduled on all
suppliers, anO current reliability and
maintainability ratings (not quality
ratings) maintained? 5
j) Is supplier design action required for
adverse predictions and verifications? 5
Total 50
S42
Weight Rating
16. Manufacturing R & M Control:
a) Is there adequate control. permitting only

known-reliability parts to get into
assemblies? 3
b", Is there adeq'-ate handling control? 2
c) Is there adequate traceability by serial
or lot number? 3
d) Is there an adequate log of every test? __
Tota.{
17.i Failure Diagnosis: I

a) Is there mandatory provision for every
component failure to be recorded through-
out design evaluaticn, production, test,
checkout, and operational. use? 5
b) Is every such failure diagnosed for cause,

mode, and effect, with adequate facilities
av a i .able?"
c) is design action always required, wherever 1
it can help to prevent recurrences?
d) Will the contractor provide diagnoses
after delivery, in operational use? 5
Total 20
18. Data Acquisition and Reduction:
a) Is there an adequate continuous data

acquisition system utilizing data from
suppliers, design, manufacture, trained
field collectors, industry, and particu-
larl.y the Navy (GFE and operational use)? 5
b) Is there an adequate continuous data re-

duction system, with component reporting
in convenient form for design engineers
day-to-day use? 5 _______
Total 10
F
23-43
Weight Rating
19. Verification:
a) Is a complete list provided of components
toto be verified, and does it seem reason-
able? 10
b) Are the tests adequately specified, pro-
perly accountcing for environment, and are
they reasonable, practical and economical,
using available facilities? 15
c) Are the verifications by other than test
the best practicably achievable? 5
d) Is there an integrated test plan to get
the most information from the least number
of tests, and is it related adequately to
the design and production schedule? 10
e) Is design action required whenever veri.-
fication is not obtained? 10
Total 50
4.3 PROGRAM PLAN RATING
Fully recognizing the wide variability that may be encountered

both in establishing weights and in entering an evaluation figure
for eL,-n question, the errors of the procedure tend to balance
each other out. With eyeball attention to over 100 questions,
and there are this many thinos deservi I of attention, such a
rating system will quite consistently separate the good from the
bad. Of course we should not expect to depend upon it as the sole
evaluation of the Program Plan, particularly wten total ratings
are within 10% of each other, but it does provide a powerful
basis for good human judgment.
Figure 23-44 is a chart that may be executed independently by

each evaluator for each contractor-s proposal, followed by dis-
cussion and averaging for 5 final. chart on each contractor. As
the evaluator reads each task -,f the proposed program plan, he
asks himself each of the specific questions listed in section 4.2
above. Then he enters a summation figure for each, and records
it as Y in the Specific Content Rating column of Figure 23-44.
As an example, 28 is entered for "0" Supplier Control.
Then he checks back for completeness of that task statement,

asking himself the questions in section 3.3, and entering an
I
23-44
mOc: "N
• z
< g =
• x
So
°!
o
_ 0
f 23-45
evaluation for each. The example for Supplier Control adds up to

11 which, tnultiplied by 28, gives 308 for the Composite Rating.
Manweeks are entered from the Chart Isection 3.2) to get a feel
for relative effort. This is done for all tasks, to get a Task
Total, .3772 in the example.
Similarly the questions in section 4.1 are asked, the results

entered below the Task Total, for a grand total. Dividing the
example total of 5692 by 100, thE Program Plan Rating is 57%.
Let's be careful about the meaning of this rating. It does not

mean the evaluator thinks the contractor will do only 57% of what
he ought to do. It does mean that he thinks the contractor plans
to do about 57% of all possible things that could be don,:.. If
the contractor can justify not doing them, and still convince
BuShips that he will more than meet requirements, so much the
better.
But at the same time the rating is a measure of the strength_ of

the reliability/maintainability program proposed. And the higher
the Availability or Reliability proposed, relative to the state
uf the art, the higher the rating should be. This of course
suggests taking a ratio of rating to Availability, as a measure
of confidence that the contractor can indeed achieve the proposed
values. Such a "Confidence Rating" is used below.
4.4 EVALUATION SUMMARY MATRIX
Now that we have organized the result of each contractors pro-

posals, and evaluated the results of each on a consistent basis,
we must evaluate them relative to each other. Figure 23-46 shows
a matrix that can be used. Across the top we provide
columns for each contractors response to BuShips stated require-
ments, and then another set of columns for contractor-recommended
alternatives. Down the left side we call for the Confidence
Rating discussed above, and below that its key constituents, for
easy reference.
Now we look at the Confidence Rating, which compares Program Plan

Rating Z to the expected Availability A. Contractor "A" proposed
a program to get substantially higher Availability of 80% vs.
required 70%, by taking 5 months longer, with something less than
the anticipated Program Plan strength, so the Confidence Rating
dropped to 71%. Contractor "B" proposed unheard-of Availability
of 90%, taking 10 months to get it, but imposing a very strong
70% Program Plan. So the Confidence Rating is 78%.
23-46
0o•
0>1 01
t- oo m% u
Laf
a)u
=I
1 14
C10,
N N
zz
0 >* S
23-47
Obvinusly these Contidence Ratings are very rough, only for use
as guides. They are not statistical confidence probabilities of
getting the stated values, and they can go over 100%. While more
complex method- of relating Rating to Availability couid ne used,
such refinement does not seem justified.
4.5 DE-BRIEFING
Nothing is quite as demoralizing to a contractors proposal leader

and his team, who have put long hours and weekends into what they
believe is an excellent proposal, than to be unable to find out
why they lost the award. Unless they can find out what to do
differently on the next one, they will have progressively less
interest in bidding. And such attrition of competent bidders is
not in BuShips long-term interests.
The debriefing conference should specifically invite a reliabil-

ity/maintainability representative from each contractor, because
experience has shown that others often do not understand the
significance of what is said in this area, and rail to get the
information needed. While the Bureau might say "That is the
Contractors's problem, if he sent the wrong people,' that fact
is no help to reliability and maintainability needed in future
proposals.
While specific deficiencies of any one identified contractor

should of course not be discussed in front of others, that con-
tractor does have thj right to detailed private discussion of such
deficiencies. The Bureau need tot defend its decision, but can
explain just what was deemed deficient in relation to the success-
ful proposal.
There would appear to be no objection to giving a contractor his

own ratings and average ratings for, say, the top three bidders.
With these his management can forthwith get real motivated to
take action on future reliability and maintainability programs.
5. COST-EFFECTIVENESS PROVISIONS
While the cost-effectiveness criteria are being inexorably in-

serted by DOD, and they form the very basis for nearly all relia-
bility and maintainability decisions, they are not yet widely
used. And they are very rarely used for hardware design decisions.
So that the above sections will be closer to the real world, we

have separated out the cost-effectiveness provisions in this
23-48
section. The numbers in parentheses are the above sections of

which they would be a part. The Project Engineer is urged to use
them whenever he sees an opportunity and advantage in so doing.
5.1(1.2) COST-EFFECTIVLý4ESS ANALYSIS
Let's take a look at what DOD 3200.9 says (1) about cost-effec-
tiveness in Figure 23-49. The principles apply equally well at
all levels of the system, from the entire weapon system thru
ships, down to parts.
Specification of reliability and maintainability requirements

should never be permitted without a prior analysis of their true
effect on system effectiveness a~id their consequent total cost,
as discussed in chapter 26. As Rear Admiral Emerson Fawkes has
said (10):
"The cost of acquisition is like an iceberg; it fails to

reveal the ownership cost of 4 to 10 times the acquisition
cost."
Figure 23-50 shows the basic tradeoffs involved in using cost-

effectiveness analysis to determine reliability and maintainabil
ity requirement3. Sach analysis results may not always be used
directly, but they always provide remarkably better insight upon
which to base good management judgment. The Project Engineer may
therefore wish to:
"Conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of the system for the

stated missions and anticipated lifetime environments and
stresses, to determine the appropriate values of reliability
and maintainability to be required of the contractors."
5.1.1 (2.1.2) Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: With analyses of

system effectiveness vs. total long-term cost from several ctom-
petent bidders, BuShips will be able to (a) verity or correct the
reliability and maintainability quantitative requirements, and (b)
better evaluate bidder competence. See chapter 26, section 7.2.
But it is necessary for the Bureau to provide in the RFP the
criteria for efftctiveness and the necessary ownership cost factors,
to put all bidders on a common basis except for their oun estimates
of acquisition cost. If such analysis is requested, as strongly
recommended, the following RFP words may be used by the Project
Engineer:
"System effectiveness may be taken as the product of (a) per-

formance capability measured by (state empirical formula),
23-49
0 W *
~F ~
~~tw
z
.0
~ 0>
a ~ .. 4,
-~ -
C~)
"0 '0
o s
wo w
I-i
0 0
23-50
-|Y
~[
-F
~4.4
___ ___ 'H°
00 ,
23-51
9 (b) delivery effectiveness (state formula showing degradation

vs. weeks delay), (c) operational availability (state formula
combining. demand and/or continuous availability and/or relia-
bility) and (d) operational utilization (state foi.nula showing
weight for each kind of mission). The ratio of this product to
total cost of acquisition (develotnent and production) and
ownership is to be maximized subject to (state any cost or
other constraints)."
"Ownership cost may be taken J, the total operational cost

over (state ,useful life) years at (state hours) actual opera-
tion per Year, including (a) operational cost of (st-te total
$ per manhour for operator training, sdlary, facilitLies, etc.).
(b) maintenance cost of (state total $/manhour for maintenance
personnel training, salary facilities) plus the cost of spare
components plus logistic at (state $ per pound for average
components), and (c) consequence cost tcxternal to the system
resulting from late delivery at (state $ cost, if any, per
week of delay' and system failure at (state $ per hour down,
including waste, damage, or loss of equipment, personrel, or
other resources)."
"The contractor shall conduct an analysis to detemnine the

reliability and maintainability that will achieve maximum
system cost-c, ffectiven. , over a ranqce of t 'liabilit :-
maintainability on each side of the state requirements, explain-
inm the method and summarizing reilts i , the Program Plan,
with a somnary of the design and manufacturing difference. by
which such ranges would be obtained. Such MTBF (if used) and
MTTR ranges should be 3-to-l on each side of stated require-
ments. If the anilysis indicates alternative requirements to
be -nore cost-efftctive, he will reconmend new values of relia-
bility and maintainability, but base the entire Program Plan
on th! stated requirements."
"Based on the above analysis, the contractor will state what

•Dtitativc cost-effer-tiveness (a) will be achieved if he
exactly meets BuShips stated requirements, and (b) would be
achieved if his alternative rr -ounendations are accepted.
These est i,%ates and the means by which they are deri.ed, will
be imp-_rtnt considerations in award of the contra
5.1.2 (2.4.4) Contracting for Cost-Effectiveness: There is no

doubt in t'ie minds of many people, including Dr. Hitch, DOD Comp-
troller (11) that the only ultimate solution is to :ontract for
the bet 7ombination of cost, effectiveness, and delivery. And
he agrees that delivery can usually be accounted for within cost
and effe-:tiveness. But we do not yet have procedures to do this.
I
2 3- 5/2
What we do not want is the lowest proposed price (acquiition

cost), because this will usually reflect the Lowest (maybe zero)
effort on reliability, consequently the poorest reliability and
the highest low>-term ownership) cost, far offsetting the immediate
saving. Figure 23-53 shows the result of a Navy survey (12) of
2o ques+i.ons to 196 contractors in 1960, asking them to rank what
they considered to be the deterrents to reliability. A similar
Air Force survey produced the same result regarding funding.
Nor do we want "100% reliability," because it would cost more

than it's worth, and besides it's impossible. What we do want is
the most system .ffectiveness (performance, reliability or av-il-
ability, and delivery adherence) in relation to total cost (con-
tractors price plus lifetime ownership cost for delivery, delays,
operation, maintenance, and failure consequence). Contracting
for such a thing hasn't been done yet, but it's got to be dcne.
What can we do?
i. Carefully specify the taruet reliability and maintainability

values, and how they will be measured. Then require the
bidders to provide quotations for a range of reliability and
maintainability surrounding the target valueF (See 1.4,
2.1.1)
2. Require the bidders to conduct their own analyses of the cost-

effectiveness of what they propose to deliver. (2.1.2)
3. Award to the bidder proposing the best cost-effecti'.,eness,

from among those capable and whose analyses are convincing.
(4.4)
4. Negotiate fixed-price-incentive contracts where the incentive

is a traction of achieved cost-effectivenes.s be,
with co,..:erse penalty. In th~s way the contractor can get
paid for reliability improvement to the extent that it pays
off, but not otherwise.
Value Engineering clauses (13,14), incidentally, have provided

incentive for reduced Acquisition Cost but not for improved cost-
effectiveness. It is almost common for such proposals to be dis-
approved because the reduced Acquistion Cost is more than offset
by consequently higher Ownership Cost. While somewhat higher
reliability usually results fron the simplification, sometimes it
does not, and the logistic consequence may be substantial in
either case.
23-53
H zz -
ZzZ
tfo
_ __ H ..
I I
23-54
5.2 (4.0) PROPOSAL EVALUATION
In section 4.0 we said the "best" proposal is undoubtedly the one

that will give us the best cost-effectiveness. But even if we
have cost-effectiveness analyses from several contractors siowing
what cost-effectiveness they will achieve, how do we kncw they
can do it? First let's have a look at the DOD directive. In
Figure 23-55 DOD says the basis for decision shall never be cost
alone, and Figure 23-49 says the idea is to get an "optimum bal-
ance between total cost, schedule, and operational effectiveness."
This is the same as juaximum cost-effectiveness if schedule slip-
page effects are included in cost-effectiveness.
With this objective in mind, let's discuss some approaches which

will help compare contractors for (a) overall program cost-effec-
tiveness, and (b) reliability/maintainability program cost-effec-
tiveness.
5.3 (4.1) BROAD EVALUATION
5.3.1 (4.1.1) Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: If BuShips, as ed

the contractors for their own cost-effectiveness anilvses, then
there are three things to evaluate. They are a) the quality oF
the analysis, (b) the actual program cct-effectivenes• figure
they propose to achieve, and (c) the specific reliability/maintain-
ability program cost-effectiveness to the txtent we can isolate it.
For quality of the analysis these questions may be used:
-Weight Rating
1. Does the analysis show correct interpre-
tation of requirements? 100
2. Does it show understanding of the problem? 100
3. Is the analysis understandable and logical? 100
4. Is it based on good data, or where not, is

it shown that probable data range will not
affect conclusions? 100
5. Are the conclusions logical and correct? 100
Total 500
Turning now to the actual program cost-effectivenesj arithmetic,

Figure 23-56 shows a ;imple calculation. Let us say that BuShips
has spec-fied a performance capability that is normalized to 100%A
23-55
040
0000
o~ ~ - 044)
00
oo
0) 40
1.44
44 1 a0 0)
4.4 04
04 C0
oz .d141
00
000
0.5 . 0 C11
040
0 0 ;
~ ~41
d-3-56
CI C
o 0 0 C'l 0 j
00
d ~I~;q 0 00
4H
00
Co~ 0-
a w
cd
l0
23-57
for the stated requirement. That is, 90% performance would me.ýan
that capacity, speed, and/or accuracy have been somehow comprom-
ised so that system effectiveness is reduced 10%.
Let us say that the BuShips requirement for Availability is 70%,

meaning that experience has shown this kind of complex system to
be out of commission 30% of the time, And let's say required
Schedule Effectiveness is 100%, but in the RFP we have advised the
contractors that Effectiveness to the Navy drops 1% for every month
of slippage beyond the specified delivery date. Now we can get
required and expected system Effectiveness as the product of these
three factors, or 70%.
Anticipated Acquisition costs we'll say are $22 million, of which

$2 million is expected on the reliability/maintainability programs.
And based upon the expected reliability and maintainability be-
hind the 70% Availability, we expect resultant Ownership cost to
be about $48 million over the systems useful lifetime. A very
modest expectation. Therefore expected Total Cost is the sum, or
$70 million. Cost-effectiveness is the ratio of Effectiveness to
Total Cost, or 1.0 percent per $ million.
Now let's say contracty:r "A"s analysis indicated optimum Avail-

ability to be 80%, and the extra work to get it would slip sched-
ule by 5 months. P"lt the result would be considerably better
Effectiveness of 76%. Moreover the consequent drop of Ownership
Cost results in a Cost-Effectiveness improvement of 40% over the
requirements. However it would cost an extra $1 million for
Acquisition to get that $15 million saving.
Contractor "B"s analysis led him to recommend getting 90% Avail-

ability, partly by some sacrifice of Performance Capability to
95%, and by taking 10 months longer for a special stress/strength
test program. This nets about th, same Effectiveness, 77%, but
remarkable reduction of Ownership Cost. The result is a 90%
improvement over anticipated Cost-Effectiveness.
5.4 (4.4) EVALUATION SUMMARY MATRIX
When the contractor has been asked to state the cost-effectiveness

he will achieve, a much more powerful evaluation is feasible.
Figure 23-46 can be expanded as in Figure 23-58.
Down the left side we provide for entries of %a) total program
Cost-Effectiveness, because aftLr all this is the true and over-
"riding objective, (b) the reliability/maintainability program
Cost-Effectiveness to be explained shortly, and (c) the Confidence
23-58
4J4
00 to 0
Ci~
0)
0 00t cq t-
~~14
0000
4-
00
*1 4
23-59
4,
Rating. Again wp list some of the key constituents of the figures

above, for easy reference.
If we multiply Availability (and/or Reliability) A by the Delivery

Effectiveness factor attLibutable to Availability achievement Dr,
we have a ntumber for the Effectiveness contribution resulting from
the reliability/maintainability program. Then if we add to the
contractors reliability/maintainability program cost Cr the resul-
tant lifetime Ownership Cost directly attributable to reliability/
maintainability achievement (such as maintenance, logistics,
failure consequence, etc.) we have the Total Cost to BuShips of
program reliability/maintainability or lack thereof. Dividing
one oy he other we get a Reliability/Maintainability Program
Cost-Effectiveness.
For Total Program Cost-Effectiverness we note the example figures

developed in section 5.4.1 above. Reliability/Maintainability
Program Cost-Effectiveness figures, derived from the same data as
explained above, show 1.4, 2.2, and 3.7% per $ million spent.
Note the ,3reater leverage compared to the Total Program figures.
In this example, i f the 70% truly reflects an excellent and con-

"vi'cing Program Plan, BuShips could undoubtedly decide on contrac-
"tor "B's recommended approach. Even if contractor "B" doesn't do
as well as everybody expects, the saving of $13 million compared
to contractor "A"s proposal leaves a lot of leeway foi corrective
action as problems crop up.
6. SUMMARY
In this chapter we have reviewed the DOD and CNO directives to

achieve a cost-effective optimum reliability and maintainability,
and Lhe steps BuShips management and Project Engineers can take
to plan and organize such programs.
We have discussed the complete dependency of the reliability and

maintainability program upon (a) the basic operational needs and
(b), in the future, the cost-effectiveness balance.
In the proposal phase there must be a dialogue between the Bureau

and contra-'tors until, by virtue of their estimated cost to achieve
various reliability values, the optimum values can be determined.
This is followed by detailed planning of the contractor tasks
nece3sary.
Reliability and Maintainability Program Plans, like any contract,

23-60
must be the sole vehicle of Bureau/contractor reliability and

maintainability understanding, and be kept that way as design
progresses.
Tasks mujt be very explicitly stated, particula.ly describing

exactly what output will be produced, who needs it, and who does
it. Anythin 'es produces no worthwhile result.
Proposal evaluation is developed quantitativel>, to facilitate

fair comparison of contractors proposed plans. Put in view of
the DOD directives to use cost-effectiveness criteria, suggebted
approaches are provided. We have modified what has worked 211
with a point of departure that, if we try, ought to ý'ork. L..er(
is no doubt about the soundness of the DOD principles, but imple-
mentation will take much patience.
Program Direction can be nothing but fire drills if the Prugra'

planning is incomplete or inadequate. With a solid Proiram P1
and real understanding between BuShips and the contractoi , 2ny
good contractor will make BuShips reliability and maint-inab~litj
Program Direction nu problem.
7. R1R-'ERENCES
1. Project Definition Phase, D(

o Directi.re 3200.9, February .6,
1964.
2. DOD Guide for Project Definition Phase (PDP), June 1164,

Office of the Director of Defense Research and Enc1ineering,
Washington, D. C.
3. Reporting of Research, Developmtent and Engineering Program

Information, DOD Instruction 3200.6, June 7, 1962.
4. Procedure and Responsibilities in Development of the Navy

Shipbuilding and Conversion Program, OPNAV INSTRUCTION
4700.12B dated 6 November 1963, Op-03B1, Serial 68V03BI,
Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, Dept. of the Navy,
Washington 25, D. C.
5. Responsibility of Prospective Contractors, DOD Defense Pro-

curement Circular Number 3, dated 4 4,irch 1964, issued by
direction of the Assistant Secretary c.. Defens, 'Installatior
and Logistics).
6. DOD Incentive Contracting Guide, NAVY NAVEXOS P-2451, 1963,

23-61
Office of Assistant Sccretary of Defense (Installation and

Logistics).
7. Standard Format for Reliability Program Plans, 12 March 1964,

SSD Exhibit 64-, U. S. Air Force.
8. Guide for the Preparation of TDP Dependability Plans, 2 March

1964, Bureau of Ships, Department of the Navy, Washington,
D. C.
9. Analysis of Reliability Managempnt in Defense Industries, by

Lt. Col. Vincent J. Bracha, June 1962, BSD, AF Systems Command,
U. S. Air Force.
10. Presentation for AIAA-SAE-ASME Reliability and Maintainability

Conference, by Rear Admiral Emerson Fawkes, USN, Assistant
Chief, BuWeps R&D Test & Evaluation, May 7, 1963.
11. Cost Considerations and System Effectiveness, by Dr. Charles

J. Hitch, Assistant Secretary fhr Defense (Comptroller) before
the SAE-ASME-AIAA Aerospace Reliability and Maintainability
Conference, Washington, D. C., June 30, 1964.
12. BIMRAB Survey on Industrial Reliability Problems, by T. M.

