International Journal of Computational Intelligence and Information Security, July 2014 Vol. 5, No. 4 ISSN: 18377823
CONSISTENCY OF A TWOUNIT PARALLEL REDUNDENT SYSTEM WORKING IN THREE DIFFERENT WEATHER CONDITIONS
Dr. Deepankar Sharma
Prof. & DeanAcademics, Divya Jyoti College of Engg. & Tech., Modinagar, U.P.
Dr.Anshu Murarka
Dept. of Maths, Pillai Institute of I.T., Engg., Media Studies & Research, Mumbai
Avneesh Kumar
Research Scholar, Dept. of Maths, Sai Nath University, Ranchi
Abstract In this paper, the author has done his exercise for the evaluation of consistency of a twounit parallel redundant system working in three different weather conditions. On failure of any one unit of considered system, the whole system works in reduced efficiency state. Also, the whole system can fail due to environmental reasons, like flood, storm etc. Repair facilities are always available to repair any type of failure expected the case of environmental failure. An inspection is required before repair in case of environmental failure. All the failures follow exponential time distribution whereas all repairs follow general time distribution. Since, the considered system is NonMarkovian, the author has utilized supplementary variables to convert this into Markovian. Laplace transform has been used to solve the mathematical model of the system. Availability function, reliability function and mean time to system failure have been computed. Steadystate behaviour of the system and a particular case, have also been appended to improve practical utility of the model. A numerical computation and its graphical illustration have also been mentioned in the end to highlight important results of this study. Key Words: Reliability, availability, mean time to failure, Supplementary variables, Laplace transform, steady state behavior etc.
4
International Journal of Computational Intelligence and Information Security, July 2014 Vol. 5, No. 4 ISSN: 18377823
1. Introduction
In our daily life, we feel that the ability of a various systems differ in different weather conditions. For example, if we talk about computers, then its ability remains higher in cool and dry weather as compared to other weather conditions. Keeping this fact in mind, the author has considered a twounit parallel redundant system for its ability evaluation while it is working in three different weather conditions. Transitionstate diagram for this system has been shown in fig1. Mathematical model has been developed for this system using inclusion of supplementary variables. The probabilities of various transition states of fig1 have been obtained.
2. Assumptions The following assumptions have been associated with this chapter:
(i) 
Initially, the whole system is good and operable. 
(ii) 
All failures follow exponential time distribution and are Sindependent. 
(iii) 
Nothing can fail form a failed state. 
(iv) 
Repairs follow general time distribution and are always available to serve degraded or 
failed state. 

(v) 
In case, system is failed due to environmental reasons, an inspection is required before the repair of the systems. 
(vi) 
After repair, system works like new. 
3. Notations List of notations is as follow:
w (i =1,2,3)
i
e ,e
1
2
: Failure rate for
: Environmental failure rates.
i th
weather condition.
µ
w
i
_{λ}
( j)∆
_{φ}_{(}_{m}_{)}
β (r)
: First order probability that failure in
weather can be
repaired in time interval _{(} _{j}_{,} _{j} _{+} _{∆}_{)} , conditioned that no repair is
given up to time j. Failure rate of one component of the system. Inspection rate.
Repair rate of single unit of considered system.
i
th
:
:
:
5
International Journal of Computational Intelligence and Information Security, July 2014 Vol. 5, No. 4 ISSN: 18377823
µ
E
P
P
2
1
(n)∆
(
t
)
(
, )∆
r t
: First order probability that environmental failure can be
repaired in _{(}_{n}_{,} _{n} _{+} _{∆}_{)} , conditioned that, no repair has given up
to time n.
: Pr {System is good and both the units working properly}.
: Pr {System is operable while one unit of system has been
failed}. Elapsed repair time lies in _{(}_{r}_{,} _{r} _{+} _{∆}_{)} .
2
P
w
i
(
, )∆/
j t
P (m,t)∆
E
R
P (n,t)∆
E
1
w
P
i
(
, )∆
j t
:
Pr {System is failed in
operable}. Elapsed repair time lies in the interval _{(} _{j}_{,} _{j} _{+} _{∆}_{)} .
i
th
weather condition while 2/1 unit is
: Pr {System is failed due to environmental reasons}. Elapsed
inspection time lies in _{(}_{m}_{,} _{m} _{+} _{∆}_{)} .
: Pr {System is failed due to environmental reasons and is ready
for repair}. Elapsed repair time lies in _{(}_{n}_{,} _{n} _{+} _{∆}_{)} .
4. Formulation of mathematical model
Probability considerations and continuity arguments yield the following set of difference
differential equations, which is continuous in time and discrete in space, governing the behaviour
of considered system:
P
2
(t
+ ∆ = (1 − w
)
[
1
∆)(1 − w ∆)(1 − w ∆)(1 − e ∆)(1 − 2λ∆)
2
3
1
]P
+
∞
∫
0
2
P
w
1
(
x,t
)
µ
w
1
(
)
x ∆ dx +
∞
∫
0
2
P
w
2
(
y,t
)
µ
w
2
+
∞
∫
0
2
P
w
3
(
z , t
)
µ
w
3
(
)
z ∆ dz +
∞
∫
0
P
1
(
r , t
( )
)
β
r
+
∞
∫
0
R
P
E
(
n,t
)
µ
E
(
n
)
∆
dn
2
(
(t)
y
)
∆
∆
dr
dy
6
International Journal of Computational Intelligence and Information Security, July 2014 Vol. 5, No. 4 ISSN: 18377823
Fig1: StateTransition Diagram
7
International Journal of Computational Intelligence and Information Security, July 2014 Vol. 5, No. 4 ISSN: 18377823
⇒
P
2
(
t
)
+∆−
P
2
()
t
∆
(
=− +
w
1
w
2
+
w
3
+
+
+
e
1
∞
∫
0
∞
∫
0
2
P
w
2
P
1
+
2
) ()
λ
P
2
t
+
∞
∫
0
2
P
w
1
(
x,t
)
µ
w
1
()
x dx
(
y,t
)
µ
w
2
(
)
y dy
(
r,t
( )
)
β
r dr
+
∞
∫
0
+
∞
∫
0
R
P
E
2
P
w
3
(
(
n,t
z,t
)
µ
w
3
(
)
z dz
)
µ
E
(
)
n dn
(up to 1st approximation)
Taking limit as _{∆} _{→} _{0}_{,} we obtain
d
dt
+
w
1
+
w
2
+
w
3
+
e
1
+
2
λ
P
2
()
t
=
∞
∫
0
2
P
w
1
(
x,t
)
µ
w
1
()
x dx
+
∞
∫
0
2
P
w
2
(
y,t
)
µ
w
2
()
y dy
+
∞
∫
0
2
P
w
3
(
,
z t
)
µ
w
3
(
)
z dz
+
∞
∫
0
P
1
(
r
, t
)
( )
β
r dr
+
∞
∫
0
R
P
E
(
n,t
)
µ
E
(
)
n dn
…(1)
Similarly, we obtain equations for all other states:
∂
∂
+
∂ j ∂ t
+
µ
i
() (
j
P
i
2
i
1
,
j t
2
)
= 0
= w , w , w
3
and _{j} _{=} _{x}_{,} _{y}_{,} _{z} respectively.
∂
∂
∂
+
∂ r ∂ t
∂
+
w
1
+
w
2
+
w
3
j t
,
+
e
2
)
2
= 0
3
+
∂ j ∂ t
+
µ
i
() (
j
P
i
1
i
1
= w , w , w
+
β
(
r
)
P
1
(
,
r t
)
= 0
and j = x, y, z respectively.
∂
∂
∂
+
∂ m ∂ t
∂
+ ∂ n ∂ t
+
+
(
φ
µ
E
m
)
P
E
(
()
n
R
P
E
m t )= 0
,
(
n t )= 0
,
Boundary conditions are:
P
P 2
i
(0, )
t
=
i
2
( )
t
,
i
= w , w
1
2
and w
3
…(2)
…(3)
…(4)
…(5)
…(6)
…(7)
8
International Journal of Computational Intelligence and Information Security, July 2014 Vol. 5, No. 4 ISSN: 18377823
P
i
P
1
1
(0, )
t
(
0,t
)
= i
=
2
P
λ
1
( )
t
P
2
()
t
,
+
∞
∫
0
i
1
w
P
1
= w , w
1
2
(
x,t
)
µ
w
1
and w
3
()
x dx
+
P
E
(
0,
t)
=
e
1
P
2
(t)
+
+ e
2
∞
∫
0
1
w
P
P
1
3
(
z,t
(t)
)
µ
w
3
(
)
z dz
R
P
E
(0, )
t =
∞
∫
0
P
E
( )()
m t
,
φ
m dm
Initial Conditions are:
1
All other probabilities, at t = 0 , =0
P
2
(0)
=
5. Solution of the model
∞
∫
0
1
w
P
2
(
y,t
)
µ
w
2
…(8) 