Adams, No. 1, 1960, Fourth Navy-Industry Conference on Aero-
nautical Material Reliability, Washington, D. C. (Reported in
(8) page 4-34).
13. Value Engineering Handbook Hill, 26 March 1963, Office of the

Assistant Secretary of Defense (Installations and Logistics)
Washinqton 25, D. C.
14. Value Engineering cf Naval Ordnance Equipment, MIL V 21237;

Also BuWeps note 13052 dated September 1961; Also Value
Engineering of Naval Electronic Equipment, MIL V 19858; Also
Navy Specification and Requirements Improvement Program
4120.14 dated 1 May 1962.
1Z
24-1
Chapter 24
PROGRAM CONTROL
24- 2
1. RESEARCH AND DEVELOP;AENT
24- 3
1.1 Conceptual Phase 0
24- 6
1.2 Definition Phase I
24- 6
1.3 R&D Managemeent
24-11
2. SHIPBUILDING PROGRAM
24-12
2.1 Missions and ;asks
24-12
2.2 Ships Characteristics
24-15
2.3 Shipbuilding Management
ASSIGNMENT 24-17
3. INTERNAL RESPONSIBILITY
24-17
24-18
5. CONTRACTOR EVALUATION
24-18
5.1 Pre-Award Surveys
24-19
5.2 Monthly Reports
24-19
5.3 Reliability Growth
24-.20
5.4 Post-Award Surveys
24- 20
6. CONTROL
24-21
7. SURVEILLANCE
7.1 Material Inspection Service 24-22
24-22
7.2 Inspectors of NavaL Mateial
24-22
7.3 Supervisors of Shipbuildinf
24-23
7.4 Material Inspection Service Utilization
24-23
F3 S UFtM ARY
24-24
REFERENCES
I
24-2
Chapter 24
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT
This chapter continues with the broad content of reliability and

maintainability programs, with emphasis upon the BuShips manage-
ment actions necessary to conduct, evaluate, and control such
programs to match the requirements. Chapter 23 covered the
planning and organizing of such programs.
Unless someone has the clear responsibility for reliability and

maintainability management and technical decisions throughout a
program, the required results will not be achieved. Ideal ly it
would be very desirable to have a single individual responsible
for all reliability and maintainability analysis and decisions
on any one program from "womb to tomb" (say from Proposed
Technical Approaches to end of system useful life). Let's review
the DOD framework and BuShips responsibility structures for (a)
RDT:E and (b) shipbuilding programs.
1. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Historically, preliminary feasibility studies, systems analyses

and advanced development efforts have been steps leading to the
initiation of full-scale development of a new weapon or support
system. Then, after project approval based upon a Technical
Development Plan (TDP), the Departments would prepare a Request
for Proposals (RFP). The proposals selected from those submitted
led to the negotiation of a contract (almost universally of the
cost-plus-fixed-fee type) fcr an Engineering Development or
Opcrational Systems Development.
Experience over a period of years has shown that these practices

have frequently led to "brochuremanship" in proposals, unrealistic
technical definition of required system characteristics (including
reliability), neglect of the need for further exploratory effort
prior to full-scale development, incomplete planning, and overly
optimistic contractor proposals which, in turn,have been pursued
by the cognizant Department of DOD. These practices have resulted
in disruptive or untimely perforrnance or design changes, large cost
overruns on development contracts and significant schedule slippages
and have degraded the effectiveness of the operational units and
escalated the total cost (including production, operation and
maintenance).
Further, some projects, which would never have been started if

24-3
total consequences had been foreseen, have been canceled after

partial development, with attendant financial losses. In addition,
since the demand for increased funds for the project that was in
trouble reduced funds available for other projects, thus bringing
about their "starvation" and causing them to be stretched out in
time or canceled.
To overcome these problems, a number of new management tcols have

been used in the last several years -- tools nct necf:ssarill new
in concept but new in emphasis. Among these are th,'. current OSD
Programming System, incentive contracting, PERT and PERT/Cost,
Value Engineering, contractor performance evaluation, cos-t-effect-
iveness analysis, categorization of research, and development (R&D)
and the Project Definition Phase (PDP).
Following the encouraging initial applications of PDP, the Director

of Defense Research and Engineering (DDR&E) directed the application
of PDP to major development projects meeting certain criteria. DOD
Directive 3200.9 expanded the application of PDP and provided
fundamental direction for the conduct of PDP.
1.1 CONCEPTUAL PHASE 0
W•hile the application of PDP is not our primary concern here. lack
of reliability had much to do with bringing it aboit. And the
underlying principles of PDP can and should be used for all R&D
programs. Let us trace, in Figure 24-4, the path of an R&D pro-
ject from inception.
The Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), cognizant of a need, frames

and issue6 a Naval Research Requirement (NRR), an Exploratory
Dcvelopment Requirement (EDR), or a General Operational Require-
mcnt (GOR'. Exploratory development progresses, and is reported
or a DD613 form to the CNO and to the Director of Defense Research
and Engineering (DDR&E).
When CNO has a specific operational problem that requires develop-

ment, it prepares a Tentative Specific OperaItional Requirement
(TSOR). It is at this point that the tentative reliability,
maintainability and/or availability reguirements must be expressed,
for they will have an impact on the consideration, selection, ai'd
treatment of Proposed Technical Approaches (PTA). The PTAs, in
turn. iiit @jýrfss what reliability, maintainability and avail-
abi4_ .y is achievable by each approach.
I, '4-4-4
04 *Y I,0
0*40
'-4 4I
ci) 0).w
04P bb' P4"0 E-' c
CC Od ~~C
.
-4
L )) *143 *
C>>~ 0
z 4)
~ -I
00
IM 14 4)
(D 11 '
Wz
_ _ ED R a)
24-5
Inderendently, NRRs or EDRs cause Exploratory Development, result-

ing in PTAs which should include approaches to achieve reliability
and maintainability. In this case the result is Advance Develop-
ment Objectives (ADO), which should contain reliability and main-
tainability needs in the stated quantitative objectives.
Consideration of the PTAs leads to a firm Specific Operational

Requirement (SOR), which must include reliability and maint~lin-
ability figures. From this BuShips prepares a Program Change
Proposal (PCP) for Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD)
approval in relation to Five Year Force Structure and Financial
Program, and a preliminary Technical Development Plan (TDP).
SECNAV 3900.14A on the Reporting of RD&E Program Information

transmits DOD Instruction 3200.6 of 7 June 1962 on the saine sub-
ject (2). Sections IIIB2a of 3200.6 states that the TDP will
include:
"A narrative statement of the requirements, a brief develop-

ment plan, and statements delineating the performance,
reliability and maintainability characteristics. (See
Inclosure 2 for applicable categories and types of relia-
bility and maintainability information to be included.)"
Inclosure 2 of 3200.6, sections A and C, state:
"TDPs will normally include the kinds of information (listed

below). Comprehensive reliability and maintainability pro-
grams for feasibility studies, exploratory development and
Advanced Development categories are not desired. However,
due consideration shall be given to all characteristics,
including reliability and maintainability, in the early
planning and feasibility study stages, and comprehensive
reliability and maintainability programs are expected for
operational development projects. It is intended that both
the human and hardware aspects of reliability and maintain
be considered. The goal is a balanced and integrated effort
aimed at optimizing operational effectiveness, total cost
and early availability."
"Normally (Research and Exploratory Development), which are

essentially the requirements, will be precisely and
quantitatively stated. Information in the TDP responsive
to Advanced Developmente and Enginep'ring Developments should
outline the plans for achieving reliability and maintainability,
including the significant elements. In some cases, listing of
a significant element without detail is satisfactory. For
24-6
example, indication that reliability apporto.onment and

prediction is a part of the reliability program may b3
sufficient. In other cases, for example, reliability test
and demonstration, and principal details of the planned program
are necessary. Whenever there it: heavy emphasis or unusual
treatment of an element, this should, of course, be detailed."
According1, the TDP must include a reliability a,.., maintainability

Progrýml Plan, as shown in section 3. of chapter 23. The PCP and
preliminary TDP are routed to OSD for PCP approval and go-ahead,
which authorizes preparation of a firm TDP (and revised PCP if
needed), a PDP Plan (if used), a Request for Propusal (RFP),
and preparation of evaiuation criteria. Content of the RFP, so
far as reliability ind maintainability -rre concerned, is covered
by section 2.1 of chapter 23.
1.2 DEFINITION PHASE I
If PDP is used, Figure 24-7 shows the proposals resulting from

the above RFP, and proposal evaluation is described in section
4. of chapter 23. Contract negotiation is discussed in section
4. herein. In this case the contract results as in Figure 24-8,
in proposals for Phase II full-scale desigr, development and
production, and these proposals in turn can be evaluated as in
section 4. of chapter 23. After the necessary refinement of
the TDP (including its Dependability Plan) and PCP, and dual
negotiation, a final ACQUISITION Phase II contract is negotiated.
If ri!P is not used, the procedure is identical except that the

steps between the Proposals for Phase I block (FigUre 24-7) and
the Proposals for Phase II block (Figure 24-8) are omitted.
1.3 R&D MANAGEMENT
For BuShips management and execution of the Research, Development,

Test and Evaluation Program, Figures 27-9 and 24-10 from reference
(1) show very concisely the distribution between Program Manager
and Technical code responsibilities. In concept the Program
Manager is responsible for determining what is to be done to meet
Bureau requirements, and the Technical Code is responsible for
determining how to execute the selected tasks within the time-
cost-per formance framework.
Clearly it is the job of the Project Engineer in the Technical

Code to (a) determine how to achieve the required reliability
and maintainability, to (b) recommend which tasks are acceptable,
(c) determine method of accomplishment, (d) prepare Proposed
771'
I IL
41~
u~ P4
cnQ
bf
z 00
$H t 0ý
z~ 0
~-~04
- ca
S-4
72 R7 3
5.4
- . . 5u - 4~
O~~IJ2
cn tt- o
C~ý L)z~
- ~ 7t -
F-
-' -~-r,
-, ~ c
0 ct 7ý
P4-C-- - S J
-~~ 7~~--
-~ - 67~
_ 4,~
cl2'f_
)_I - -
coI
z~ .A7 1
24-11
Terhnical Approaches accounting fcr reliability and maintain-

ability, specifications and RFPs to achieve required vrJues,
(e) administer the technical contract, and (f) initiate any
required changes of specified reliability and maintainability.
The Technical Codes, whetner or not PDP is used, are responsible

for hardware design and evaluate activities, and responsible for
making certain that reliability andI maintainability requirements
are invariably considered and specified in hardware PTAs, TDPs,
and PFPs, evaluate the resulting proposals for reliability and
maintainability content, recommend awards, participate in con-
tract negotiation of reliability and maintainability content,.
and administer contractor reliability and maintainability per-
form~ance.
For example in preparing PTAs, the Technical Code may have

evaluated one or more unsolicited proposals in the same area,
noting the reliability and maintainability these contractors
expected to be able to achieve. He must insure that the probable
reliability effects of departures from existing designs are
evaluated, that likely reliability problem areas are identified
(e.g., perhaps microcircuitry is involved, and thermal sensitivity
of the -eemi-conductors is known to be causing serious prcbiems in
such circuitry; the PTA should indicate how this would affect
system reliability and what approach would be used to minimize
adverse effect).
In -reparing a Technical Development Plan, he includes a.Depend-

abi§ ity Plk that is firmly based on mission requirements 'and system
per'-ormance parameters. He must assure himself that the-planpro-
vidl•s for resolving the problems of interface with other shipboard
systems and that it identifies any areas which will require special
reliability upgrading effort. If underwater pickup resistance' o'
corrosion must be improved by an order of magnitude, he mmust be
sure that the Dependability Plat provides for such effort, that
it shows the type of testing required to verify this new resistance,
and that cost and schedule implications are clearly indicated'..
He must also insure that the remaining sections of the TDP reflect
this requirement. The engineering plan must contain'provisions,
for appropriate dev(lopment, the schedule must alio%,, for it, thee
cost must be included in the overall cost breakdown, etc.
2. SHIPBUILDING PROGRAM
As detailed in OPNAV 4700.12B, the "development of ship

characteristics and aathoritative cost estimates is a complex,
and lengtry procedure, requiring .nputs from the Fleet, different
*1c
2 4- 12 !
h nLI0;'NAV\`
Ir~~w~ ).4nl 7 rit Ii _ ca-cl-,r i Os
ao; te I~rea
ernn,,.
cf-i Basic ilO lCC itrovidCO t,' Mission and
.Fasks ssppr oved hf
hv - Ch iet Naval tions -Doer infor-
.
nta
I i.,1 .. tI. M"-I' I'ss arn. _i led by s
1 tS•.o.Osponsr, in ap anroved
c _hic
by,
fu -11s
t cs
:', <f • Naval
I-"
C i ct'ut F
r"o at \ TI.,_
ost r
P(Avis '-2sianprovided n-o. t aC'aira,
Sh i1_ CharacteI
C -S. ics
.... is,
n
sSa,iI i cge ch cert 2' s t4 cs eLineate th e si qnifi-
.... u s
c a ldActDJ t) iIt ies wh ich form the basis of cost and
I II
1
f t,7 7 it. StId ..i es by the Chic f , Bureau of Ships, an, the re-
Su tant e,' 1( pm.ent of the init ia1 credible price estimate.
Base <-n t.h c I e information and ui"dance, approved Ship
c a.
.aciit k.rist.ics a re developed.
The ýi t on.int _f Mission and Tasks for each type of U.S. Naval
soip pr'cI h s te key to a shiT's ultimate capabilities, character-.
i1stics a1noi cost Because it. furnishes a broOad statement of the
purpos f: ; h the s I. p 4.s ..o -e L]es ined dlnd the tasks which
the shi I) C" e expected to accomplish, each word used in the
Mission ana T1s,,s statement is significant. The stipulation of
an excessive cafrability in uither the mission or tasks may well
result in an overly complex ship priced at a cost which jeopardizes
actual construct•,n. Similarly, under statement of capability
could rosult in a shii of less-than-uesirable operational qualities."
2.1 MISSIONs _N., T.ASKS
F.icur- 24-13 shows the sep..,ence...1ading up to transrnis-ion of the

Mission and Task st.-it ment for each ship to the Chairman of the
ships (.Characteri -,1ic Boared.
The an maintainability requirements ar-2 not being

rteliabiiitv
inc u-'Yd in the roco..menAded Tasks, nor in the 1.-page Ships Character-
is t ics t)day I But the incorporation of such requirements, where
app'licabeW, w11 utli.miately avoid or minimize many problems such as
(a) ex""s'< ,., ystem "'out of commission" time, (b) degraded weapon
systea
3 C
e t i\ ness, kc) impractical maintenance manpower and
skil I I -e(IP' rosAent s, and (d) pre-emption of new weapon system funds
ct pay f the nm
tintenance. Ir
2.2 Sh!IPS CHARACT EPiSTICS
Vig.rt: 24-14 shoiiwv the next sequence leading to final PCP approval
by tiý !3retary oif. c f.ense. BuShips primary point of contact, for
ships chir aci r is t .and cost, is with the Ships Characteristic
Vkoe-.1 (sc•) , but B_ nips is not considering their feasibility or
ý4- 13
I -
IE
41 E
m _- 4 1
I~AF. 11
E---
7Th~
I ~~ ___7<
rZI
.1 g
u Q
XI C:
44 u z
Hn -DHl
z~H -
d ~2 H ~ u
t - j
ZC ý
x z
I-'
ui u .
24-15
cost. It would appear that BuShips can help avoid those future
fleet and budqet problems by finding out from SCB how much relia-
ztiliu c•dxu iiluLd bL'litv iV . ettded, and inrcluding its c)st and
its stedule impact.
2.3 SHIPBITILDING MANAGaIENT
Referring to Figure 24-16, the Ships Characteristics Board (SCB),

in response to the Mission and Task statement issued by the Chief
of Naval Operations (CNO) , delineates the desired characteristics
to the BuShips Ships Design Division. Altho.igh such desired
characteristics do not yet include the reliAbility and maintain-
ability characteristics desired, they should be included as
rapidly as feasible.
The Ships Design Division, like the Program Manager Code for
RDT&E, delineates the task of determining teasibility, character-
istics and cost, to be executed by the cognizait Technical Code.
The Technical Code may need some help from one or more c)ntrac-
tors, for which contracts are placed. The resulting report of
feasibility, characteristics and cost should include the relia-
bility and mainta)inability characteristics and cost. It is then
transmitted back to SCB via the Ships Design Di<'ision.
After the SCB has made final recommendations to the Standing

Committee (Figure 24-14) and the program is approved by the
Secretary' of Defense, CNO issues authorization to the BuShips Type
Desk to proceed with acquisition. The Type Desk integrates the
entire program. For shipbuildinq and conversion it deals direc-
tly with the contractors, including preparation and issuance of
RFPs which should include any reliability and maintainability re-
quirements. When contractors proposals are received the Type
Desk selects a contractor and negotiat,.s a ccntract, which should
include anv reliability and maintainability requirements.
For GFE equipment the Type Desk, again like the Program Manager
Code for RDT&E, authorizes the Technical Code to prepare and
issue final P.R. or Requests for Propo3al, the reliability and
maintainability content of which should be as in chapter 23.
The contractors offer their proposals, which the Technical Code

evaluates, consolidates the best features of all, may survey one
or two bidders, and makes its final reconmendation to the Type
Desk. After its decision th1,- Technical Code debriefs the losers
and proceeds with contract negotiation. The contract should con-
"tain a reliability and maintainability Program Plan as detailed
in chapter 23.
24-16 _
bcL
0~ al
ý4Cd Q
'IL2 I!
7-:-] 0U 12 ji
e. cl
Zý4 0ii1
Cw ý4
41 Q
0 (u
> o
00
u Q1
cir
24-17
Throughou~t '--erf -.rmance of the contract the Supervisor of Ship-

building -,~~hp
r loc)(al cognizant government. representative
aud-its contractor per formanc~e, which should specifically include
reliability- an:-! maintainability progress. He should conduct
p?.riodic surveys of contractor reli~ability arid maint~ainability
capability. He directs the contractor, and reports progress to
the Type Desk. The 'iyeDesk of course must approve or redirect
the Su~pervisors act-,rns- as necessary.
Hia-vinq discussed to DT&m.P; A-c1. Shipbuilding workflow, we can turn

,.ur attention to ,o-me methods found effect ive in indust~ry.
3. INTrERNAIL RESPONSIBILITYASSIGNMYENT
While the above ruShips- allocation of responsibilit- says that

soyme code is resuonsible for reliability and maintainability at
all times, that will not -4et the -job done within the respective
r-ndes. The clic~h6 "Reli~hiblity is everybodvs business" means
tha-ýt -nbody feels personally responsible to do much about it,
except, perhaps, to Lj-,~v-e lip service.
So it is extremel-" impoitant that every code management. issue

and enforce internal instructions that (a) name an individual
sp'cfically- reqoonsible fo--r reliability and maint-ainability on
ev.ery proqram (one may 'L.andle several programs), (b) cause the
named individuals to get educated on this Gubject, and (c) re-
»tuire them to Vnow.' pt-ouram reliability and maintainability status
at all times. we are not suggesting additional manpower. We
are suagesting -that every affected Code should train say 10%X of
-ts people to become real reliability and maintainability experts.
T'his is particularly important in SupShip and insMat offices

co,,nizant over con-tractolrs plants, where he can get close to the
cOnt- ictor c,,:unterparts and understand the problems.
See chapter 23 section 2.4. Normally the BuShips financial

contract negotiator and thLe Project Engineer will not be suffic-
'L'1*L tLxptrt. on detai lcad reliability and maintainability pro-
bleMS and impact, to judge 'consequent contractual ccontent. There-
fore it is imperative that. at least one BuShips reliability/
maintainability specialist participate in the reliability and
mai~ntai~naI-bil>,.y Progrvm Pi-in and incentive (if used) negotiation.
Anid it is just as imperative, for the 9-Ame reason, thz.t at least
24-18
one contractor reliabilitv/rmiintainab' lity grcup supervisor

participate.
The BuShips teliabilityimnaintainability sp3:cialist should recor'l-

ment (a) exact final. wording of the R-equirements, including the
exact means of verification of their achievement, (b) exact con-
tent of the Program Charts, (c) exact content of all Task Delin-
eation and should (d) participate in negotiation and approval of
the proposed reliibiliicyinaintainabil-ty organization. He should
(e) recommend and concur with the incentive relationshiip to cost--
effectiveness so far as reliability and maintainability are con-
cerned. He must not concur with a Letationship which fails to
compensate the contractor for reliability/maintainabiiity expen-
ditures that will clearly improve cost-effectiveness.
5. CONTRACTOR EVALUATION
This section is concerned with the evaluation of a contractor's

capability to achieve required re-iability and maintainability,
as well as evaluation of his actual achievement during the con-
tract.
5. 1 PRE-AWARD SURVEYS
Prior to contract award there should be a comprehensive survey

of the reliability and maintainability competence of the one or
two contractors still under consideration. At this point the
Proposal Evaluation questions of chapter 23 can be used directly,
except for the few as outlined in Figure 23-18, that may not be
applicable. Much more detailed surveys (1) may be used if
warranted, but they are costly and time-consuminq.
In order to provide uniformity of assessment acrý.ss all contrac-

tors, Technical code t&09 is responsible for all BuShips surveys
of contractors reliability and maintainability competence. Upon
request, code 609 will execute this standard sequence:
1. Schedule surveys.
2. Assign a survey chairman (INM or SupShips)
3. Notify the contractor and cognizant INM or BuShips
personnel by letter at least 30 days prior to the
proposed survey.
4. Conduct a pre-survey conference of the team with con-
tractor personnel.
5. Conduct the survey and evaluate the program acjainst the
pertinent items of section 5.0.
24-19
6. Conduct a post-survey critique for the contractor and

obtain contractor response.
7. Prepare a final report to the requesting Technical Code,
copies to team members.
8. Follow up with the contractor to determine corrective
action taken.
9. Maintain records of all surveys.
The survey team will consist of the INM or SupShips ch,,irman, a

representative of Lhe cognizant Bureau Engineering group, a re-
presentative of code 609, and one or more specialists as may be
required for the primary nature of the contractors design relia-
bility problems. It is extremely important that contractor
design reliability and analysis capability be surveyed by experi-
enced engineers. Industry experience is that "QC" surveys cannot
evaluate reliability and maintainability. Person-to-person eval-
uation of technical competence is far more important than check-
ing documents, although the latter is necessary.
5.2 MONTHLY REPORTS
The regular monthly contractor reports in chapter 22 section

12. serve as a basis for monthly BuShips evalution of reliability
and maintainability (a) requirements, (b) predictions vs. appor-
tionment, (c) task progress vs. schedule, and (Id)verification
results. These must be thorouqhly digested by the cognizant INM
or SupShips reliability and maintainability specialist, dis-
cussing any questionable items with the contractors reliability
and maintainability specialist. Then for RDT&E proqrams he can
prepare the reliability section of the Monthly Project Evalua-
tion (MPE) and OPNAVINST 3910.!1 Quarterly Project Reliability
Summary Sheet covered by BuShips Instruction 3900.27, which are
then evaluated semi-annually in accordance with BuShips R&D memor-
andum 8-64 and DOD Instruction 3200.6.
5.3 RELIABILITY GROWTH
It would be very unrealistic to eypect any contractor to achieve

the predicted values in the initial design. Predictions, are
based upon more or less mature designs. In the iterative process
of lociting potential problem areas and minimizing their effects
or eliminating them, inherent reliability improves. Historically,
predicted reliability increases during the design phase and can
be projected forward to operational use. As test data becomes
available, predictions have more validity. Problems invariably
show up in the hardware that could not be forseen in the design,
and achieved reliability is significantly lower than that inheient.
24-20
Aggressive corrective action eliminates these problems as the

program progresses, and achieved reliability increases.
Analysis of reliability growth in the aerospace industry shows

reasonable consistency between programs, depending on the degree
of urgency and its effect on ability to implement corrective
action when problems are uncovered in the hardware phase. These
rates of growth are roughly equivalent to doubling the MTBF in
4 years, and should be applicablh as approximations to ships GFE
programs. Cognizant Navy managers should be alert to any signif-
icant failure of such growth to materialize in their programs.
5.4 POST-AWARD SURVEYS
In order to detect trends and assure compliance with reliability

and maintainability requirements, INM or SupShips should conduct
regulaf suiveys uf eacii contractor every o to 12 months, covering
all BuShips contracts he has at each survey. Again the chapter
23 Proposal Evaluation can be used, chough it is possible that
the exýellent but very detailed NASA Reliability ror.m Evali:a-
tion Procedures (2) will be adopted by DOD as the government
standard. However the Procedures (a) do not cover several of the
very important chapter 23 areas, (b) assumc a particular assicn-
ment -f organization 1 responsibilities that many contractors may
find incompatible nrd uneconomic, (c) contain 25 to 50/c redundancy
for cross-checking, and (d) seem very expensive to conduct, and
keep reasonably current, for the utility obtained. Undoubtedly
further refinement of it can be expected.
If conducted el-ory 6 months on each contractor, using the same

chapter 2t weights, trends will be evident. If the same rating
system is used across all contractors, the carefully-used results
can highly motivate a contractor to correct deficiencies.
6. CONTROL
Every effort should be made to encourage the contractor to con-

trol the program himself, basing his decisions or reconunendations
en anc-.yses whicn are in turn based upon the BuShips cost-eft-c-
tiveness criteria. Then BuShips need only %watch and regularly
evaluate the program.
Often there will be changes in BuShips planning, such as an added

mission for a higher-level system that this program supports.
Such changes can eas 'ly change the program cost-effectiveness 06
criteria, and the contractor should he i-miediately so informed.
24-21
Then the conLractor can analyse the new situation and make re-
commendat'5,ns f( r contract change, if any.
But theit there are inuvitably contractor deficiencies in achieve-

ment of requirements, achievement of tasks, schedule adherence,
or excessive expenditure. It is then up to the SupShips and/or
the Technical Code to (a) get "he facts, and thor ughly under-
stand the problem, (b) iequire an official corwnit ient from the
contractor or corrective action by a specified date, or (c) re-
commend BuShips adjustment of the Program Plan or contract to
fit the unforeseen contingency.
Both technical and management capability are vital to a c')ntrac-

tors ability to satisfy reliability requirements within budget
and schedule constraints. The better the technical capability
the contractor I'as, the less his attention is absorbed by the
question, "How can I make this system do the things it should?"
And the more it can be devoted to answering the other question,
"how can I best assure that this system will not fail?" Evalu-
ation of his ability to meet reliability requirements, therefore,
involves not only his understanding of organization for relia-
bility and maintainability control, but his overall technical
background and management history.
,Po great obstacles to reliability achievement are: (a) inability

to stay mn schedule, and (b) poor internal communication. As any
part of the schedule begins to slip, pressure mounts rapidly to
make do with whatever shortcuts are available. The first work
to suffer is the review and double-checking type, with the result
that errors are not detected. At the same time, the work is
done otPore hastily, so that decisions are not weighed as carefully
and errors become more likely. By the same token poor internal
communication increases the probability of hardware interface
problems, poorly-coordinated problem solutions, and misunderstood
requirements.
7. 'URVEILLANCE
InsMat and SiipShips are responsible for direct survoillance of

contractor performance, and therefore of implementation of con-
tractor reliability and maintainability prxqrams. Their resident
people will make many tradeoff decisions on problems, within their
authorized scope, that never need to get to Washington. Decision
* by those closest to t-Ahe problm is a tenet of good management.
"There is no substitute for close c_-ntact with the contractors.
!____
24.-22
There shoul~d be a local InsMat or SupSh~ips reli ab-i lity,"maintain-

ability sveci~alit who, receives all such con*ricto--r reports', and
shou.1a get ',hem for prior informal rcr-Jiew to giv the con' ractor
an opportunity to correct uc ficienicies. Hie should require mo,.nthly
contractor meetings at which unreso' ied- reliabili~ty and maintain-
ability problems are discussed and act. ion ass iqrL"Wrcs maide.
But beyond formal meetings, he should be continucosly visiting

appropriate -groups to learn how things areý being doneo and to
understand the problems. --
e should be constantly ale'rt to
opportunities where he ca help the contract::z, perhaps by
gettino- informatio-,r tra-m BuShi~ps or ether sources.
7.1 MATERIAL INSPECTION SERVICE
Monitoring of progress, inspection and milny of t~h- ak of con-

tract administration are pe formed by the MIaterial Irspectiori
Service (MIS), includinq but not limited to Inspectors of 'Naval
Material (INSMAT) and Supervisors of Shipbuilaing.
7 2 INSPECTORS OF NA'AL MA'TERIAL
INSMAT offices are locate~d in laneo ~tteS and near miajor indus-
tries. ThIey work directly for the Officc. ")t Navali Mateorial ani
have prime cognizance o-ver source ins~pect' ion o~f mfter ial, pre--
award and other surveys of contr actors, plants, and prop-ýr Use of
goverrnment furnished miter ial and tý-ci lit ics. A hi .'I leýo1l
ccri~petence is to be expccted on Inspect ion a-no,' accopt jnce tx -fI
and adhrinistrati-ve. duties. Transmitthal of the contr act rO t~he
local office ooqnizanit over tie platn~t -is aILl ttuot is rtc 111 e3
to obtain their services to the extent .dIef: ned in th~e n
and specifiýcations. Thisq r~eans ,'.1 unusn'a 1 ins pect , p t in
funct ions must be spel1led oit to insure their accoýmpj1 i- 4hren
A high le':e 1 of en4;nc r inI, and na l-yt ical oomernet enc.> is not t
be expected, a lthouqh it, may rc is ic-n-illyv b-e available. F or
unusual or aina lyt icalI ta~sks thatt m iohilt be cons i ,!cre!" within theý
capabilities o)f a top lrade ýnsppt'ctr , i letter sh-.)ul1d be wr
to the coqni-ant -ffice outlininoý in o rh i edt ailI t h
ciuties desired.
'W-h re no coqni zant IN3MAT i, iss iqned over t h*' plant , cross
serviciin- by A.ir ForcL? or Army inspectors may be 'IrranýLled.
7.3 SUPERVISORS OF SHI'BU-1hDING
Supe.rvisors of Shipbuilding (Sup~hips) are BuShips Inscection

24- 23
tOf I Ce, ass igned cog_)niztnce over Shipbuilding arnS ,.oat building
contracts. Thtey are physically lorated ntear the shipyard and
have the duties of contract a~dministration (ver the detailis of
+-he contract. They h~i1vc deleqated co,-ntractxLng authority for tb-e
negotiation of costs incident to changes authoriLzed by the Bureau,
th~ey proqre-, the work, enforce contract requirements, and review
contractors drawings and procurement. They are staffed w~ th
Inspec4'ion, Engiineering and Financial personnel W4 th a higýh level
of technical ccmpetence. At the- present time there is no parti-
cular capability in analytical reliability.
Where sptfciaL reliability analytical jr monitori~nq tasks are

.involved at the contractors plant, or in pro uremr-nt of contrac-
tor furnished material, del-ailed instructions should be provided
by letter.
7.4 MATERIAL INSPECTION SERVICE UTIILIZATION
Wh'lere- reliability requirements are included in the contracts, the

cogniza:nt office of the MIS should be briefecr, prefer~ahly ')v
of the limitatiuns of their author ity. Such actions a,-
approval of contract chanies, appro-val ot .se of non-s tandard
parts, and qualification by si~mil Ar:ty should be specifically
aissigjned or specifically resorvi'd to the '3ureau.
S.. S 1¶Y A1RY
In this chapter we have outlined t~he broad manc.qement of relia-

bility and ma~intain -bi Iity pr-gQraz's, witn emphl.-sis on tne con-
duct, evaluat ion, and control of such progirams. Control decisionzi
are made by the Program Managler of RL~r&F prograrms, and by the
Ships Design Division or the Type Desk for the Shi building arid
Conversioit procram.
Detailedi proqrams are developed by the Teý_hnical Codes for ttue

:tbove approval and decisions, and likewise Tec2hnical Code con-
tract evaluion and control is subject to the aboveapoa
and ivcisicons. Thus this chapter attempts t) describve the inter-
fa-ce flow of work for reliability and maintainability proqrams.
Ke h~ive tried to emnphasize that not much will happen until some
specific7 personnel are told that they "are hencefo-rth the relia-
bid ity ard; maintainability: experts," that they should 'y4et edu-
cated" on tne subject, and then that they are responsible~ for
specific contract reliaoility and mainta:L.abIility achievemnent.
24-24
We have tr-ied to emphasize that contract negotiation involvjnLn

reliabiL'ty and maintainability incentives
•one cannot be apart
from thorouh 'K•ncwedge cf reliability and ma;ntalinability feasl-
bi ty, tasks and consequences.
We have tried tc emphasize that contractor evaluation requires

tachnical person-to-person understanding of the problems, so t]iat
the monthly reports have significance.
But ab)ve all, if the progiram is thoroughly conceived, with

insistence upon mutually understood Program Plan language, then
it really takes a minimut of control to get good results.
9. REFERENCES
1. Management and Execution of the Research, Development,

Test and Evaluation Program; responsibilities for, 3 ML"
1963, BuShips Instruction 5430.41A.
2. Reliability Program Evaluation Standards, NASA SP-6002,

September 1963, National Aernau-ics Space Admninistiat ion,
Washington, D. C.
25-1
Chapter 25
SYST&, EFFECT iJENESS
1. THE BASIS OF SYSTEM EFFECT WENESS 25- 3

1.1 Application 25- 3
-2 Criteria for System Fffectiverness 25- 4
2. SYSTEM EFFECTIVENESS FACTORS 25- 5

"2.1 Performance Capability 25- 6
2.2 Delivery Effectiveness 25- 7
2.3 Utilization 25- S
2.4 Dependability 25- 9
2.4.l Simple Reliability 25- 9
2.4,2 Availability 25- 9
2.4.3 Combined Reliability and Availability 25-10
2.4.4 S umm ary 25-11
3. RELIABILITY IN SYSTEM EFFECTIVENESS 25-11

3.1 Establishing Requiremer.ns 25-13
3.2 Method of Analysis 25-13
3.2.1 Operational Reliability Analysis 25-15
3.2.2 Study Approach 25-16
4. RELIABILITY AND MAINTAINABILITY IN SYSTEM

EFFECT IVENES S 25-19
5. SYSTEM EFFECTIVENESS MODELS 25-21
6. REFERENCES 25-24
25-2
Chapter 25
SYSTM EFFECT XVMNJ S
Admiral Schoech recently stated (1)i
""'System effectiveness,and its fiscal corrollary cost

effectiveness constitute the most important concern of
military R&D management."
System effectiveness concerns the capability of a system to per-

form its intended function. DOD Instruction 3200.9 states
"Trade-offs shall be used to obtain, within the mission

and performance envelopes, an optimum balance between
total cost, schedule and operational effectiveness for
the system.'
The reasoning behind these statements is based on higb cost pen-

alties, both direct and indirect which are associated with low
reliability. Some of the direct costs are
- additional systems that are required to carry out a given

mission
- additional spares used in support of the systems
- added operating bases, supply and maintenance points,

tenders, and test equipment
- additional maintenance workload caused by frequent failures
- additional technical training for maintenance personnel.
Somae indirect causes related to unreliability which are difficult

to assess in terms of cost are
- loss of prestige due to failure of system
- loss of ship's effectiveness
- raise security which jeopardizes America's defense pocture.
One of the mc.t costly items attributable to unreliability is the

maintenance and support costs of systems. .aintenance expendi-
tures in the DOD account for more than 25 percent of the defense
budget. In FY61, 960,000 people {anproximately) were directly
25-3
concerned with maintenance. The figures quoted are believed to

have grown correspondingly with the defense budgets. More in-
formation on the cos3t of unreliability is contained in chapter
26.
1. THE BASIS OF SYSTE2M EFFECTIVENESS
The System Effectiveness conce- -. is derived from the system en-

gineering process. It recognizes the interaction and interde-
pendence of the many system parameters and seeks to optimize
them rationally in the interest of overall system accomplishment.
The concept commences with identification of an operational re-
quirement. Ensuing efforts are directed toward satisfying that
requirement.
The selection of systems to develop and the selections of con-

tractors to develop them must. be in conformance with National
Strategic Objectives and must include 0-ie consideration of econ-
omic factors in their acquisition and ownership. That is they
must be effective in performing their function and must make
most efficient use of the budget.
Reliability and Maintainability must be designed into equipment

at the system level, and subjected to design and operational
trade-off analyses with weight, size, cost, delivery, etc. Opti-
mum system effectiveness can only rasult through this judicious
weighing of each of the sys*em characteristics.
1.1 APPLICATION
While it is apparent that this concept is clearly applicable to

new development programs, its use is not limited thereto. It
may be applied equally well to thi Bureau's problem of improving
existing systems. As with R&D programs, the concept is introduced
when operational factors are identified. The essential difference
is that the concept car. be tailored to specific conditions of
change vhen:
- a previous operational requirement has been iuodifted, or
- available equipment fails to meet an existing operational

requirement or
- system improvement is desired to improve its cost-effective-

ness.
25-4
The System Effectiveness concept is not restricted by the develop-

ment nature of a system. Its use, however, should be justified on
the basis of its economy in achieving the desired improvement.
Determinants may well be the degree of improvement sought versus
constraints of time and/or cost.
1.2 CRITERIA FOR SYSTI4 EFFECTIVENESS
The ultimate output of any system is the performance of a set of

intended functions. They may be described by some system output
characteristic such as satisfactory message transmission in a
communication system, or positive identification in a shipboard
radar system.
The system engineering approach views the ship itself as a plat-

form. Although it has specific functions, it is dependent upon
the individual functions of its primary systems to propel, navi-
gate, steer (submerge for submarines). The function of the plat-
form (ship) may be to carry weapons or detection systems with
their necessary controls and support, or to provide logistic
support. These systems require secondary or support systems such
as personnel, communications (internal and external), power, and
casualty control.
Each system has a mission (or missions) related to either the

mobility and positioning of the ship, tne weapons or detection
equipment, or support of the ship's personn-l.
Mission Requirements: Through proper evaluation of the system's

purpose, it is possible to establish mission duration require-
ments for each type of ship mission. Three standard mission
cycles in use are:
1. Time between shipyard overhauls - 4 years.
2. Overseas tour of duty, including transit time - 3 months.

For submarines, subnerged period may be three months.
3. General Quarters (battle stations)- 4 hours.
Levels of Importance: Systems may be classified as to their

relative impotance for each of the three cycles. Fire Control,
weapons, power, casualty control, propulsion, steering, etc.,
must have a very high Reliability for raeneral Quarters. However,
for a three-xnonths tour, their essentiality will vary. Propul-
sion must have a hiqh Availability, stepring a high Reliability,
while fire control may have no other requirement than stand-by
I
25-5
readiness. Search equ.xmient may requ-re a high Availability.

Each system must I- evaluated against its requirements, including
requirements to support other systems in order to establish mean-
ingful essentiality levels.
Capability of Restoration: The capability of self maintenance of

ships does in fact have limitsý The limitations are:
1. skills of personnel
2. availability of personnel
3. spare parts and materials
4. operational constraints
5. equipment and facilities
6. access.
Summary: The term. System Effectiveness is used to describe the

overall accomplishment or worth of a system. It relates to that
property of system output which is the reason for its existence -
namely, the carrying out of some Intended function. The System
Effectiveness concept realistically considers
I. system function
2. system mission duration requirements based on stated
cycrles and logistics capability
3. levels of system. importance
4. capability of restoration.
If the system is effective, it will carry out its function for

the duration under actual conditions. If it is not effective,
attention must be given to the system parameters which are
deficient.
2. SYSTEM EFFECTIVENESS FACTORS
System Effectiveness is the combinatioii of many fdcotLs, zacl- in

some way contributing to the capability of the system to perform
its intended function. Some of these are:
A. Performance Capabilit
1. Technical Capability
a. Capacity (load, range, etc.)
b. Speed (knots, microseconds. etc.)
c. Accuracy (bearing, resolution, etc.)
d. Invulnerability to countermeasures
25-6
2. Possible Limi ations Upon Performance

a. Space and weight requirements
b. Input power requirements
c. Input information requiremer. s
d. Requirements for special protection against shock,
radiation, vibration, high pressure, and other
environmental influences
B. Dependability
1. Reliability
a. 2ailure-free operation
b. Redundancy or provisions for alternate modes of
operation
2. Maintainability
a, Time to restore failed systems to satisfactory
operating status
b Technical skills required for maintenance
c. Effects of use upon maintenance
3. Logistic Supportability
a. Spares availability
b. Test equipment and facilities
C. Procurability
1. Acquisition Cost
2. Development Time
2.1 PERFORMANCE CAPABILITY
The reason for the existence of the ship is the performance of

an intended function. With the large number of possible require-
ments that may be operationally imposed on a ship, the equipment
installed can not always be matched to the requirements. A radar
operating within specifications may tot be able to detect a
surface target at the extreme of its range (due to heavy weather),
or it may not be able to detect a target beyond the limit of its
range (we might call this mis-application). Or the requirement
•'3' not utilize the full capability of the equipment, as a twenty-
f'.ve megaton bomb greatly overkilling a target.
To start to evaluate the effectiveness of an equipment for a

25-7
9 particular function or "mission', the first need is a figure of

merit for the proposed (or each proposed) system that describes
the limit of its capability. Many such figures of merit can be
envisioned. For a supply ship, to take a simple case, such a
figure of merit could be the ton-miles of stores it could haul,
the ton being based on full ca•acity loading and the miles on
maximutm cruising radius without refueling. Thi.s figure of merit
we call Performance Capability.
For a specific mission this capability may or may not be adequate.

WKhere it is not, the system cannot be considered for that parti-
cular mission. Comparisons of excess capability, where the pro-
posed system is more than adequate, become an area of trade-off
with cost, delivery schedule and other factors.
2.2 DELIVERY EFFECTIVENESS
As stated earlier in chapter 2, the development of new systems

is always based on a General Operational Requirement. The mid-
range strategic objectives normally provide a time that the
equipment is needed in the tleet. The lerngth of development
time can and does control tho amount of Performance Capabi.X &y,
as previously used, that can be developed into a proposed system.
For any particular delivery schedule there is some limit to

achievable capability. If more time can be allowed a higher level
of capability might be developed. Again, if a capability adequate
to perform the intended function on a particular mission• cannot
be provided within time constrAints, the proposed system cannot
be considered as supporting that opetational cequirement.
Where excess capability can be provided then Performance Capabil-

ity and schedule can be traded-off in selecting the capability
to develop into the system.
There is, of course, always some risk involved that the equipment
will not be delivered on schedule. This is especially true when
major technological breakthroughs are required, but can also
occur in standard production centracts such as when maJor strikes
occur. The penalty fnr failure to have the equipment operable
must be assessed (in terms Possibly of importance of meeting the
particular objective within the time frame, or adequacy of pre-
sent interim systems to aclhieve the military purpose). The cap-
ability to he developed into the system must be selected such
* that the risk of late delivery is reduced to an acceptable value.
within the constraints provided (mission and performance envelopes)

25-8
a relationship between the effectiveness (usefulness) and probable

delivery schedules may sometimes be found. In some cases this
will be bounded, that is, limited on one or both ends of 3 del-
ivery period. If for example the system were a fire control for
a new weapon, delivery before the weapon become available would
serve little, if any, purpose.
Or if the equipment were for interim use until a new system with
far superior capabilities was developed, delivery too close to
the phase-out date is obviously uneconomical. In most cases the
relationship will be highly subjective. The "decision maker"
will have to assign values to the various possible c-mbinations
of capability and delivery to use in determining the desirability
of the various possible courses of action (various competing
systems).
2.3 UTILIZATION
As earlier mentioned, the capability of hbc equipment may be in

excess of requirements. The excess capability is, in effect
wasted -- that is serves no useful purpose. To describe the
useful capability we can employ a Utilization factor, a fraction
describing what portion of the available capability is used in
the particular mission beinq considered.
Due to environmental effects the capability may at times be less

than the requirements. In this -ise, we can consider the Utili-
zation factor as the fraction of time that the equipment is capable
of achieving the requirement within the limitations imposed by
effects external to the system, even when the system is perf.orm-
ing within specifications. The Utilization factor reflects re-
duction in capability, as well as use, due to influences external
to the system. The product of the Performance Capability index
and the Utilization factor provides a measure of usable capabil-
ity within the mrission requirement.
Many systems have a spectrtLm of possible mission requirements.