() y dy 

…(9) 

…(10) 

…(11) 

^{…}^{(}^{1}^{2}^{)} 
Taking Laplace transforms of equations (1) through (11) subjected to initial conditions
(12) and then on solving them one by one, we obtain:
2 
() s = 
1 

P 

B ( s ) 

P 
2 i 
() s = 
iD i B ( () s s ) _{,} 
i 
= w , w 1 2 
and w 3 

P 
1 
() s = 
A ( 
s ) 

B ( 
s ) 

1 P i 
() s = 
iA ( ) s D i B ( s ) () s 
_{,} 
i 
= w , w 1 
2 
and w 
3 

P 
R 
() s = 
[ e 
1 + 
e 2 ( A s ) 
] S 
φ 
( 
) s D E 
( 
s 
) 

E 

PE 
() s = 
1 
[ e 
1 + 
( B s ) ( e A s 2 
)] D ( s 
) 

B ( 
s ) 
φ 
…(13)
…(14)
…(15)
…(16)
…(17)
…(18)
9
International Journal of Computational Intelligence and Information Security, July 2014 Vol. 5, No. 4 ISSN: 18377823
where
( )
A s
=
and
(
B s
) = +
s
2
λ
D
β
(
s + w
1
+
w
2
+
w
3
+ e
2
)
1 −
w
1
w
1
()
s
+
w
2
S
w
2
()
s
+
w
3
+ + + 2λ−
w
3
e
1
w S
1
w
1
S
w
3
(s)
s +
(s)
w
1
+ w
2
− w S
3
w
3
+ w
(s)
3 + e
[(
+
()) (
s
D
β
−
w S
2
w
2
2 )]
w S
1
w
2
−
[ 2
λ +
−
[
e
1
+
(
e A s
2
)]
S
φ
(
s S
)
(
A(s) w S
1
w
1
( )
s
+
w
2
S
w
E
2
(
s
)
( )
s
+
w
3
S
w
3
( ))]
s
S
β
(
s
+
w
1
+
w
2
+
w
3
+
e
2
It is further interesting to note that
1
Sum of equations (13) through (18) = s
)
This shows that the results obtained are correct.
…(19)
…(20)
6. Steadystate analysis of the system
Using Abel’s Lemma viz.,
Lim
t
→∞
( ) =
P t
Lim sP s
s
→ 0
( )
=
(
P say
),
provided limit on left exists;
we obtain the following steadystate behavior of considered system from equations (13) through
(18):
P 2
=
1
B
′ (0)
P
i
2
iM
i
B
′ (0)
,
i
= w , w
1
2
and w
3
P
1
=
P
i
1
R
P
E
^{P} E
=
=
=
A
(0)
B ′ (0)
iA
(0)
M
i
B
[
e
1
′ (0)
+
,
e A
2
(0)
i
]
M
= w , w
1
E
[
e
1
+
B ′ (0)
e A
2
(0)
]
M
_{φ}
B ′ (0)
where
B ′ (0) =
d
ds
( )
B s
s = 0
M
E
= −
S ^{′}
_{E} (0)
etc.
2
and w
3
…(21)
…(22)
…(23)
…(24)
…(25)
…(26)
10
International Journal of Computational Intelligence and Information Security, July 2014 Vol. 5, No. 4 ISSN: 18377823
and
A (0) =
2 [ λ 
1 
− 
S β 
( 
w 
1 
+ w 
2 
+ w 
3 
+ e 
2 
) 
] 