The most economical set of systems is probably (but not 3lways)
the minimum number of systems that meet all the mission require-
ments. So each proposed system must be tested against all per-
tinent requirements and A system selected that optimizes the ise
of funds (within Lerformance and delivery schedule constraints)
with due consideration of phase-out of other systems and intro-
duction of other systems under development.
25-9
2.4 DEPENDABILITY
The Performance Capability of a system (whern working right) is

useless if the equipment is n:)t oper: ile when it is required.
Failures of the equipment during the attempt to perform the re-
quired function may prevent the accomplishment of the mission.
The dependability of the equipment -- its operability when re-
quired and its reliability when operating -- can influence the
effectiveness of the equipment. Two factors are involved.
These are normally termed Reliability and Availability.
Availability, with certain exceptions, represents the readiness

of the system to respond on demand. Reliability is the ability
of the system to operate for the required period, provided it
was capable of responding, on demand. The dependability computa-
tion depends on the nature of the requirements.
2.4.1 Simple Reliability: Let's consider a case such as the

steering engines of a ship. The require'ment for the steering
engines is "no failure" during a particular period. Every
command for rudder angle must be obeyed -- no down time is
tolerable. The use is, in effect, continuous while underway.
The consequences of failure to respond with a change of rudder
angle are considered unacceptable. For this example the Effec-
tiveness of the equipment is less than the (used) Performance
Capability by a factor based on the pribability that it will con-
tinue operating daring the required operating time. This factor
is the Reliability, R. Where the Performance Capability is P, and
the Utilization factor is U, the Effectiveness E is the product:
E = PRU
In this case, Availability is not meaningful since the consequences

of failure are considered identical regardless of downtime.
2.4.2 Availability: Consider again a radar, this time a search

radar whose sole purpose is to detect (but not track) approaching
"bogies". The detection and reporting are essentially instan-
taneous. Once detected and reported, the approaching aircraft
is assigned to a second radar set to track. As soon as the "bogie"
is reported there is no further requirement on this radar in
connection with this target. The operating time for this radar
is continuous for a three month cruise. In this case, the Effec-
tiveness of the radar is the Perforn• nce Capability multiplied
by its Utilization and by its Continuous Availability Ac, which
in turn i;3 the probability that it is operable at any time during
the three months cruise. That isz
25-l0
F, P Tp
The- Rjliabi lity is co-ns idered not pert inent to the requirem.ent,
t~xcept ~is reliability paramoters influence- the .:'ailability.
2.4.Jý Combined Reliability and Availabilityj: Assume a systemn

such -s a fire control radar. The requirement for the system is
to lock ýn to a target -- if ancl when ai tar~get appears -- and
direct the ,-eapon in hitting the target. The demand can come
once a dav or once a mont~h. Two things are important, -- that
(a) the equipment be ready to respond to a demand if it comes and
that (b) once t~he demand is made and the equipment starts to
operate, that no raiiure prevents the fulfillment of the require-
.ment1,.
The Effectiveness of this eqjuipment is its Performance Capability

multiplied by the probability that it is "ready" when required
(the Avoilability, Ac), and then multiplied by the probability
that it .ill perform successfully (the Reliability, R). In this
case, the Effectiveness is the prod --t
E ý-PAcRU
It is important to note here that .,here the Reliability of the

eý,Aiment is different in the standiby mode thain in the operating
m:'de -- that is' where mo-ru fa .lures or more frequent tailures
are to be expected when tlio -,,t is )peratinq, than wh1-en 'tt
is standinq bv, the value 'f Avla. >lbility sho--uld be computed
based on the e~uiin ~~ in t sta-ndby modie.
Anýtlher 1 iustr.-it 1ion 1it tit ion is a radar set whose

fulnc't i.rn is to .,ktect, 3nd tr~k
irkiets. In por formin, detection,
only the r id~a so t is use, to, r'rovide sinson a scope. we n
a s pea ).n
n the scope, a co~mputer is tamed-l on and a siq4nal
contrji~lo>i by a hrvimn ovorator maiua gbuttons an-d a cursor
on h.so.~o~ ~i~ input toý thc traic'ing computer.
F 'r thi am lute

tt i;-n the <.:t nis -md1,- etcm.
MoI' :1i trackini, MoeF ~ne~ opertnt n of the dete.-tingj
pr t t~ el i~vn is ne t:r%, !Vr t-.o track~in.; operation,
the ei' ~ nuss t th v~ent "S "1e capabilitv used (PU)
1uqui
mut -;1 1 1)i- t:', yrAudý:t ,t- the A':.ui laThIity in moc-de. A ~ nd
ther~ t7~nbotn ~ P htIs:
A*P
25-11
2.4.4 Summary* As may be noted by examining the different

situations, the dependability factor is determined by the way
the requir ements are stated Where the primary rcquirep"ent is
"no failures", reliability is the primary consideration. Where
the requirement is maximum 'up time" Availability becomes the
criterion. Where the requiied operation is more creaplex, a
combination of Availability and Reliaoility is needed to measure
the dependability.
A more general statement of Ettecti%-ness would include factors

such as Delivery Effectiveness, D, in the genezal relatiorship
E = f(P,U, D,R,M) where the function f(x) merely states that the
Effectiveness is some relationship between the factors to be
determined from the stated i•brements.
3. RELIABILITY IN SYSTEM EFFECTIVENESS
As we have seen, one of the primary parameters of system [ffec-

tiveness is the Reliability. Of tntese interrelited par,'aeters,
Reliability is the most susceptible to expression out of context.
However, even in rel;ability stuacies, an investigation carnot be
conducted unless it is extended to include related charactt.ris-
tics that influence system Effectiveness.
It has long been apparent th3t the maximum i ability theft can
be achieved by any system is the amcont des iqned into the equip-
ment. Therefore, the requirements for design must be carcfully
apportioned among the various pieces of equipment and controlled
throughout the desiqn effort. Any work acccwnpFished to make t.,e
desiqn a hardware reality will tend to reduce the designed Relia-
bility if these factors are not carefully controlied.
Fimgre 25-12 depicts most of the areas where in carefully planned

control must be exercised in order to prevent undue degradation
of Reliability. it also describes the action which must be taken
by the Bureau of Ships in order for it to adequately control those
areas for which it is responsible. It irmmediately becomes eviden,
that for high operational reliability tc be obtained, clhse team-
work is necessary between the Bureau of Ships and the contractor.
Furthermore, top management must be aware of and support all
pertinent elenents necessary in a thoroughly conrdinated manner
in order to achieve high operational Reliability.
Operational reliability is one measure of system Effectiveness.

For equipment which colild operate continuiously or upon demand
without failing, this measure would be 100 percent. This figure
25-12
o __ _C_
oU uH
z y-1 -
LLLJ
Y FL
HL
< 'u
24 <
ho __ ct
a ":] G L
t!H -L~C-<
cd LJW
I9v II]
25-13
can at best only be approached asfmpt_)tically as the art of

system design advances.
3.1 ESTABLISHING REQJUIRF2MENTS
One approach to establishing a requirement is to determine the

unreliability which we are willing to tolerate in a system.
Obviously if its function is critical to mission success, then
we will tolerate relatively few failures. From this approach,
we can derive a principle which is one basis for establishing a
reliabillty requirement -- namel->, that the relative importance
of the system to the ship's mission is influential in determining
the assigned requirement. The requirement may be expressed
simply in terms of the failures permitted during a given mission
type and duration under specified conditions.
Following this roasoning a step further, why not meetely state

that no failures will be permitted, so that we have 100 percent
reliability of the system during the mission? This relianility
is probably unattainable and impractical even as a iesign goal.
In design of a ship, system or part, reliability is in competition
with Performance Capability, cost, timue, logistics, and obsoles-
cence. The latter would probably be attained prior to 100%
Reliability even if all other parameters were most favorable to
reliability.
This is not to say t'lat extremely hiiV reliability cdfanot be

achieved. It can, but often it cannot be realized economically,
or without undue penalty upon performance or schedule. We know
from experience that ieliability of a system can often be in-
creased significantly within the state-of-the-art using the
approaches given in chapter 13. The improvement to reliability
is usually limited by cost, schedule, etc.
3.2 METHOD OF ANALYSIS
In the application of reliability principles, to determine oper-

ational reliability requirements, it is necessary to identify
the events which comprise a system activity cycle. For ships,
the activity cycle consists of various types of operational
phases. The logical sequeiice of events considered for the anal-
ysis of operational reliability is shown in Figure 25-.14. The
operational period for each system is from system turn-on through-
out the operational period to system turn-off. For some systems
(propulsion) this may include the complete Underway period. For
other systems (communications) this includes both At Anchor and
Underway. For still others (weapons) this may include only
"4.. . ,••
2 5-14
F-L
>4
z L-J
-4 <
- lo 4
Z --
< <U
LI)(-) fl W.;;Ln
CL
Z zC
~ 2 -on
I;L
25-15
Battle Condition with readiness requirements for patrol or war

zone cruising.
Reliability parameters 2orntained in each operational phase are

mission recuired, system required, and use factors. For a parti-
cular type of operation, this would include thf: elements require-
ing reliability measures in preparing for sea, transition to an
operating area, on station or patrol, engagement action, transi-
tion to port. Startup and checkout of each system are consiaered
part of the c•peiation and the reliabil-Ly measure includes this
operation ti.le.
The extent of unscheduled maintenance performed both at anchor

and underway is dependent upon the require-ments for the present
and future oppratior;:ý] plh'ases. Scheduled maintenance, ýhofth a
anch& and underway, inclu4•__z •.ijor maintenance functions of
periorlic inspections, minor inspections, and modification of
equipment.
3.2.1 operational Reliability Analysis: In the operational

phase of the reliability analysis, all of the events are con-
sidered from deployment order to systems shutdown after the
9 operational phase is over. Many variables are involved within
each operational phase, such as different missions requi--ed, var-
iations of operational parameters within each mission type, diff-
erent preparation-for-sea reliability values, and variability of
mission success criteria. However a complete general analysis to
determine operational phase reliability for iny combination of
the variables is possible. The method of attack is to select
the design mission for an extensive analysis and then to carry
the analysis over to other missions to the extent possible.
To reduce the amount of computation necessary, only a finite

number of significant points within the mission profile is usually
selected to measure actual reliability values. These points may
be the equipment required for in port use, the equipment necessary
for the on station or patrol phase, equipment necessary for en-
gagement action, and transition back to port. Due consideration
must be given to on-board maintenant-e capability and the opera-
bility time all eqaipment.
One of the most important uses of the system etif_ eness con-
cept is to make it possible for the maintenance support planner
to obtain a reliability measure for a mixed family of missions
from inherent failure-rate principles. These measure of relia-
"bility indicate the failure-induced frequency for maintenance.
However, the maintenance support planner knows from experience
25-16
that failures occur which are not induced solely by equ;pment

desigh cbaracteristics. The ratio between the total failures
requiring maintenance action to failures induced by equipment
design only is actually greater than 2 to 1. However, system-
atic approaches are available which can be applied to derive the
conversion ratio of MTBF to MTBM.
MTBF/MTEM Relation: To clarify the problem of converting MTBF

to MTBM, it is necessary to consider the basic principles of
reliability. The characte-±stic failure rate curve of equipment
is shown in Figurc 25-17. The random period of equipment opera-
Lion contains not only the design failure rate but others such
as misuse of equipment by the operator, maintenance induced, and
operation 4- an environment outside the original specification.,
These misuses of equipment can also increase the normal random
failure rate.
The separation of MTBF and MTBM on the life characteristic c.,rve

generates changes in both failure listributions and reliability
measures as shown in Figure 25-17. It is readily seen that the
failure rate of MTBM equals K times the MTBF failure rate where
K equals MTBM divided by MTBF.
In the failure distribution graph, MTBM is seen to have a higher

frequency of failures with respect to time than MTBF. It is re-
called that frequency is equal to the reciprocal of MTBF. In
like manner, the frequency of MTBM is a reciprocal. Since MTBF is
greater than MTBM, it follows that for any one point of operating
time the MTBM induced frequency is great.2r than the frequency
generated by MTBF.
The MTBF and MTBM are shown in Figure 25-17. As expected, the
probability of equipment being operable without a maintenance
action is less than the probability of operatinq without a
failure.
3.2.2 Study Approach: Reliability studies for systems use a

dynamic approach by exp•,nding the reliability concept to determine
measures which can be used to evaluate the effects of operational
activities, such as in-port use, operational roadiness, and main-
tenance, or equipment operability. In Figure 25-18 the study
approach to system reliability is summarized. Corresponding
design feedback loops are included. As noted, the study of re-
liability begins with the design concept. Throuwh reliability
measurement functions, an MTBF is obtained for each equiprent
for the different modes of operation. This MTBF measure Ls used
to develop a composite MTBF measure for operational reliability.
25-17
IwI
w cc1
I.-
U Q
0 0
0. zA /lqI~~~
00
>U //w
00 0
u
z
0-0M
LU 0 00w
Z tu
owm
00,4
L ca
v ol' I~r
4---
--- /10
25-18
z u
I co
...
.. .
...
I; I
C) C
~ Icz
cr -
- - - >
/n cz C-
2 5-19
The step between Mean-Time-Between-Maintenance actio)n (MTBM%' is

the relationship between reliability and maintenance. Reliability
dictates the non-scheduled maintenance 'ob arnd indirectly th c
scheduled maintenance job. Maintenance, in turn, ýJtrmines the
degree of reliability resturation, based upon the efficiency
with which the maintenance job is accomplished.
4. RELIABILITY AND MAINTAINABILITY IN

SYSTEM EFFECTIVENESS
The achievement of the desired :-,bjc-tiv, cap,)bility C f

successful operation of equipment, demands a dynamic reiiabiiity
proqram wihich serves to control the development and des ign of the
system from the conceptional phase throuqhout its production and
operation. Both the Bureau of Ships and contractors are making
proqress in increasino the validity and application of relinbility
inteqration processes. The importance of reliability in the
system program is depicted in Fiqure 25-20. As shown the relia-
bility measure of Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF) is determined
by design computation. TbhUI measure denotes the operability and,
conversely, the inoper-ability of equipment. rnoperability means
that equipment has faileoJ and the failure has resulted in system
downtime and the need fcr logistic support.
Because of its effect on equipment operability, system downtime,

and logistics, reliability is a leading contributor to an effec-
tiveness measure. In operational terms, it can be said that the
measure of operational readiness, redeployment rates, success of
operator, rnaintenance specialists, test equipment, spares, etc.,
are directly dependent upon t'.e measure of equipment reliability
and indirectlyv affect the scheduled maintenance.
We will consider only briefly the trade-off relationships between

the Effectiveness measures, Reliability and Maintainability, as
a finctioni of system Availability. Availability is considered
to be the operational time divided by the total time, i.e.,
Availability total operational time

t.otal time
For exaimple, if we had a system com,-mitted to an op,.eration for 30

days, the total time would be 30 x 24 or 721 hours. If during
this periou, the system were do'w'n for corrective maintenance for
a. total of 48 hours, the Availability of the system would then be:
720 - 48
7292.
2 5-20
UU
IA..t
E-4
oe )
U, -
zV
25-21
It should be apparent that the restoration time of 48 hours can

be cac.sed by many factors.
Availability may be portrayed conceptually as folIlows
AVAILABILITY
RELIABILITY MAINTAINABILITY
,Time to failure Time to restore
Availability can be described as
A : MT BF
MTBF + MITR
where MTTR = Mean Time to Restore, and consequently, foi any

given Availability, is directly porportional to the Mean Time
Between Failure. For a given Availability, this implies that by
doubling the MTBF, we can accept twice the maintenance time.
A specified or required Availability can be obtained from many

different combinations of Reliability and Maintainability. Con-
sequently, the allocation of fixed resources should der;,.] upon
(a) the ease and relative cost of increasing these elements and
(b) the increase in Availability accompanying specified increases
in each element or combination therein.
Within the limitations previously discussed, Reliability and

Maintainability can be used to substitute for each other over a
wide range of Availability in a complex system. Efforts within
the limitations of economic and technical constraints may be
allocat-, to develop more or less Reliability, and relatively more
or less Maintainability in attaining either increases in Avail-
ability or minimum cost levels of Availability. Therefore, the
substitution of Reliability for Maintainability becomes an appro-
priate concept for decision-making purposes.
5. SYSTEM EFFECTIVENESS MODELS
Reliability models are used to explore and validate alternate

preliminary design approaches. Models may be used to study com-
plexity, predict Reliability achievable in design, predict ulti-
mate Ava'lability based upon Reliability and Maintair.bility, and
to determin- the growth of Reliability durinq the design. In a
sense such models are limited to relating Reliability amd Main-
tainability as system design parameters. In this chapter we see
2:3-22
a broader use of the system Effectiveness models to establish a

ship's mission Effectiveness requirement in terms of operational
and deployment factors, such as readiness rates, mission mode
Reliability and Maintainability. The latter uses are currently
being expanded to include all other elements related to Effective-
ness, including cost and schedule.
It now appears that such a full effectiveness concept is feasible,

and evolutionary. Techniques are being developed for quantify,inn
the remaining elements so that computer technology may be employed
to develop a single measure that iz based upon optimization of the
fundamental -easures of total operational Effectiveness. The
rapid development of this total operational Effectiveness concept
is a worthy goal of managers interested in naval efficiency
(refer to Figure 25-23).
The procurement of costly complex systems is a risky business.

Despite all efforts to thoroughly assess proposals prior to
award, the contractor selection process is still far from ,.deail
Vagueness, particularly with regard to the ultimate Effectiveness,
is characteristic of most. If the award i3 based upon lowest
Acquisition Cost, it could well prove to be the most costly system,
unless the parameters other than cost, schedule, and performance
are clearly treated with the importance they deserve. See chapter
23, section 5.1.2, and chapter 26.
The use of models as a means of validating "proposal promises"

could improve the contractor selection process. This method
could be used by requiring the submittal of a model as part of
the proposal. If such a model clearly substantiates a proposed
approach as a valid one, the accepted model values can be invoked
in specificatioos. The model can be used to determine the buyer
and seller risks as.•ociated with demonstrating Reliability and
Maintainability values when demonstration and correction of de-
fects are requireu under Fixed Price contracts. The model can be
an invaluable tool in controlling the achievement of reliability
during a long design and development program whetr. numLrous changes
are introduced. The effect of such changes on Reliibility can be
determined at any "break-in" point. It serves tlso as a built-in
Reliability and Mainta•inability audit apparatus that the Contrac-
ting Officer can examine at any time.
Through comparison of input allowances for Aeqradatin -xith the

actual degradation, the mode' can also be useu to determine the
control of reliability subsequent to design. As a tina' step,
it obviously can assess the achieveme:mt of reliability and main-
tainability by comparing the requir,. -ients wi'.h -.he- opcrational
2 5-23
W
U.
LA.U
CjLAJ '-.
LALL
r/ISO
Wij
-Tl
.61
25-24
experience.
While the models and computers are extremely useful tools, they
do not replace Navy management. Neither do they substitute for
good reliability design practices, or quality control. Despite
the wonders of the computer, and of Reliability Engineering as
the science of excellence, we are still dependent upon Admirals,
civil s-rvants, seamen, and contractors to provide a ships worth
of confidence in every ship.
6. REFEPr'NCES
1. Future Navy Weapons and Support Systems, V. Adm. W. A. Schoech,

USN, Chief ot Naval Materi.!, Northeastern States Naval Re-
search and Development Clinic, Philadelphia, Penn., November la,
1964.
2. Handbook, Reliability Engineering, NavWeps 00.65-502, 1 June

1964.
3. System Reliabil4*y Engineering, Gerald H. Sandler, Prenic,-

Hall Technology Series, 1963.
I
!
I
Ii f
r
26-1
Chapter 26
COST- EFFECTIVENESS
Page
1 OPERATIONAL COST EXPERIENCE 26- 2
1.1 DOD Experience 26- 2
1.2 Navy Experience 26- 4
1.3 Air Force Experience 26- 8
2 TH_ COST-EFFECTIVENESS BALANCE 26- 8

2.1 Thc Objective 26-10
2.2 Effectiveness 26-10
2.3 Total Cost 26-11
2.4 SAMBA. 26-12
2.5 EMEC 26-12
3 TRADEOFF ANALYSIS 26-13

3.1 Cost-Effectiveness Ratio 26-15
3.2 Typical System 26-16
3.3 Typical Components 26-18
3.4 Other Techniques 26-21
3.5 Practical Analysis 26-22
4 EXLAMPLES 26-23
4.1 Pump Total Cost Study 26-23
4.2 Turbine Stop-Valve Total Cost 26-25
4.3 Guidance Computer 26-28
4.4 Polaris Guidance Computer Maintenance Cost 26-32
5 RELIABILITY ACQUISITION COST 26-35

5.1 Acquisition Cost Elements 26-35
5.2 Acquisition Cost History 26-38
5.3 Acquisition Cost Data S-arces 26-38
6 OWNERSHIP COST 26-40
7 OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENW 26-42
8 SUM•4MARY 26-47
9 REFERENCES 26-47
26-2
Chapter 26
COST-EFFECT IVENTES S
This chapter is concerned with a very old problem. Just how old,
and how universal, is apparent in this quotation from Shakespeare
in King Henry IV, part 2, Act. I, scene 3:
we mnean to build,
When ....
We first survey the plot, then draw the model;
and w~hen we see the figure of the house,
then must we rate the cost of the erection;
which if we find outweighs ability,
what do we then but draw anew the model
in fewer offices, or at last desist
to build at all?
For the last several years we've had a shiny new name for the
same old solution to the same old problem. We'v&1 called it `ccst-
effectiveness." But let's have a look at the modern problem.
1. OPERATIONAL COST EXPERIENCE
During World War II, with its unprecedented dependence upon elec-
tronic gear, the consequences of unreliability became painfully
apparent. After the war many military surveys were made to eval-
uate the problem, and the new reliability technology was developed
under forced draft.
But the problem did not go away. It became obvious to our military
leaders that. the great cost of unreliability was, and still is,
using a very large share of our defense dollar resources. Funds
needed for more or better weapon systems are being pre-empted by
high maintenance cost, and sometimes by ill-considered develop-
mnent and premature production. Here are some quotations of our
military leadership:
1.1 DOD EXPERIENCE
Robert S. McNamard, Secretary of Defense, 28 March 1963 speech

to the Senate Joint Econom~ic Council
"All, too often large-scale..developments, and even production
pzograms, have been undertaken-.before we had clearly deter-
mined t-hat there existed a suitabie technological base,....
what it.would cust,....and whether the capability would be 4
worth the cost. As a result,...changes are being made." One
change is DOD directive 3200.9, excerpted in Figure 26-3.
26-3
00
4..i.
04 0
41 14
0 0~
.0r12 -4 cc
26-4
Charles J. Hitch, Comptroller, Dept. of Defense (2, p.63)

"Military requiremrents are meaningful only in terms of bene-
fits to be gained in relation to their cost. Thus, resource
costs and military worth have to be scrutinized together.
The new planning-programming-budgeting procedure facilitates
the performance of cost-effectiveness stulies since it brings
together both programs and costs in context with major mili-
tary missions of the Defense Department projected over a
period of years."
"For example the RDT&E subactivity "Polaris Submarines," for

which $380 million was included in the 1963 budget, becomes
part of the program element "Polaris System" for which over
$2 billion was included. (This in turn) is part of the group-
ing "Missile Forces, Sea Based," which in turn is part of the
major program "Strategic Retaliatory Forces."
"The key point for fiscal control, for both budgeting and
programming purposes, is the RDT&E subactivity. In the case
of the program elements, our reporting and controls are being
designed primarily to relate physical performance -- i.e.,
progress in achieving the objectives of each program, -- to
total cost to _omplete the development and investment phases..
... and the annual cost of operating it. The really important
financial question in making decisions about the Polaris
system, for example, ..... is not how much the program will
cost during any one budget year, but how much it will cost
to complete."
James R. Bridges, Director of Electronics, ODDR&E (3)

"We ma', not (be giving the engineers) enough time or money for
thorough design, engine(--riing and test. In proposals, a pros-
pective contractor. ... must include realistic estimates of the
time and cost (to satisfy reliability requirements). We (must)
balance the cost of failure against the true value of early
success."
1.2 NAVY EXPERIENCE
Hon. Victor M. Longstreet, Assistant Secretary of the Navy for

Financial Management (42)
"Much has been written about the use by the Defense Department
of certain techniques as a basis for making better decisions.
These techniques have various names such as Cost-Effectiveness,
Systems Effectiveness, .... the purpose of which is to take a
hard look at everything, to explore a variety of possibilities,
to come up with facts, to apply military experience, to test,
26-5
to evaluate, to weigh judgments.....One very important in-

gredient, - to put all of this down on paper for all to see,
to study, and to question."
Rear Admiral Em.erson Fawkes, USN, Assistant Chief, BuWeps, R&D,

Test & Evaluation (4)
"The cost of acquisition is like an iceberg; it fails to
reveal the ownership cost of 4 to 10 times the acquisition
cost."
"One of the most serious of our problems is the limited ex-

perienced manpower capabillity to which the Navy has access.
This in turn is reflected in training capabilities required
to operate and maintain these complex systems. 70% of main-
tenance is done by "first cruise" sailors. An SRI study
indicates that direct cost per first class electronic tech-
nician is $32,953 per year."
"The use of cost/effectiveness ratio in making technical,

management, and military decisions is the way of life. Major
decisions...must be made in the light of the technical, econ-
omic, and military "figures of merit."
"We must obtain a major advance in weapon reliability and

maintainability. It is here that the greatest cost is exper-
ienced, and here that the greatest improvement in system
effectiveness can be obtained. A five or ten percent improve-
ment is not enough."
"The value engineers passion for simplicity and the reliabil-

ity engineers analytical training should combine to attack
our spiralling complexity problem."
Future Trends in Carrier Aviation, US NAvy survey (5): Figure

26-6 shows the trend of complexity, and consequent unreliability,
upon both manpower level and manhour cost, from 1941 to 1965.
Note particularly the period 1951 to 1960, when both manpower
level and manhours (most of maintenance cost) doubled, permitting
the inference that maintenance time was not improved.
Figure 26-7 essentially confirms this. It shows that Operational

Readiness, or Availability, has dropped 3 to 10% in the same
period.
B2IMRAB (Bureau (Weps) Industry Materiel Reliability Advisory

Board) Survey on Industry Reliability Programs (6): This 20-
[]w
26-6
.00,,
LO
CI) O
00
z I
OD N N -
aoi l ll aa e auoadkdoqlm aol
si noEvt a Ia al~ i a ue Iog

o ps b U a 1
2 6 4;
040
000
E4paao, aii~j yIoI

26-8
question survey by BuWeps in the Spring of 1960 was sent to

196 of its contractors. Among the results is Figure 26-9. Parti-
cipants were asked what they considered to be the deterrents
limiting reliability to present state of the art, and to rank
their selections from 1 to 5 in order of importance.
Clearly the contractor consensus is that funding is not consistent

with the manpower necessary to get the desired reliability. In-
cidentally a separate Air Force survey in 1961 to 72 contractors
on the same question resulted in a 30.4% funding figure, a con-
firmation of the Navy 30.8%.
1.3 AIR FORCE EXPERIENCE
Lt. General Howell M. Estes, March 1964 (7)

"Maintenance co-its on today's systems have risen to.. .almost
30% of the Air Force budget. Maintenanc,! of military elec-
tronic equipment ranges between 60 and i000 times the initial
costs. Complexity and maintenance creates an almost insati-
able demand for large quantities of highly trained manpower.
The progress we have made to date in system reliability.. .has
simply not been adequate in an overall sense."
"Failure of a $2 item not long ago caused the loss of a $2.2

million launch vehicle. In another program, failure of a $5
thermal shield resulted in a $23 million disaster. Failure of
a $25 fuel valve caused loss of a vehicle and damage to the
site totalling $22 million. These dollars would have bought
a lot of additional reliability in these programs."
Air Development Center, Research Contract (8): The anrual support

cost for a representative ground communications equipment was
about 12 times the original cost. For navigation it was 6 times
and for radar 0.6 times.
2. THE COST-EFFECTIVENESS BALANCE
We have heard rather overwhelming evidence of the cost of main-

tenance. Maintenance is primarily a consequence of unreliability.
We have heard the DOD and Navy decision to put quantitative re-
liability and maintainability (R&M) into applicable future con-
tracts. But it's more easily said than done.
The fact is that reliability achievement costs money. Improved

engineering and quality control practices often improve MTBF by
a factor of 2 to 4. But for many situations we need 10 or 100
26-9
-4•
z
C14
M4H
0!
26-10
times improvement, sometimes 1000. Far from being impossible,

there are design approaches that -will qet such order of mauinitude
improvement, as outlined in chapter 13. But they cost money for
design time, perhaps for added manufacturing cost, and perhaps
for extensive test programs.
So we are in the position of having to spend more roney in ')rde-r

to save money in inaintenar->-. The ýiuestion is "how much relia-
bility ýýnd maintainability ýs 7ustified`" How m -h is worth the
expenditure?
2.1 THE OBJECTIVE
In oider to answer this question we have to -ostab,'ish a clear

objective. Is the objectlvc: "maximum reliability?" Certainly
not, because the cost of achievinq it could far offset the
maintenance saving~s.. Is it "minimuim total cost2" Not necessarily,
because often a moderate cost 'Ccyond 'minimum' brings substanti~i.
reliability improvement, and in turn increased system eftective-
ness, well worth the extra cost.
What we are really after is ma:-:imum system accomplishment or

worth, in relation to total cost to, acg;uirL_ anA maintain the
system for its lifetime. In rerent yea-rs this has come to b.,
called the "cost-effectiveness" of the sy,,stem, and there are
three common approaches to its opt imizat ion. Th:'se are asc
for:
(a) The maximum ratio of effect4iveness to- totalI cost

(b) The maximum effe-t ivenoss tor a _1i
ien tot al co-st., and
(c) The minimum total cost fo,.r a ý ,en re~iutrod effectiveness.
These approaches do no)t alias hd to the same result, which1

cons iderat ion is beyo)nd. our s~cope here. T1 t in It very , :en 1,r -
way we can say that we al'ways waint to ;et (,i) the mos t e! f ect 1%*e-
ness per dollar, but we may have t ak'f tro'l th1a t '.1;'t I mu
z11
to (b) live with in available fundis, and, or ((--) at least ac-hi evo
so(.e minimumr value o-f effe-tiven~ss.
2.2 EFFECTIVENESS
What, actually, -1- we mean b'ý Effoctiveness? The term is still

evolutionary, and man~y conflicting detinitions have bcen ust-J.
As developed in chapter 25, the one we find most broadly usc. ul
and realistic is this:
26-11
Effectiveness is a quantitative index expressing actual

accomplishment or worth of an operational system or component.
It is a function of
(a) Performance Capability,
(o) Delivery Effectiveness,
(c) Reliability and/or Availability, and
(d) Utilization
It may be the simple product of these factors.
Performance Capability is Q quantitative figure of merit expres-

sing the system or component capability of performing desired
functions, assuming no delivery delay, no failure, and full
utilization.
Delivery Effectiveness is the ratio of system or component effec-

tiveness as degraded by late delivery, to the effectiveness had
it been available when needc'.
Reliability is the probability that the system or component will

perform its intended function for a specified period under stated
coniit i)ns.
Availability is the fraction of the total desired operatinj time

that the system or compcnent is operable.
Utilization is the fraction of performance capability actually

utilized due to the specific application and environment encoun-
tered. It includes all effectiveness d gradation due to causes
external to the system or component itself.
Thus in a very simplified way ".,e can see that by starting with a
quantitative index c Performance Capability, and multiplying it
by realistic "'ieratin'" factors (doe to delivery delay, unrelia-
bility, downtime, and incomplete utilization), we get an Effec-
tiveness fiqure that ex'nrtsscs realistic accomplishment or worth.
Mdny systems req;uire somethinq more complex thant this simple
product, but it serves to visualize the prob'em.
2-1 TOTAL COST
Now -,hat dLo we m,. -n by "Toýtal Cost" of a system? We mean all

costs for the asetul iifet t~e of the system. To use the 'ýOD
telminoleqgy, Total Cost is the sum of "Acquisition Cost" for
develojmient and pr-duction, and "OwnershipCost" of operation,
maintenance, and conjequ,,nce of failures.
26-12
Development Cost is the total cost of operations analysis (during

conceptual phase), system design (during conceptual and definition
t phase), hardware design, hardware prototypes, test, evaluation,

and schedule slippage for this phase.
Production Cost is the total cost for quantity procurement, manu-

il facture, installation, tests, traininq, and schedule slippage
for this phase.
0 _,ration Cost is the total cost, for the system or component

lifetime, of those personnel, facilities, utilities, consumables,
a.d special inputs required for operation, excluding those for
mainLenance.
Maintenance Cost is the total cost, for the system or component

lifetime, of those nersonnel, facilities, spare comporents,
logistics, and diagnostic aids required for maintenance.
Consequence Cost is the total cost, for the system or component

lifetime, generated external to the system or component as a
consequeace of its failures. TT -;e may include damage or loss
of other systems or components _ncluding human productivity.
Now it will be apparent that these costs are all determined by

*he above Effectiveness factors. For example Development Cost
is a primary function of the required Performance Capability,
but also of the required delivery, and the required Reliability
and/or Availability. Maintenance Cost is a primary function of
the achieved Reliability and/or Availability, but also of Util-
ization, and to a 3esser extent the others.
2.4 SAMBA
The Bureau of Ships has established a broad program called Sys-

tems Approach to Managing BuShips Acquisitions (SAMBA). Its
objective "is to make significant and continuing improvements
in the management of all aspects of the system acquisition pro-
cess. Its Annex C, Engineering Considerationn, contains sections
4.2.1 on Cost of Acquisition, 4.2.2 on Cost of Ownership, 4.3 on
Reliability/Cost Relationships, and 5.2 on Reliability. In gen-
erdl it recognizes the identical relationships discussed in this
chapter 26, and recommends a system approach such as we have
detailed herein.
2.5 EMEC
The Department of the Navy has established the Electronics Main-
2"5""4
26-13
tenance Engineering Center (iMEC) to (a) review new equipment,

(b) monitor fleet exp(-ience, (c) analyse failure data, (d) re-
view parts support, (e) Evaluate training effectiveness and man-
power deficiencies, and (f) prosecute corrective action. The
Center should find considerable utility in the techniques to be
discussed in this chapter, as well as several others.
3. TRADEOFF ANALYSIS
Having nailed down, in very abbreviatf-d fashion, what we mean by

Total Cost and by Effectiveness, let us turn to the relationships
of their constituents, and constituent impact on Cost-Effective-
ness.
Figure 26-J14 provides a broader picture of the overall tradeoff

and cost relationships. At the left we note Acquisition Cost
"top of an iceberg," which provides the funds to achieve required
Performance Capability, Delivery Effectiveness, Reliability and
Maintainability, and the inevitable added cost of delivery slip-
page, if any.
Ownership Cost, then, is the sum of the oRerational costs related

to Performance Capability, the maintenance and logistic costs
generated by unReliability and minimized by Maintainability, and
the Consequence Costs generated by failures, delivery slippage, etc.
Total Cost is then the sum of Acquisition and Ownership Costs,
the whole iceberg.
The design objective is always to get the most Effectiveness for

the least Total Cost, which iý rarely possible, because they rarely
coincide. But it is not only possible but imperative to design
for (a) +he maximum ratio of Effectiveness to Total Cost. as
constrained by (b) the mayitum Effectiveness for a given Total
Cost, and/or (c) the minimum Total Cost for a given Effectiveness.
It is not -ecessary to have a comprehensive "system model" or

"reliability model" to predict Cost-Effectiveness, except to the
exfent that such models may (or may not) be needed to predict
Performance Capability, Reliability, Maintainability, and Delivery
Effectiversss (from Pert). It does not have to be complex.
During design, at any level of the system, the design engineer

is constantly making decisions between alternatives. Many of
these decisions involve "tradeoff", or sacrificing a little of
one attribute to get. enough of another. In particular, the
design engineer must learnto trade off PLrformance Capability,
- I
26-.14
zz
>4
>4J
54
P4
26-15
Reliability, Maintairnbility, and Delivery Effectiveness with

each other, as shown by the heavy arrows in Figure 26-14, to the
extent that Effectiveness is thereby improved and/or Total Cost
is reduc-ed.
3.1 COST-EFFECTIVENESS RATIO
In section 2.1 above we established a primary objective of the

maximum ratio of Effectiveness to Total Cost, recognizing that
there may also be constraints of maximum cost and/or minimum
effectiveness. In order to simplify the picture we will use the
ratio henceforth:
Cost-Effectiveness C-E Effectiveness E

Total Cost Ct
For Effectiveness we can use the •product (9,10) of Performance

Capability P , Delivery Effectiveness D , Reliability R , and
'JtiLL:..ion . For total cost we can use the sum of Acquisition
2<.u Ca and Owne-rship Cost Cu So:
Cost-Effectiveness C-E PDRU

Ca + Cu
Keeping in mind that for many systems Availability A (which

accounts for Maintainability) is logical in place of Reliability
R, and for many the product AR is logicýl, we can use this
expression to visualize the tradeoffs involved. For example if,
for the desired Performance Capability P, the Delivery Effective-
ness D would be poor (take too long), the Bureau would consider
reduced P to get better D without unduly increasing Acquisition
Cost Ca.
Similarly if desired Reliability R would require total expendi-

ture (Ca + Cu) exceeding allocated funds, the Bureau might con-
sider later delivery (lower D) to get more design and test time
for R, or fewer functional frills (lower P) to increase the
Reliability R.
In this course, we are concerned only with Reliability and Main-

tainability, and implicitly Availability. The above cost-effec-
tiveness equation is a very powerful tool for balancing tradeoffs
of R and M with each other and with P, D, U, Ca and Cu. Such
balancing of all for maximum Cost-Effectiveness must be done.
4 In fact it has been done intuitively, if not analytically, for
most systems. But int-uition is far from trustworthy for very
complex systems.
26-16
To illustrate the analytical use of this tool, we will "suboptim-

ize." That is, we will examine the tradeoffs between Reliability,
Acquisition Cost, and Ownership Cost, assuming that the other
tradeoffs will not substantially alter the result. And usually
they do not. To do this, we will"hold still" the other Effec-
tiveness factors by simply letting P = 100, D = 1.0, and U = 1.0,
so that Reliability becomes a measure of Effectiveness. Then:
Cost-Effectiveness C-Er Ca + Cu
Now we can examine the inherent effect of Reliability upon these

costs Ca and Cu, and hence upon Cost-Effectiveness. We will do
this first at the system level, then getting right down to speci-
fic shipboard equipment experience data.
3.2 TYPICAL SYSTE4
Now what we want to know is "How much reliability and maintain-

ability is worth the expenditure?" Since the need for maintain-
ability is a function of reliability, it becomes logical to see
what happens to Cost-Effectiveness as reliability is varied,
for various values of maintainability. So we will use a relia-
bility scale across the bottom of Figure 26-17. For visualiza-
tion, as well as sinpler arithmetic, we will use system Mean
Tim'e Between Failures, or MTBF. And by using "Relative" MTBF = 1
for state-of-the-art reliability achievable without extra Acqui-
sition Cost, we have a scale that permits visualization of re-
liability improvement needed.
Using the data from an actual system, graph E shows that relia-
bility would increase if MTBF were increased beyond state of
the art. For this particular system, Effectiveness is actually
proportional to the product AR of Availability and Reliability,
so taking a typical Maintainability (MTTR) into account results
in the curve AR. And since we have "fixed" Performance Capabil-
ity, Delivery Effectiveness, and Utilization, this curve AR be-
comes a measure of the Effectiveness E of the system.
Now referring to the Total Cost graph Ct we note that the Acqui-
sition Cost of the system rises with required MTBF. Just how
much will be discussed later, but it commonly results from tighter
engineering, supplier, and manufacturing controls, and from design
for higher reliability as discussed in chapter 13.
As MTBF is increased, the resultant Ownership Cost drops about as

shown. This results from simple reduction of the ni-ber of
26-17
U) 2
"I~
o .-
.0 -44
l Qoll" o
jad asga),)n
zz
44 u E-
(1.) -4 -
26-18
II failures and hence corrective maintenance manpower, facilities,

and inventory to take care of them. Then we can add these two
cost curves to obtain the Total Cost curve, which shows a minimum
at relative MTBF of 6. The curve says that spending an additional
$1.7 million for Acquis tion would have saved $4.2 million in
Ownership Cost, for a net. $2.5 million saving. At the same time
the Effectiveness (i.e., AR) would rise from 40 to 85%, a ratio
of about 2-to-l.
But this is no.- the optimum reliab"lity' In the Cost-Effective-

ness graph E/Ct we have plotted the ratio of Effectiveness to
Total Cost, taken directly from the two graphs below, and find
the peak is at relative MTBF (-f about 14. The AR curve has
shifted the peak to higher MTBF. This is very typical. This
curve says it's even better to spend $2.3 million on Acquisition,
saving $4.5 million in Ownership, netting $2.2 million savings,
but getting 2.9 times as much Effectiven:ess. These curves are
built on the data from a very real vehicle system, only the
Acquisition Cost line being estimated.
But what about Maintainability? Suppose we invest in design for

one tenth the Mean Time to Restore. In Figure 26-19 the solid
curves are identical to Figure 26-17. The dashed lines show the
predicted result for MTTR 10.
1 Note that (a) the cost-effective-
ness is about doubled, compared to almost 3-to-! for MTBF x 10,
(b) the best MTBF is then Y5 ýnstead of x14, and (c) the achiev-
able cost-effectiveness is then less than if MTTR were left alone.
Thus while these conclusions apply only to this specific system,

it is clear that a family of such curves can show the optimum
combination of MTBF and MTTR for any system.
3.3 TYP ICAL COMPONENTS
Now let's turn to hardware equipment and parts in Figure 26-20.

This figure i. identical to figure 26-17 except that we have
carried the relative MTBF scale at the bottom to the much higher
values associated with component MTBf. They are so very much
higher than the typical Mission Time and typical MTTR, that Re-
liability and AR are practically 100%.
Again these curves are from real equipment and t..is time the
Acquisiti,)n Cost data were meticulously calculated for 3 points,
and one of these confirmed. We note the identical Total Cost
situation, but this time the peak of Cost-Effectiveness coincides
with minimum Total Cost, because the Effectiveness curve is flat.
26-19
o Lo
r -4
V V)
I 0
E--
-\ a,
ri~
zz
u
H0
U IU
26-20
I0
I I 0
CIA.
00
00
u -4
0 0
26-21
This occurs quite commonly for equipment and Fartz cost-effective-

ness analysis, so there is seldom need to plot the ratio to
locate optimum MTBF.
Thus we see that it may be economic nonsense to insist on "maxi-

mum" reliability. There is always a value of MTBF for a part,
equipment, or system beyond which there is diminishing advantage.
But note too that these Cost-Effectiveness and Total Cost curves
tend to be quite broad, which means that it costs very little
more to get 2 or 3 times the "optimum" MTBF if it is that signi-
ficant to the mission.
3.4 OTHER TECHNIQUES
Although cost-effectiveness analysis seems by far the niost power-

ful and useful tool that can be used to determine optimum relia-
bility and maintainability, it is by no means the only one that
can be used. There have been a number of attacks on this tiade-
S•7f problem. A few are cited herewith fcr reference purposes,
for those who 4ish to "dig deeper."
An excellent review of the engineering tradeoffs is given in

reference (11). Under "internal tradeoffs" it covers system. per-
lormance tradeoff, reliability/cost tradeoff, reliability/schedule
Sadeoff, reliability/confidence tradeoff, and combined tradeoffs.
ID also discusses external tradeoffs and tradeoffs as program
management aids.
Whel , Avillability has more significance than Peliability, as

for miny shipboard situations, a Performance/Availability/Cost
block diagram can be constructed (12). Each block, including
redundan~cy, is assigned a Performance, Availability and cost.
The tino-nial theorem is used to calculate the probability of
each 'rlock combination being in service. Then the effect of 1%
Availability improvement of each block is calculated, to letermine
-ie moLt econamical opportunities for impcovement. This corres-
do-ds t-) study of the slopes of Figures 26-17, 26-19, and 26-20.
..- tal cost can be p'otted ajainet develop.nent Lime, u3ing a curve
flr each 4esign alternative having fixed Reliability oc Aai]abil-
ity (13 p.18).
Standardization of parts, equipment, and systems not only reduces

ruost but increases reliability through greater refinement of the
samt& design. Tho2 tradeoff is between performance, reliability,
an'i cost (14).
I!
26-22
The BuShips Design .-ork Study Program (15 p. 4 ) provides a "logical,

systematic, fact-findinq method of determining what neds to be
done, hov it should be done, and who should do it," in finding
mgre economical systems of men and !quipment.
Syatem reliability vs, weight or volum-e tradeooff curves for

vario-is levels of redundancy may be used (16 p.64,67).
Industrial main boiler forced outage (unavilability) of 1% is

said to require 4 to 5% increase of reserve capacity to conserve
the same system reliability (18). Variations of this are given
in reference (19) and discussed in reference (37,p.135).
3.5 PRACTICAL ANALYSIS
It is seldom difficult to write fairly simple equations (ordinary

algebra) expressing (a) Effectiveness in terms of its interrelated
factors, (b) each Effectiveness factor contribution to Total Cost,
and then (c) the expression for Effectiveness/Cost ratio. This
can and always should be done a3 a prime design guide for trade-
off decisions.
Cost-effectiveness analysis of i proposed alternative or design

change, relative to a first alternative or current design, is
very useful. By evaluating the curve slopes in Figures 26-17,26-1i,
and 26-20 rather than their absolut- values, the dependency
upon uncertain absolute data is greatly reduced and confidence
in the result can be very good. See also reference (20,p.21,22).
Fi;ed witL, a choice between redundancy and component improvement

to improve reliability, reference (26) provides an excellent
analytical tradeu)ff approach based on cost-effectiveness. It
incidentally concludes that (a) the optimum strategy can be im-
provement of the strongest instead of the weakest reliability
link, (b) large sums spent on coxkponent development may neve•
achieve the minimal system effectiveness, and (c) redundant major
ccponents can easily achieve the minimal system effectiveness.
Reliability and Maintainability can be made to substitute for

each other to somne degree, over a wide range of Availability
(22,33 p.8-23). Cost-effectiveness analysis can be used to make
the tradeoff economically optimum.
Value Engineering techniques (23,24) are called out in the Guide

for the Preparation of TDP Dependability Planf (25, p.16). The
identical techniques can be used with cost-effectiveness (instead
of simple Acquisition cost) criteria to achieve optimum reliabil-
ity and maintainability, as discussed in chapter 13, section 1.1.
26-23
4. EXAMPLES
With this background we can now get into some specific examples
and data. Such published lata is very scarce. We haVe scoured
the literature and found a few marine equipment examples and
several naval electronic equipment examples. But most of the
needed data can be obtained by going after it. And it is becom-
ing painfully obvious that we must establish channels to get,
classify, collate, and distributo it fairly automatically.
4.1 PULP TOTAL COST STUDY
An Allio-Chalmers study (27) of their 5" x 4" KSK and SK pumps,

used by the Navy, was undertaken for pumps sold between 1953 and
1962. Failure and operating time information on 117 Navy-owned
pumps was obtained from aircraft tarriers, the NAVSHIP-527 Machin-
ery History Card, and the NAVSHIPS-3621 Reports of Equipment
Failure. Also 104 responses were obtained from commercial cus-
tomers. Cost information was obtained from Allis-Chalmers,
adjusted to the base year 1954, and normalized for proprietary
reasons. Very detailed analysis is given in the reference.
Referring to Figure 26-24, all pumps were classified by design

similarity into groups. The Acquisition curve, as a function of
price,
MTBF of each group, is the manufacturers normalized selling
prorating assumed 30,000-hour life to the fraction of price for
1000 hours. It includes specifications, R&D, product engineering,
engineering changes, new patterns, small tools, burden, shipping
expense, warranty costs, and 7% profit.
Preventive Maintenance costs for parts and labor were calculated

on the assumption that standard recommendations were followed.
Corrective Maintenance costs for parts and labor were calculated

to
from the accumulated failure data, all of which were factored
The fig'ires alonside the curve show
common seawater operation.
an in-
number of group failures on which the point is based, as
dication of confidencv level surrounding the MTBF value. Note
the large number of 73 for one group.
The Total curve adds the three below it. Clearly the trend is
reduced cost for higher MTBF. We can also tenatively conclude
that optimum MTBF is off the chart at still higher MTBF. In any
event it is apparent that increased Acquisition Cost of high re-
4) liability, within this range at least, pays off several-fold in
do• reduced Total cost.
"If 7 ;
JI/
o:17
p--I
cn2
NOI.IIXIHOrjl
(110 H00/ 4UL ,1 I-o
26-25
If we know the Mean Time to Restore, which the reference does

not give, we could calculate pump Availability. Then we could
draw a Cost-Effecti-i-iness curve using the ratio of Availability
to Total Cost. But since pump Availability is probably 99% or
better, the Cost-Effectiveness curve would be essentially a re-
ciprocal of the Total Cost curve, leading to identical conclu-
sions. Thus we see that this step is useful only when MTTR or
Mission Time are substantial in relation to MTBF.
4.2 TURBINE STOP-VALVE TOTAL COST
The following example is a projection of existing steam

system design to conceptual redundant design alternatives. It
uses existing valve MTBF and cost data to predict the achievable
MTBF and cost of alternative untried configurations. It is not
verifica'ion of achieved Cost-Effectiveness, but does illustrate
the use of cost-effectiveness analysis in design to obtain the
optimum reliability.
The stop valve of a public utility turbo-generator (29) is con-

trolled by the overspeed governor, and is used only when it ex-
ceeds speed by 10%. The valve is expected to close completely
within 0.3 seccnds when the generator loses its load, or for
other reasons. Failure to close may cause "blowing" of the
turbogen-rator, and consequently destruction of the equipment.
Five stop valve arrangements are shown at the top of Figure 26-26,
the horizontal lines indicating the input manifold to the govern-
ing valves, which in turn feed the turbine. In system A the
failure of either valve to close will fail to stop steam flow.
However either valve may be exercised in periods of light load,
(say every week) to insure satisfactory operation, because the-,
other will sustain turbine speed. In system B the valve may not
be exercised until. shutdown (say every 4 months). Thus the
shorter "mission" time (1 week) results in higher reliability
for A than b, even though failure of either valve is system
failure.
Using the data collected on valves with operating time totalling

over 3 million hours, analyses of the reliability of 5 such ston
valve arrangements has been computed, as indicated at ABCDE on
the horizontal scale.
Acquisition Costs for A and B were obtained from existing arrange-
IA
GO-.
K0
C') i
Ht
Uc
k H
0
C')to
ia-
0 0
C) OD -
HSJt;4TVD
26-27
ments, C, D & E being computed using the component c-osts of

valves, piping supports, equalizing passages, etc. For propri-
etary reasons the cost results are normalized uqing an arbitrary
but fixed fzctor.
Ownership Costs include Maintenance and Consequence-of-failure

costs. Maintenance includes scheduled preventiv',-e maintenance
every 3 years, as well as unscheduled corrective maintenance
based upon separate operational and non-operational failure
rates and the reconditioning and restoration-to-service cost each
time.
Consequence Costs occur when stop valve failure has resulted in

turLo-generator damage beyond repair. For a 100-W unit it may
take 2 years to get another unless one was being manufactured,
during Ohich time an older less-efficient one may be used or
power bought from another utility. Such costs were estimated at
150% of the turbo-generator Acquisition Cost, plus 5% of original
dollar output at 75% capacity. All costs were calculated over
30-year life. Similar estimates can be made for shipboard failure
in terms of the manpower and depreciation cost for added mis3ion
time at reduced performance.
Total Cost is then the sum of Acquisition and Ownership costs, as

plotted in Figure 26-26. It is clear that, of these alternatives,
minimum Acquisition Cost at B does not provide minimum Total Cost.
It i' also clear that there is an optimunt stop-valve system re-
liability, achievable via system D. Higher reliability would be
icess economical.
The Effectiveness of a system is its accompli!1ment of objectives,

which has not been taken into account in the above. But even if.
we assume the worst possible Reliability (MTBF = 6.8 x 106 hours)
and Maintainability (inability to get a turbo-generator replace-
is
ment for two years or 17500 hours) the Availability
6.8 x 106/(6.8 x 106 + 17500 hours) or 99.3%. For the utility
this is a measure of Effectiveness, since Performance Capability,
Delivery, and Utilization are unchanged. If we plotted Cost-
Effectiveness (the ratio of Effectiveness to Total Cost) against
MTBF in the above example we would gain no further insight.
For a Navy ship it is not uncommon to have a fourth 750 KW turbo-

generator for reliability insurance, where ihaee can actually
handle peak loads, and two can nicely handle normal loads. Thus
effectiveness is not degraded by one failure. But the question
does arise whether the added reliability of the fourth is worth
its cost. An analysis similar to the above could be conducted#
taking battle environment into account as a. potential cause of failure.
26-29
4.3 GUILANCE COMPUTER
Early in 1959 IBM was awarded a contract for a missile guidance

computer (30) with an MTBF requirement 50 times that Deing re-
alized in an operational bombing navigational system. This re-
quirement was met on schedule because the reliability activities
were a prime factor in R&D planning.
Three diflarent proposals vere generated, each for a different

MTBF level. The anticipated costs for these are shown in Figure
2c.29, in which cost and MTBF have been normalized for proprietary
and 5ecurity reasons. On the horizontal scale, unity is the MTBF
achievable with a "normal" reliability program. The other two
proposals were ior 4 and 10 ,"imes this. The decision was for 4,
which is 50 times the 0.08 previously obtained. The actual re-
sult obtained was 6.8, via the detailed •.'chniques detailed in
the reference.
Figure 26-30 shows the actual reliability program costs as per-

cent of contractors program cost. Such figures are commonly
used as indices of reliability effcrt, but are also very tricky
bacause of the wide disparity in mei~ning of the words among con-
tractors. Yet "reliability progr-ms" have ranged 5 to 15%,
sometimes higher. The reference contains descriptions of the
detai led activities.
The reference then gives detailed attention to operational cost

breakdown for a quantity of 50 computers. The Figure 26-31
"Production and Operating" cost curve coi~bines these quantity-
related costs. The "Development" cost curve is repeated, so that
the two may be added to get tho "Total" cc.Nst curve. It will be
seen that minimum total cost occurs at aro•ind 3 to 4 times MTBF
improvement, while the actual turned out 6.8 for somewhat higher
cost.
In the absence of actual MTBF and mission time ,Tata, we can com-
pute the reliability for mission times of 1, 0.1, and 0.01 of
the state-of-the-art MTrF of 1. If PerformaTAc- Capability,
Delivery Effectiveness, and Utilization are unity, and there is
no opportunity for maintenance, then Effectiveness is measured
by Reliability. So we can divide Reliability by Total Cost to
get Cost-Effectiveness. We see that optimum MTBF has moved up
slightly for mission time of 0.1, but quite significantly for
1.0 mission tim,e.
For 1.0 misgion time we see that optimum MTBF :improvement is

about 7 times, which is what the program actually achieved. Had,
N~. -r 04-
NHSO N$HNJ2.O
Cl) o U
02
Ul
'Sn
"-4o j
I -
SI Inla T I ltnl
: -, H->
- I-
I .
.. //< . I ,-=
/1 • \\ ;\
E-/ a
'L[* 1_IJ I I
' • •- • --N -• I),0 • I '
we looked , nly -it m i n imum 'P ~t a1 -( e f 'st
that a'hout 3.5 Wda5);ýam, ar- th'It~ r'tl iI wlýt (.

excess ive.
4.4 POLA.RTS (1UT[DA-NCF CFMTIIL 1 TEP MATT~FN.?'ý(' F "T
A Study (3 1) ,,as undc~rt -iken l t ie best.r o''eraI1ia I rmct

I!i
strategy fo-rpeode.1' h' 'ij~nt :h.n b
supplie
jein its oper ~t'm1 I i rý ;uc ins a ) Utl
cruise. Relat ivel-y I itt ic t tine ,,is sz.ent on da-ta ~jatiicrin'!, "S'
that the resualts shoau' e ear'' as( ltvr
aI -. ,)re t h.I
conclus ive.
Th e a n alyvt icalI mde I c on s Id er s iiI T-l,'I"out ot;oktcot

buch as manpow,,er, repaiLr faci li c.test e.>int , etc., 1)"1
also "real" costs su,:h as oe u to) s`- rtal ýe of rla I C rnt
parts and modules, and subinarimrw space. rTje inu 1 s io- snocr-
tage cost prevents minimiizatio ,Ol -tCst at thle expellse Of 0opera-
tional Effectiveness. Co)sts onae s. mTBV- on the-ýc basi S
:~'r
of four possible mainitenance pollciies-, thne fi f be
) I be i n
essentially the sam-e as thi-e orh
1. Discard and salvaci-e

2. Repair on t~h- ;ub-na.-ine
3. Repafii on the tender
4. Repair at ,'-e factory
5. Repair at tlbe Na a IloWeaporis Anne x
The cost factors cons,.- Iid r k t ref:
1.. 1nvon t o ry s 11 'r3+-OsS

-Iarts fr rep ir
Ttst, o-r, d r e p ci r.uon tay it t e
4. sulbma,- n' s ti.)V
Pe
P qt orat i )n ý1XL0*-
6.Tra ns Lper t a tf 1,, n in, i 1 no and nak -t,, i no
1, 1(11re 20-11 sh1-:,;- th.e -11 tct inulnt'.&nne

71t lcae jin un
t enance ( t 1''r etore, o,^ne rsn 1) Cost., t'heC jotd ca' en
the cost ofrplin thtr.r ffa1A on1k N>¶sr
p ris inl,; % the ;Clscarnd o~f an ient irtc: at ts r It tecon,_loa
ex<cfpFt at i1h MIT BF.P ~I ,1 r On theO tcn-oier trns
11,:
1' -it os
with subm,,r ine a cli-se second]
A compar isun lbet.,ween int v' rated wad in -i.e

f,i't
er .:;n in
Fiju re 26-314, assumino, tender ma-inten-ance for b h~ h
grelit importance o t Ch i. de in ec s ion Fir an:,. t v el at i.
2 C-.I3
/
UI
U s?
~
:
//
~iiz
t __ _ l __
.... ..__Ae
H~•]!•; '[,• •\,\I!
/-
2 C -34
/1!]
I
I
/
U
I-v I
I/
/
z
/
jj
U'
$
1
H
4*:
o 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 - N
SUNVSflOILL 1 ! dSOJ iVflNftZV

26-35
MTBF (which may bc state of the art) the plug-in design saves
$80D, O&]*nnually, mr.iin.y through reduction of required inven-
tories. On the other hand pl3u-in designs tend to hav'e higher
Acquisition Cost (f--r design and manufacture) and because of
their higher nunber of connections tend to have lower MTBF. But
$9G0,000 would buy a 32-man continuous design effort to overcome
inherent plug-in reliability problems and achieve order-of-mag-
nitude MTBF improvement.
5. RELIABILITY A __tJISITION COST
We have discussed at some length an analytical approach to design

tradeoffs. But like most analytical techniques, it requires
meaningful data inputs in order to draw meaningful conclusions.
This section discusses one very important input, Acquisition Cost
data, perhaps the most difficult.
5.1 ACQUISITION COST ELEMEN'PS
The cost of achieving reliability is very real, but such cost

data is very scarce. To understand the sources of such cost we
can consider four broad categories as illustrated in Figure 26-36.
1. Traditional design practices where the design engineer draws

upon his personal experience, uses much intuitive judgment,
and conducts some analysis. The product is built, its fail-
ures are analysed, _t is redesigned, and at lea,3t several
such complete cycles are required before the product achieves
maturity. (In shipbuilding many such cycles have long since
occurred, resulting in standard "margin" practices) But
today we often need adequate reliability the first time in
designs for which no experience is available, and cannot
tolerate the time and cost of recycling.
2. Modern design practices are employed, using standaed parts

control, supplier control, configuration control, education
in new technologies, data dissemination in convenient form,
system design ai.1 analysis, stress/strength analysis, and
design review. Tinse prdctices get moderately good relia-
bility in areas where there is little prior experience, and
are expected as part of ;,.n-substantial contract without
additional cost.
S3. Reliability programs add reliability program planning, "re-

li.able" design and r_,iability evaluation techniques, relia-
bility education, quantitative reliability requirements on
~I-36
Cf')
0I
CL 0
__ _ _ 4 -
_______C
- ~ C -4I~~
ISO ,)VLOD3 K3IH
26-37
designers and suppliers, analysis, test and audit of design,

stress time and failure recording and data dissemination,
failure analysis, corrective action control, and the use of
MIL R 38100 "Established Reliability" parts. S';ch programs
get steady reliabili y growth, typically 2-to-1 MTBF improve-
ment in 4 years.
4. Design to specified reliability does not mean design to a

"goal", merely using "modern design practices" and a "relia-
bility program" to get the oest possible" reliability with-
in contracted cost.
It does mean conscious design to a specified quantitative

MTBF or % reliability, no more and no less, which is rarely
done. It involves simplification techniques, standardiza-
tion, parts selection and application, stress/strength design,
tolerance evaluation, failure rate prediction, human engin-
eering, failure cause and effect avoidance, preventive main-
tenance provision, producibility, supplier evaluation and
control, evaluation tests, local environment control, failure
prediction devices, component integraLion, redundancy, and
parts improvement. See chapter 13.
Such techniques can often get one or more orders of magnitude

reliability improvement to satisfy the actual need. They
can make some of the tight "control" elements in 3 above
unnecessary.
Most contractors do not have real "Reliability Programs", in

the above sense, but the good ones utilize the above Traditional
and Modern practices. Of the contractors who do have "reliabil-
ity programs", almost all have scxne fraction or all of the above
reliability program elements. Such reliability programs gener-
ally cost 5 to 10% of the contract design cost, excluding factory
quality assurance, inspcction, and test.
Design to specified reliability has been undertaken by relatively

few contractors. The techniques are spotty, not really shaken
down, and the reliability required by such specification is sel-
dom achieved due to contractual cost constr:ints. Yet the tech-
niques are imperative for many of our projected long-life appli-
cat ions like submarine missions, underwater dormant weapons,
space probes, etc. They may be costl,, yet perhaps no more so
than the reliability "control" techni4ues, some of which would
then not be needed. But the payoff in maintenance cost reduction
above justifies m•uch more than is spent today.
Design for best cost-effectiveness is design fcr ,Ahatever val.ue

of Reliability and Maintainability is best cons.defring Tot-al
Cost. It %,ill generally cost more for Acquisi.tion. but O(nershi-
Cost savings result in a net Tctal Cost reduction•
Figure 26-36 thus attempts to show that even though 'gooJd relia-
bility is being obtained with and without heavy reliability
!Icontrol" programs, such programs are often merely 3 crutch for
obsolete or immature engineering practices. When this is the
case, it should be possible to get much better -'eliability through
better engineering practices, and smaller reliability proqrams,
without increasing the Acquisition Ccst. But fo actually get the
optimal reliability for best cost-effectiveness, still higher
Acquisition Cost may be needed.
5.2 ACQUISITION COST HISTORY
In Figure 26-39 we have converted several items of Acquisition-

Cost vs. reliability data to a common basis for comparison.
Relative MTBF of unity indicates state of the art. Relative $
Cost of unity is the Acquisition Cost (purchase price) at state
of the art. More details on the background for each curve are
obtainable from the references indicated below.
The Pump curve results from merely historical information (27)

over nine years, without benefit of a reliability program as out-
lined above. The Guidance Computer curve comes -rorl a detailed
plan of three alternative approaches (30) from light to heavy
reliability programs. The Stop Valve Redundancy curve actually
results from redundant use (29) of one to four identical valves
in different configurations, an excellent example of this
technique.
The Navigation Unit curve is based on a factual comparison (32,j3)

of total cost of redesign and production to original cost of
desigi. and production, which was 10% cheaper for 6-to-l MTBF
improvement. But in the absence of design cost data we have
assumed that original design cost 25% of the total, so that fresh
design and production would have cost 15% more than the original.
design and production.
The Launch Vehicle Estimate curve resulted from a consideration

(10) of the limits between which it could possibly range, then
trial, intuitive judgment, and correction of several alternatives..
5.3 ACQUISITION COST DATA SOURCES

26-39
0-0
C. 1 )2
26-40
As indicated above, data relating design and manufacturing cost

to MTBF achieved is -ery scarce. The data presented above
resulted fron several weeks research of the past few years' relia-
bility conference and periodical literature, with emphasis on
Navy material. Certainly more could be turned up with further
detailed research.
When adequate component cost/MTBF data cannot be found in the

literature, the following approaches will often get it:
1. Informal request of manufacturer
2. Formal request for manufacturers ouotat>.:; at biverailn
3. Informal request of contractors who have used the component.

4. Bureau procurement records for cost and maintenance records
for MTBF.
When direct cost/MTBF data is not obtainable, one must resort to

indirect approaches. Each kind of design and manufacture presents
its own problems, but generally the analysis approaches are:
1. Gross evaluation of cost/M.TBF a-hieved by very similar

or identical sequential programs.
2. Synthesis of incremental task costs to achieve various

MTBF levels.
3. Calculation of cost and MTBF achievable with various

redundancy configurations of components of known cost and
MTBF. This is a "worst case" cost which actual design should
reduce.
4. Analysis of cost and MIjF as related to a complexity common

denominator, using data for real "design for reliability" pro-
grams.
5. Analysis of manufacturers aintenarce schedule aiid spare

parts recommendat ions.
6. OWNERSHIP COST
This element of Total Cost is the aggregate ot all costs to the

user after the system is first made operational, and incurred
throughout its useful life. It is also commonly called "user"
cost, and sometimes "operational" cost. It is most of the iceberg.
26-41
The Operational Cost eleii~.nts (training, operator salaries and

facilities, etc., for operators) are fairly easily predictable
from study of the system design itself.
The Maintenance Cost elements (ereventive and corrective main-

tenance, maintenance personnel salaries and facilities, spare
parts, logistics, etc.) typically constitute the bulk of owner-
ship cost; they depend primarily upon reliability (MTBF) and to
c lesser extent upon maintainability (MTTR).
The Consequence C';"t iements (damage to or loss of equipment,

pzr.innnel, or other resources external to the system as a result
of it- • .. . '-' . . . n how the system is
used, and upon its reliability (MTBF) and safety. But Consequence
costs and Maintenance Costs are almost t2. sole cri4r•- of the
importance of reliability, and hence justification for its
achievement.
Ownership Cost data must come from the owner or 'iser, as opposed
to Acquisition Cost data from the Contractor or manufacturer. But
it is just as scarce, for different reason. While a growing amount
of field maintenance data is being collected, it is as yet by no
means adequate for many specific Ownership Cost analyses. The
analyst must resort to indirect methods based on available data.
NAVSHIPS 94324 Maintainability Design Criteria Handbook (34)

provides detailed maintenance times for each increment of electronic
maintenance, as well as skill levels available. These can be con-
verted to direc, maintenance costs.
The Machinery History Card, NAVSHIPS 527 (27 p.175) is an important

source of maintenance manpower data. Reports of Equipment Failure
NAVSHIPS 3621 (27 p.176) also provide maintenance manpowe data.
Shipyard repair records (35 p.344) contain much maintenance cost
data.
Many papers have presented methods of obtaining or estimating

ownership costs. Each kind of system dý-sign and utilization
presents its own problems, but generally the analysis approaches
are:
1. Gross evaluation of cost/MTBF/MTTR achieved by very similar

or identical sequential prograns.
2. Synthesis of incremental task costs resulting from various

MTBF or MTTR levels and environrments.
26-42
3. Straightforward colle-tion of user data during operation,

which of course is too late for the current design but may be
quite valuable for the next.
7. OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT
The principles of cost-effectiveness analysis 3re not being applied

to design except in very rare instances. But this does not detract
from their significance and the imperative need to apply them as
quickly as we can. Mr. McNamara has directed their broad appli-
cation, and Messrs. Hitch, Secretary Longstreet, and Rear Admiral
Fawkes have recommended their use wherever feasible.
This section addresses most of the reasons that the principles

have not yet been applied, and translates each to deliberately
concise statements of programs that the Bureau could and should
consider tuj -- _.a.n :'n -ogf-effectivenegs analysis.
7.1 PROPOSAL REQUIRDIENTS
Require selected prospective contractors to include in their pro-

posals an analysis of total costs and effectiveness vs. a range
cf .STBF aad MTTR.
7.2 COST-EFFECTI IENESS STUDY
When the problem is too complex for meaningful analysis in pro-

posals, issue advanct, study contracts to say thrce experienced
contractors, each to conduct a cost-effectiveness study based on
his own development antd manufacturing costs. This will shc..w what
MTBF and MTTR is achievable, and tell much about the contractori
reliability and maintairability capability (27,p.219jizem 2).
Recently the Bureau has been directed by DOD to do this on svecific
programs.
7.3 ACQUISITION COST DATA IN CONTRACTS
Require contractors to provide develoent and manutacturinq cost

data by principal component, whether or not it may also be ntsded,
by department. (27 p.214 item 5; p.215 item lb). Then relate to
actually achieved MTBF and MTTR.
7.4 'ACQUISITION AND rVNERSHIP COST DATA STUTDIES
Where data is not available on completed contracts, but the data
is jorely needed for decisions on optimal MTBF ioad MTTR on future
contracts, award study contracts to collect. rhe data. Several of
these have been concluded by B"Ships and BuWeps. Another alt-r-
native is to require a new design contractor to do this first,
as a basis for his design.
km
26-43
7.5 OWNERSHIP COST DATA PROGRAMS
Establish sach activities as the Navy Maintenance and Materiel

Management Project Group (36) and the BuShips Maintenance Manage-
ment Project Office (37) to obtain the cost data needed for MTBF
and MTTR d-c.3ions. Vigorouily pursue full documentation of
reliability, cost, and maintenance data during the life of the
equipment, and make it available to the manufacturer for his
analysis and action (27 p. 2 1 7 item 4).
7.6 REFERENCE MANUALS
Contract for the development of a very concise reference

manual containing not theory and anelysis but the significant
fact figures, and quantitative "rules of thumb" for direct use by
contractor design engineers. An example of a "rule of thumb" is
"Doubling the MTBF adds about 20% to Accquisition Cost".
7.7 TRADEOFr 'ruuo
Contract for the development of new and more refined tradeoff

tools relating design alternatives to ccst. Simple research will
go far toward refinement of the above 20% with variations for
equipment categories, as well as toward realization of similar
tools for ownership cost vs. MTBF and MTTR (27 p.214 item 6;
p.216 item 13; p.219 item 3; 38 p.7).
7.8 CONTRACT TECHNIQUES
Develop realistic incentive contract techniques that encourage

contractor expenditure up to that which achieves the optimal MTBF
and MTTR, considering total cosc.
Consider what happens on a straight cost-incentive contract that

pays say 10% of Acquisition cost savings. If the centi ,ct tarjet
is state-of-the-art reliability and maintainability, it is to the
contractor's advantage to spend as little as possible on relia-
bility improvement as long as Ie thinks he knows how to design
state-of-the-art goodb. But he knows that he will be penalized
for any extrj expenditure to achieve better reliability or main-
tainability. The same is true of "value engineering" (39) clauses,
which do not yet take into account ultimate customeT savings.
Consider what happens on a reliability-incentive contract thaL 'Days

say 0.3% added fee for each % operational reliability improvement
ir additior to the above cost-incentive. The cost of achieving
2% higher reliability is m,,ch greater at, say, 90% than it is
26-44
at 70%. Therefore the m• ce rel.ability d contractor achieves the

less he is paid for it. There is always a reliability level be-
yond which the contractor is actudlly Lnalized f'r reliability j
improvement (38 p.9; 27 p. 2 1 7 it " 5). For the above fi~jures (10)
it is around 90% reliability.
Perhaps you will say "if this is the situation for a certain
system, then the user should specify exactly what MTBF he requires."
Indeed he should, but usually cannot. He cannot because today he
does not know the cost to achieve various levels of reliability and
maintainability. The Bureau will usually have to obtain these costs
from contractors in order to locate the crest of the cost-effective-
ness curve. This should occur roughly for the "liA, and later more
precisely in competitive dialogue with contractors. Such costs
will vary widely between contractors.
Another much-discussed solution is to give the contrartors pert-

inent maintenance and logistic parameters in several study con-
tracts, and let them submit cost-effectiveness analyses based on
th-ir own costs. With such analyses tht Bureau should be able
to locate the crest, and incidentally find out who knows what it
costs to achieve, not just "contr 1" , reli&.--ity
-..--- .. t...
ability.
Still another may be to simply award contracts on the basis of

promised cost-effectivenogA instead of cost, with incentives and
penalties surrounding the promised value. This would oblige
contractors to develop and L.se the kind of w.-t-effe-tiveness
analysis tools outlined herein! and albo to operate a conti.,.,is
cost-effectiveness model incorporaino, Reliability and Maintain-
ability prediction. UnLiKe reliability models, these would predict
loss or gain of fee, guaranteed to get action in proportton to the
real utlimate impact on the user.
As discussed (40) in detail by Dr. Hitch, DOD Comptroller, the

problem of properly reo'ponsive incentives is very complex. Like
yachting handicaps, incentive contracts invit4i• design to the payoff
formula. The prc-olerr is to make the fcrmula exactly ¶atch the re 11
BuShips objective, which is not usually as simple as the ratio of
effectiveness to cost. But it does seem as thouqh the potential
paycfl to the Bureau and taxpayers is worth considurrable effort on
one or more solutions to the problem.
7.9 MANAC MENT VISIBILITY
Develop a realistic monthly reporting system, for BuShi,. and

contractor nanaqement alike, that tells on one page whether the
S26•-45
anticipited operati<nal cost- tfTctivn,;ss -. r dr,,n. n 1s

up
One example is sho.n in Fie-,ure )' . If a coistily hn je
made to obtain higher MTBF. but the -x;pect,-.., m tnt s av ing
more than offsets it, then t-h, report can s,' the trend line
ioinq to hijher Cost-Effectivvoness. C); if a test shows l.wr-
than-planned MTBF, the trend depress-;iOn shows h-,w much can be
27
afforded to correct it (38 p.ll; 4i p.1 ).
7.10 DATA COLLECTION STUDY
Augment the current study to develop more effect ive and efficient
failure reporting, data feedback, and corrective action procedures
(see Chapter '9 and references 27 p.219, 42 p.356, and 28 p.4) to
include failure cost reporting by +he Bureau. By calculating ii.-
dices at reqular interval,, codin', ant! stnrino for easy retrieval,
tho time and cost -f many other studies should be drastically re-
duced. Enough data shoulc be collected to dtt-rmine which com-
2 1 6 item 91
ponents need further development, based on Total Cos.t (27 p.
7.11 SURVEYS
For criticat systems, establish steparate personnel, trained in

the criteria for and applications of the data, to obtain owner-
ship Cost, manpower, MTF and MTTR data. -Exerience has s',il..'n
beyond all doubt that rec< ,tdinq by the ussinq and maintenance
personnel is noit reijable (44 p.ý-)).
7 .12 NAVY MACH INJRY HISTORY CARD
Khen properly tilled in, this prl-vides very use'tul dat a. But often
the very Mnportant hours of )perat ion are not iven (27 p.214 item
5; p.21- item,). One report (44 p.65) states that the Navy failure
report ini prto-ra;m is exce.pt na in concept, but hais no-t been get-tin,
fai lures reported. At pres#,nt only 10 t', 2 -.
rpoprrt 1nu is achieved
(27 p.217 item 10; 43 p.4 item r The date the equl:L prent Was put
into .eration sho,,ild be entered, As well -As the exact :observatio,n
2 Wlile this
that led to maintenance action (2".7p. 17 item 9•).
cars Is not trans*!1itted to the Bureau, it culd plrovide excellent
0 Va for ana lyvýis ot specitic: cOc..ponents.
7.13 'AINq'PNANCE SCHELODUES
'lbe preveitive anC4 correct. .e maintenzince schedules ftr nished bv

the contractor should be analyt cally worked out and based upon
the failure rate curve and all co,-)sts involved (27 p.215 itemn 6,7).
26-46 -
J
,I- m NP
to
00
Q -
co
H to LO~
L I
ii2 -.11 r" t C O _0

00
(- tao 0- 0l
zq 0
C0 m0 OC4t0C)
4)
C,>1
26-47
S8. S UMARY
In this lecture we have shown that the cost conisequences of

inadequate reliability and maintainability are very substantial.
They constitute a major drain on the defense dollar resources,
which dollars miqht be better spent on other procurement.
Every decision between design alternatives should be evaluated

on the basis of consequent system Effectiveness in relation to
consEequent Total CosL of Acqusition and Ownership. Delivery
effects Bre included in Effectiveness and Costr. T'his is virtually
the only so and basis upon which Reliability and Maintainability
reauirements can be establishea, and concurrently justified.
Comparative analysis between aiternatives requires data only on

thinqs that change between alternatives, thus works well with
limited data. Absolute predictien of Cost-Effectiveness requires
mrch more data.
Relidbility and Maintainability Acquisition Cost data must be

obtained from contraftors as part of proposals and refined during
design and production. Ownership Cost data must be obtained from
fleet operations and shipyards.
Contracts can be written so as to provide cost-effectiveness data,

and eventually should be written in such a way that the contractors
fee is directly related to achieved cost-effectiveness.
As Rear Admiral Emerson Fawkes, USN, said, "The use of the cost-
effectiveness ratio in making technical, managemen+, and military
decisions is the way of life.'
9. REFERENCES
1 Concepts and Research Need of Reliability in Military Systems,

by E. J. Nucci, ODDR&E, September 1963, IEEE Transactions on
Reliability.
2 Science Technolooy & Management, by F. E. Kast and J. E.,

Rosenzweig, McGraw" Hill Book Co., September 4, 1962.
3 The Reliability Aspects of Space Programs, by James R. Bridges,

Director of Electrcnics, ODDR&E, 24 April 1963, Second Manned
Space Flight Meeting, Dallas.
4 Presentation for AIAA-SAE-ASME Reliability & Maintainability

Conference, by Rear Admiral Emerson Fawkes, USN, Assistant
26-48
chief, BuWeps R&D Test & Evaluation, May 7, 1963ý
5 Future Trends in Cnrrier Aviation, by Capt. C. 0. Ho~hiquist,

USN, November 1, 1960, 4th Navy Industry Conference on Aero-
nautical Material Reliability, Washington D. C. Reporting in
(G13) pp.1-4.
6 B~iMAB Survey on industrial Reliability Pr oqrams, by T. M.

Adams, November 1, 1960, Fourth Navy-Industry Conference on
Aercnautical Materia~l Reliability, Washington D. C. Reported
ir (11) pp.4-34.
7 Reliability Today and Tomozrow, by Lt. General Hiowell M. Estes,

Jr., US.AF; Evaluation Engineering March./April 1964; page 6;
IEEE Transactions -on Reliability, March 1964 page 1.
8 Finding a Figure of Merit for Mairqtainability, RCA Service Co.,

Aerospace Electronics, July 1960 (A Res---arch Plan for Develop-
ing Methods of Maintainability Measu±~erent and Prediction,
RADC-TN-60-5, RCA Service Company (Finding a)
9 System Evaluation for Economnic Reliability, by E. S. Winlund

Feb. 9, 1962, National Winter Convention on Military Electronics
10 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for Optimal Reliability and

Maintainability, Feb. 19, 1964, by E. S. Winlund, Proceedings
of the Eleventh National symposium on Reliability and Quality
Control, January 1965, Miami, Florida. Also condense~version
What Price Reliability, by 2. S. Winlund, 2 March 1964,
General Dynamics/Astronautics.
11 Evaluation of Tradeoffs Between Reliability, rerformance,

Schedule, and Cost, by F. W. Diedrich, May 6, 1963, Aerospace
Reliability and Maintainability Conference, Washington, D. C.
p.72.
12 Reliability and value Engineering, by M. M. Tall, 19 October

1962, Proceedings of the Third Annual New York Conference on
Ele~ctronic Reliability, IRE. Same as System Aspects, by M.
M. Tall, September 1958, IRE Transactions on Reliability and
Quality Controlý
13 Systems Reliability, A measure of Effectiveness for Program

Trades, by J. M. Smith and J. E. Wylie, Douglas Aircraft Co.,
Santa Monica, Calif.
26-49
14 The Strange Case of the Seven-Sided Post Hole, 1955, American

Standards Association, 70 E. 45th St., New York 17, New York.
15 Work Study in Ship Design, by Capt. H. A. Kauffman, USN,

Proceedings of Conference on Advanced Marine Engineering
Concepts for Increased Reliability, Tne University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
16 Reliahility Training Text, ist Edition, Sept. '959, Institute

of Radio Engineers, Inc.
1.7 Dollar Value T-38 Reliability Support Program, November 15,

1960. Northrup •i~orair Report NOR-59-293, reported in (G13
pp.8-13)
18 Economic Choice of Generator Unit Size, by L. K. Kirchmayer

and A. G. Mellor, 1.December 1957, Annual Meeticmg of ASME,
New York, paper 57A154
19 Auxilliary Drives and Factors Affecting their Selection by

J. J. Heagerty, Sept 24, 1961, AIAA-ASME National Power
Conference, San Francisco, paper 61-989
20 Cost-Effectiveness as a Method of Evaluating Desiqn Changes,

by Jack P. Kornfield, Boeing Company, October 1960
22 Economics of Reliability, Maintainability, and Availability in

Complex Systems, bVy A. S. Goldman, February 1, 1962. General
Electric Co., Sanca Barabara, Calif., TEMPO report SP-157,
also reported in (G13 pp.8-23).
23 Value Engineering Handbook H1ll, 29 March 1963, Office of the

Assistant Secretary of Defense (Installations & Logistics),
Washington 25, D. C. See also ASPR section I part 17, and
AFR 70-16
24 Value Engineering of Naval Ordnance Equipment, MIL-V-21237.

Also BuWeps note 13052 dated Sept. 1961. Also Value Engineering
of Naval Electronic Equipment, MIL-V-19858. Also Navy Specifi-
cation and Requirements Improvement Program 4120.14 dated
1 May 1962.
25 Guide for the Preparation of TDP Dependability Plans, (BuShips)

RCA Report, 2 March 1964
26 A Reliability-Cost Optimization Procedure, by P. R. Gyllenhaal

and J. E. Robinson, January 13, 1959, 5th National Symposium
"26--50
on Reliability and Quality Control
27 Design of Equipment to Optimize Reliability for Manufactrnrers

and Customers Minimum Total Cost, by Dr. D. Kececioglu and
R. C. Hughes, February 1963, Proceedings of Conference on
Advanced Marin,;ý Engineering Concepts for Increased Reliability,
The University of Michigan, Ana Arbor, Michigan. Contract
NONR-3931.(00) (FBM)
28 Study of Maintenance Cost Optimization and Reliabilit, of

Shipboard Machinery, by I. Bozovsky, N. R. MacFarlane, and
R. L. Wunderman, June 1962, United Control Corp., Seattle,
Dept. of the Navy contract NONR-37400(00)(FBM)
29 Reliability and Relative Cost of Steam Turbine Governing and

Stop Valve Arrangements, by Dr. D. Kececioglu and R. C. Hughes,
May 7, 1963, Aerospace Reliability and Maintainability Con-
ference, Society of Automotive Engineers (SF-246)
30 Program Costs vs. Reliability, by B. T. Colandene, IBM Space

Guidance Center, January 8, 1964, Proceedings of the Tenth
National Symposium on Reliability and Quality Control.
31 Preliminary Analyses of Repair-Discard Maintenance Alternatives

and Checkout Frequency for the Polaris Guidance Capsule, by
Wm. B. Thompson, Feb. 29, 1960, Temp Report RM 60--TMP-13,
General Electric Company, Santa Barbara, Calif.
32 Reliability, - Whose Responsibility?, H. Leslie Hoffman,

August 1961, IRE Transactions on Reliability and Quality
Control. See also (11 p.8-10) for added hir Force savings
figures.
33 Analysis of Reliability rianagement in Defense Industries, by

Vincent J. Bracha, June 1962, BSD, Air Force System Command,
USAF.
34 Maintainability Design Criteria Handbook for Designers of

Shipboard Elect onic Equipment, NAVSHIPS 94324, by Federal
Electronic Corporation, Supt. of Documents, Washington, D. C.,
$6. 00
35 Proceedings of Conference on Advanced Marine Engineering

Concepts for Increased Reliability, February 1963, The
Uriversity of Michigan, ORA Project 05079.
26-51
36 Navy Maintenance and Material Management Project Group (MMMPG)

OPNAVINST 4700.16, March 8, 1963.
37 iaintenance Management Project Office (Code 604), BuShips

Instruction 5432.1 SG3, August 1, 1963.
38 DOD R&M Policies for Future Weapon System, by J. W. Roach,

Office of Defense Development, Research and Engineering.
39 Incentive Contracting Guide, 30 December 1963, Department of

Defense, Navy NAVEXOS P-2451, Air Force AFP 70-1-5, Army FM
38-34.
40 Cost Considerations and System Effectiveness, by Dr. Charles

J. Hitch, Assistant Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) before
the SAE-ASME-AIAA Aerospace Reliability and Maintainability
Conference, Washington, D. C., June 30, 1964
41 The Anatomy of Program Management, by Maj. General J. B.

Medaris, Sept. 4, 1962, Proceedings of the National Advanced
Technology Management Conference, Seattle, Wash., McGraw-Hill
Book Co.
42 Address by the Honorable Victor M. Lcngstreet, Assistant

Secretary of the Navy for Financial Management, before the
Northeastern States Navy Research and Development Clinic,
Philadelphia, Pa., November 18-20, 1964.
43 A Reliability-Maintainability Trade-off Procedure for Navy

Electronic Equipment, prepared for Bureau of Ships, document
AD-426501
44 Shipboard Maintenance Management, by Comdr. F. E. Heenan,

February 1963, Proceedings of Conference on Advanced Marine
Engineering Concepts for Increased Reliability, University
of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
45 Defense Planning and Organization, by Alain Enthoven and

Henry Rowen, Rand Corp. Report P-1640, March 17, 1959.
46 Systems Effectiveness, A Tool for Appraisal, by Commandec

Keith N. Sargent, USN, 22 July 1964, Western States Navy
R&D Clinic, Montana State College, Boseman, Montana.
27-1
I CHAPTER 27
DEFINITIONS
1. RELIABIITTY DEFINITIONS 27- 3

1.1 Failure 27- 3
1.2 Operating Time 27- 4
1.3 Stress Time 27- 4
1.4 Mission Time 27- 4
1.5 Mean Time Between Failures (MTBF) 27- 4
1.6 Mean Cycles Between Failures (MCBF) 27- 4
1.7 Failure Rate 27- 4
1.8 Wearout Failure 27- 5
1.9 Reliability 27- 5
1.10 Confidence Level 27- 5
2. MAINTAINABILITY DEFINITIONS 27- 5

2.1 Downtime 27- 5
2.2 Prevenrtive Maintenance Time 27- 5
2.3 Corrective Maintenance Time 27- 7
2.4 Active Maintenance Time 27- 7
2.5 Non-Active Maintenance Time 27- 7
2.6 Active Restoration Time 27- 7
2.7 Mean Time To Restore (MITR) 2'- 7
2.8 Maintainability 27- 8
3. AVAILABILITY DEFINITIONS 27- 8

3.1 Availability 27- 8
3.2 Demand Availability 27- 8
3.3 Continuous Availability 27- 8
3.4 Operational Readiness 27- 9
4. EFFECTIVENESS DEFINITIONS 27- 9

4.1 Effectiveness 27- 9
4.2 System Effectiveness 27- 9
4.3 Performance Capability 27- 9
4.4 Delivery Effectivencss 27- 9
4.5 Utilization 27- 9
4.6 Useful Life 27- 9
5. COST DEFINITIONS 27- 9

5.1 Development Cost 27- 9
5.2 Production Cost 27-11
5.3 Operation Cost 27-11
4 5.4 Maintenance Cost 27-11
5.5 Consequence Cost 27-11
I ,, !
27-2
Paae
5.6 Acquisition Cost 27-11
5.7 Ownership Cost 27-11
5.8 Total Cost 27-11
5.9 Cost-Effectiveness 77-11
6. GENERAL DEFINITIONS 27-11
6.1 Accelerated Lifo Test 27-11
6.2 Component 27-11
6.3 Critical Components 27-12
6.4 Criticality 27-12
6.5 Life Test 27-12
6.6 Overstress Test 27-12
6.7 Part 27-12
6.8 Redundancy 27-12
6.9 Strength/Stress Analysis 27-12
6.10 System 27-12
6.11 Value Engineering 27-12
6.12 Verification 27-13
27-3
Chapter 27
DEFTI'TTIONS
Until the reader or listener sees rigorous technical definitions

for ccomi,,n words used in a technical sense, he takes them to have
the "common usage" meaning. But since very few readers actually
see standardized technical definitions, adequate communication
demands that technical definitions be consistent with, and fall
within, the dictionary and common usage meanings. To do other-
wise leads the average reader astray, cutting off the very under-
standing that is sought.
This problem commonly occurs in new tec..nologies, such as relia-

bility and maintainability. MIL STD 721A and MIL STD 778 have
been issued in an attempt to standardize terms commonly used in
these technologies. But new technologies are dynamic, and the
definitions that worked yesterday are often found inadequate to-
morrow. Thus many of the 721A and 778 definitions need improve-
ment for communciation with design engineers in todays technology.
In this chapter, therefore, we list selected definitions of words

as used in this text. Wherever a 721A or 778 definition is
adequate, we use it. Where it is not, we provide a workable
definition followed by an indented quotation of 721A or 778 and
an eyplanation of its limitations.
Also some additional terms actually needed and used in the advan-
cing technology are defined. The following definitions are grouped
according to their relationship to each other, rather than alpha-
betically.
1. RELIABILITY DEFINITIONS
1.1 FAILURE is the inability of the system or component to

perform the required function. As defined in 6.2 and 6.10 below,
"system" and "component" are used in a broad sense, and specifically
include human components.
MIL STD 721A says "Faiiure is the inability of materiel to

perform ita required function within previously-established
limits." "Materiel" means "hardware" at all leels, specifi-
cally excluding human components wl-se failure must be in-
cluded. "Previously established limits" may apply to testing
but not neccssarily to the actual operational limits.
27-4
1.2 OPERATING TIME is the time during which the system or com-
ponent is performing its intended function.
MIL STD 7 21A is identical except materiel is used in place of

system or component, but again there must be no exclusion of
human components.
Operating time i• quite significant for many purposes, but

often cannot be related directly tce failures. To obtain
failure rate or MTBF it is necessary to use Stress Time,
defined below.
1.3 STRESS TIME is the time during which stresses occur that
can induce failure. It includes Operating Time. Such stresses
commonly occur during standby and maintenance.
1.4 MISSION TIME (t) is the period of time in which an item

must perform a spe-ified mission. (MIL STD 77S).
In the above, "item" includes systems and components.

"Specified mission" normally means the specific task whose
completion without failure is required.
1.5 MEAN TIME BETWEEN FAILU"RES (MTBF) (T) is the average Stress
Time between Failures. (See Stress Time).
MIL STD 721A says "MT5F is, for a particular interval, the
total measured functioning time (or cycles, miles. events,
etc.) of a population of materiel divided by the total number
of failures within the population during the measured period".
Again it cannot be limited to "materiel" and the time may be
more than "functioning" time. MTBF is the primary index of
design reliability, commonly ex-pressed in hours. It is the
reciprocal of Failure Rate.
1.6 MEAN CYCLES BETIýFEEN FAILURES (MCBF) is the average number

of stress cycles between failures. An operational Stress Time/,
cycles relati-nship may be used tt convert to equivalent MTBF
for analysis.
1.7 FAILURE RATE (N), at any point in the life of the systemi
or component, is the incremental change ,n the number of failures
per associated incremental change in the measure of life (time,
cycles, mi'§s, events, &c., as applicable)." When failure rate
is assumed constant, it is the average number of failures per
unit Stresb Time. It is commonly expressed in failvres per
27-5
million hours, and is the reciprocal of Mean Time Between Failures.
MIL STD 721A is identical to the primary statement above,

except that ",materiel" excludes human components.
1.8 WEAROUT FAILURE is one that occurs as a result of deterior-

ation processes or mechanical wear and whose probability of occur-
rence increases with time (MIL STD 721A).
1.9 RELIABILITY (R) is the probability that th'3 system or

component will perform its intended function for a specified
period under stated conditions.
MIL STD 721A is identical except that "materiel" excludes

human components. The word is also commonly used to express
the fraction of systems or components that operate without
failure for the Mission Time duration.
1.10 CONFIDENCE LEVEL is the probability that a given statement

is correct, or the chance that the true value lies between two
confidence limits (the confidence interval) (MIL STD 721A).
The commonest use of the term is the probability that the true
value of reliability is at least equal to a specified lower
limit.
2. MAINTAINABILITY DEFINITIONS
Figure 27-6 will be found helpful in understanding the Maintain-

ability and Availability definitions.
2.1 DOWNTIME is that portion of calendar time during which thq-

item is not in condition to perform its intended function (MIL
STD 778).
"Item" refers to systems or components. Note that downtirA

is maintenance time, but excludes any during which the system
or component continues to operate, as well as any that can be
instantly interrupted.
2.2 PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE TIME is the maintenance time to

retain an item in satisfactory operational condition by providing
systematic inspection, detection, and prevention of incipient
failure. It is made up of performance measuremeý't, care of
mechanical wearout items, front panel adjustment, calibration
and alignment, cleaning, etc. (MIL STD 778).
27-6
H -'
- sQ > 5
zz
I I
- F-4
-I zF-• I. •
>0
27-7
2.3 CORRECTIVE MAINTENANCE TIME is the ti.e that begins with

ý e observance of a malfunction of an item and ends when the
item is restc-red to a satisfactory operating conditicr. It may
be subdividtd into Active Maintenance Time and Non-Active Main-
tenance Time (MIL STD 7-3).
This ie ,iso called "Repair Time" by the Navy and "downtime"

or ",unscheduled maintenance time' by many indjistries. To
avoid confusion in this text we have tried to av-id use of
these aternative words for this 'ieaning.
2.4 ACTIVE MAINTENANCE TIME is the time during which preventive

and corrective maintenance work is actually being done on the item.
(MIL STD 778)
"2.5 NON-ACTIVE MAINTENANCE TIME is the time during which no

maintenance is being accomplished on the item because of either
supply or administrative reasons (MIL STD 778)
"Supply or administrative reasons" means waiting for any item,

cr any other reason.
2.6 ,.CTIVE RESTORATION TIME is the Corrective Maintenance Time

during which work is actually being done. it includes detection,
diagnosis, preparation, replacement or repair, adjustment, check-
out, and reload time to the extent each is nec-ssary.
MIL STD '78 says "active REPAIR time is the time during which
one or more technicians are working on the item to effect a
repair." It is felt that to design engineers the word "repair"
implies only one of many steps in the restoration after a
fai lure.
2.7 MEAN TIME TO RESTORE (MTTR) is the statistical mean of the

distribution of ti.nes-to-restore. It is the summation of active
restoration times during a given period of time divided by the
total number of failures during the same time interval.
MIL STD 778 is identical except for the word "repair" instead
of "restoration", which implies only a portion of the task.
MTTR is the mean time for restoration to full performance
capability, including detection, diagnosis, preparation,
replacement or repair, adjustment, checkout, and (for loss ot
content) reload, and any waiting for replacements, instructions,
test equipmnent, etc.
27 -8
2.8 MAINTAINABILITY is the speed or economy with which a

system or component can be kept in, and/or restored to, full
performance capability. A principally--used measure is the
average nuLmber of failures restored per hour of Corrective Main-
tenance time, which is the reciprocal of MTTPR Another is the
fraction of attempts wherein restoration is completed in a
specified time, or the probability that it will be completed in
that time. Another is the functional time obtained per dollar
cost of preventive and corrective maintenance.
MIL STAD 778 says "maintainability is a characteristic of

design and installation which is expressed as the probability
that an item will conform to specified conditlons within a
given period of time when maintenance action is performed in
accordance with prescribed procedures and resources." un-
fortunately this wording seems to include predicted relia-
bilitv and availability within maintainability and the words
"probability", "will", "specified", 'given", and "prescribed"
preclude use of the word "maintainability" to express what
actually happens in operation.
3. AVAILABILITY DEFINITIONS
3.1 AVAILABILITY (A) is the fraction of the total desired

operating time that the system or component is operable.
MIL STD 721A is identical to the above, except that the word
"materiel" excludes human components. MIL STD 778 defines
the same thing as "availability (operational) is the prob-
ability tha& a system or equipment when used under stated
conditions and in an actual supply environment shall operate
satisfactorily at any given time."
3.2 DE24;ND AVAILABILITY (Ad) is the fraction of required Stress

Time that the system or component can perform its function upon
demani. It may be expressed as MTBF/(MTBF + MTTR) when there is
no stress during maintenance, but as 1 - MTTR/MTBF when there is
stress during maintenance. It is the Availability assuminq that
Preventive Maintenance can be interrupted or will be done in
Inactive Time.
3.3 CONTINUOUS AVAILABILITY (Ac) is the fraction of long-term

Stress Time that the system or component can perfonn its function,
with preventive maintenance accomplished. One expression for it
is 1 - MTTR/MTBF - Tp/MTBF where T is the preventive maintenance
time ratio to number of failures.
27-9
3.4 OPERATIONAL READINESS is the fraction of total number of

systems or components that ar- in condition to perform their
function. It is usually equal to Continuous Availability.
4. EFFECTIVENESS DEFINITIONS
Figure 27-11 may help to visualize the relationships between

effectiveness factors, cost element-, and cost-effectiveness.
4.1 EFFECTIVENESS (E) is a quantitative indem expressing

accomplishment or worth of an operational system or component.
It is a function of performance capability, delivery effective-
oess, availability and/or reliability, and utilization. It may.
De the simple product of these factors.
MITL STD 721A says "effectivwness is the probibility that the

materiel will operate successfully when required." Unfor-
tunately this definition is not iistinguishable from relia-
bility, and does not sufficiently identify the constituents.
4.2 SYSTEM EFFECTIVENESS is the Effectiveness of a system.
4.3 PERFORMANCE CAPABILITY (P) is a quantitative fiqure of

merit expressinq the sys"tem or compoient capability of performing
desired functions, assuming no delivery delay, rno failures, and
full utilization.
4.4 DELIVERY EFFECTIVENESS (D) is the ratio of system or com-

ponent effectiveness as degraded by I-ate delivery, to tie effec-
tiveness had it been available when needed. It is aiso sometimes
called Sch'-duie Effectiveness or Schedule Adherence.
4.S UTILIZATION (U) is the fraction of performance capability

actually utilized due to the specific application and environment
encountered. It includes all effectiveness degradation due to
causes external to the system or component itself.
4.6 USEFUL LIFE (L) is the system or component life, in years,

as limited by obsolescence, utility, and wearout.
5. COST DEFINITIONS
5.i DEVELOPMENT COST (Cd) is the total cost of operations

analysis (during conceptual phase), oesign (during concep-
tual and definition phase), hardware de.n, hardware prototypes,
test, evaluation, and schedule slippage for this phase.
27-10
0
u 0
I,
co~
coi
00
wU
zz Uu
0 0 0
Uý r ,
27-11 =
5.2 PRODUCTION COST (Cp) is the total cost for quantity procure-
men 4-, manufacture, installation, tests, training, and schedule
slippage for this piase.
5.3 OPERATION COST (Co) is the total cost, for the system or
component lifetime, of those personnel, facilities, utiltics,
consumables, and special inputs required for operation, excluding
those for maintenance.
5.4 MAINTENANCE COST (Cm) is the total cost, for the system or
component •ifftime, of those personnel, facilities, spare com-
ponents, logistics, and diagnostic aids required for maintenance.
5.5 CONSEQUENCE COST (Cc) is the total cost, for the system or
component lifetime, generated external to the system or component
as a consequence of its failures. These may include damage or
loss of other systems or components, including human productivity.
5.6 ACQUISITION COST (Ca) is the total cost for Development

(Cd) and Production (Cp) defined above.
5.7 OWNERSHIP COST (also called User Cost, Cu) is the total
cost for Operation (Co), Maintenance (Cn, , and Consequonce (Cc)
defined above.
5.8 TOTAL COST (Ct) is the total cost for Acquisition (Ca) and
Ownership (Cuj) defined above.
5.9 COST-EFFECTIVENESS is the actual quantitative accomplish-

ment or worth of an operational system or component, relative to,
its TotaL Cost, taking delivery time into account. it may be
expressed as a ratio of Effectiveness (including delivery effective-
ness) to Total Cost (including late delivery costs). Where
Effectiveness can be expressed as worth in dollars, Cr-st-Effecti%.e
ness can be very significantly expressed as Effectiveness minus
Total Cost, or Net Gaini or "profit".
6. GENERAL DEFINITIONS
6.1 ACCELEkATED LIFE TEST is a test at excessive stress or

environment to reduce test time, and implies adequate correlation
to normal stress life.
6.2 COMPONENT is a constituent of a higher-level system .)r corn-

penent. It usually means a functional hardware assembly at any.-
level between Parts and Systems, but can include human components
of systems.
27-12
6.3 CRITICAL COMPONENTS are t1•s• whose reliability and appli-

cation are such that they require special attention to preserve
system reliability. The criterion for such designation may be a
Criticality (defined below) abo\e a specified level.
An older criterion is that they are used i- such a way that

their failure would cause system failure, which criterion
does not take the component reliability into account.
6.4 CRITICALITY of a component is its quantitative contribution,

relative to all other components, to predicted system failure rate.
A CRITICALITY RANKING is a list of components in the order of
their decreasing probability of causing system failure. Thus
criticality depends upon both component failure rate and the way
it is used.
6.5 LIFE TEST is any test at simulated normal operating stress

and environment from which failure vs. stress time data is derived.
Examples are sequential life tests, "Agree" tests, MTBF tests,
etc.
6.6 OVERSTPESS TEST is any test in which stress and/or environ-

ment is made progressively more severe until either failure occurs
or adequate safety margin is demonstrated.
6.7 PART is the lowest-level component of an asserably, not

usually subject to further disassembly.
6.8 REDUNDANCY is the existence of more than one means for

accomplishing a given function (MIL STD 721A).
6.9 STRENGTH/STRESS ANALYSIS is the comparison of strength dis-

tribution with anticipated stress distribution, to determine
safety margin or the orobability of no failure of a "population".
6.10 SYSTE4 is used primarily to mean the overall man-machine

cc-Nplex to accomplish the desired functions. But it also is used
to mean a group of components that work together to accomplish the
functions. Examples are weapon system, propulsion system, or
hydraulic system.
6.11 VALUE ENGINEERING is the determination of alternative

means of accomplishing required component functions at lower cost,
without degradation of performance capability, reliabil~ty or
maintainability.
27-13
6.12 VERIFICATION (of R & M) is the estimation of achieved rellzbility or

maintainability by accumulation of factory test, life test, overstress test,
or operational data. Analytical prediction and stress margin analysis do not
actually verify, but may provide the only achievable assurance in many cases.
U I ý.')NER T
FU& l ,rYCk 1 790

Navships 0900-002-3000 1964

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Navships 0900-002-3000 1964

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Navships 0900-002-3000 1964

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.

RELIABILITY AND MAINTAINABILITY

DWIMBUTION OF THIS DOCUMETS UN*LIW o D C

Best Available Copy DEC 2 1967

RELIABILITY & MAINTAINABILV*-Y

Prm-i17L tr Co~urse Nvlana4ger

.'th dlu mv- lu ij , ' ind contr button of

41,R 11"in ting Jurn. 1960,

courses currentINYx a%,i~ilable. The departure is ~ i '~OL

specific BuShips management and technical. needs, by~a~ icn

3. Quite a few techniques that do n,-ot appear in gover-nment

4. Onmiasis is placed on (a) contract 7manaq_-.Ier~ct: iný.i()

5. Reliability and maintainabil~ity are treated to.ooethier whJer-

6. While the text content. includes more "system effect iveness"

7. to determ! nle o"CO11

Although the great majority of the techniques presented are well-

Ecr BuShips top management courses, Chapters 1, 2, 24, 25, and

1INTRODUCTION - the proble-7, de finit-io-ns, course coverage,

TOP MANA(; iKM FIN7r IN1-I JMi13ýlf)\,'I'E CODItAI'. TE~c A-1C

t/T 1JN f ii_

P : TNITI I-N 2 O~l --- 3 System Definit ion

--Techni .)ues' 2hr

'P)ROJ. CONTROL" 5hr

1-1r 5(hn 16 hours 40 hours

C) .CO > u c > >

V-) 03 'n 'Z ~

1. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM 1- 2

3. COVERAGE OF RELIABILITY TRAINIG COURSE 1-12

4. THE CNO-CNM DIALOGUE 1-15

5. BUREAU OF SHIPS IMPLEMENTATION 1-16

I., STATEM1ENT OF T&E- PROBLEM

Then Mhy talk reli,-ibility? The rlaitywe. will be talking

The C miiar;d e.r Ina Ch ieoP a,-ic Ye t. reCc ntly said:

"The ev~er -in~creasi-I

The 'Commiind er Tn Chief.-Atlantic Fl-eet seconded this-

R. Adm. J. 0- Cobb, Abst.. Chief of Naval. Persunnel, (1) stated:

Aie baying of ctiiplex 6ysteris whichi qererate more and mo-:re

1.2 P<ELTASFhI.IT YV. COMPLEý ýXITty

you' I11 recccxIn- irI - k' C, ,i out1,p

(hunot v ,n electronIc-s. T he n ew t e chnroIog9i es are largely

with conso~ltn,, a co)mprlex- a-r-Y f~tatens RAD-AR, SONARI, TACANT,

bt inhb np th r aut I-n,

tnt ifý- \Int- t t a.snt 70V a thi i hyAcnr ) St si

pressures less___ _____________

fleets needs in specific performance.

in an attempt to reverse the trend towards higher costs and

"The Chief of Naval Operations, as the customer, is demanding

One major facet of the new rules is Lhe "economic sarntions"

2.1 RELIABILITY AND MAINTAINABILITY

The words Reliability and Maintainability will be used extensively,

The engineering approach to design concerns itself with specific

starts with the assumption the equipment will work. ReliaDility

2.2 DESIGN BASIS OF RELIABILITY

How are systems or equipment.s designed? There are actually very

In a new design, the designer must make a certain number of trace-

But Admiral Schoech said in November,

The intormediate approach, considering all the requirements for

Desiqne'rs design from experience. They use knowledge gained

As parts were or.iinally designed and developed, their reactions

pressures less_ ___________

M TE1' _NT ;U R 'Y