e 2 + 
w 
3 S β 
( w 
1 
+ w 
2 
+ w 
3 
+ e 
2 
) 
7. Particular case
When all repairs, inspection rates follow exponential time distribution
In this case, setting
S
E
( )
s
=
( )
s =
µ
i
s +
µ
i
for
i
= w , w , w
1
2
3
, etc. in equations
(13)
through (18), we can obtain the Laplace transforms of various transitionstate probabilities for
this particular case.
8. Availability of the system
Availability of the considered system is given by
Pup
(
s
)
=
1
s
+
w
1
+
w
2
+
w
3
+
2
λ
+
e
1
1 +
2 λ 

s 
+ 
w 1 
+ 
w 2 
+ 
w 3 
+ 
e 
2 
Taking inverse Laplace transform, we get
P
up
()
t
=
1
+
2
λ
e
2
−
2
λ
−
e
1
e
−
(w
−
2
λ
e
2
−
2
λ
− e
1
1
+
e
w
2
+
w
3
+
− (w + w
1
2
Also, P
down
(t)
= −
1
P
up
(t)
It is worth noticing that
P up
(0) = 1
2
λ
+
+
w
3
e
1
+
)t
e
2
)t
9. Reliability and M.T.T.F. of the system
For the considered system, we have
(
R s
) =
∴
()
R t
1
s
=
+
e
−
w
1
(w
1
+
+
w
2
w
2
+
w
3
+
w
3
λ
+ 2 +
e
1
+
) t
2
λ
+
e
1
Again, M.T.T.F. =
=
∫ ∞
_{0}
( )
R t dt
1
w + w + w + + e
1
2
3
2
λ
1
…(27)
…(28)
…(29)
…(30)
11
International Journal of Computational Intelligence and Information Security, July 2014 Vol. 5, No. 4 ISSN: 18377823
10. Numerical computation For a numerical computation, we consider the following values for different failure rates:
λ=
0.06,
w =
1
0.07,
e =
1
0.003,
w =
2
0.05,
e =
2
0.008
w =
3
0.03
Putting _{t} _{=} _{0}_{,}_{1}_{,}_{2} _{−} _{−} _{−} and above values in (27), (29) and (30). We compute table1 and the
corresponding graphs have been shown in fig2, 3 and 4 respectively.
P 
up 
(t) 

t 
W 
_{1} =0.07 
W 
_{1} =0.02 
W 
_{1} =0.03 

W 
_{2} =0.05 
A _{1} 
W 
_{2} =0.03 
A _{2} 
W 
_{2} =0.10 
A _{3} 

W 
_{3} =0.03 
W 
_{3} =0.09 
W 
_{3} =0.04 

0 
1 
1 
1 

1 
0.857883 
0.866505 
0.840895 

2 
0.735572 
0.750432 
0.706730 

3 
0.630404 
0.649603 
0.593693 

4 
0.540049 
0.562088 
0.498528 

5 
0.462474 
0.486185 
0.418463 

6 
0.395913 
0.420395 
0.351143 

7 
0.338834 
0.363402 
0.294568 

8 
0.289910 
0.314056 
0.247045 

9 
0.247994 
0.271348 
0.207142 

10 
0.212095 
0.234401 
0.173649 
Table1
12
International Journal of Computational Intelligence and Information Security, July 2014 Vol. 5, No. 4 ISSN: 18377823
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Time >
Fig2: Availability Vs Time
Fig3: Reliability Vs Time
Fig4: MTTF Vs Failure rate λ
11. Results and discussion Observation of table1 and fig2 reveals that availability remains highest for second set of
data (i.e.
). In other words, availability of considered system will remain best
w
3
> w and
1
w
2
when values of
Examination of fig3 yields that reliability of considered system decreases slowly in the beginning but thereafter it decreases rapidly with increase in the values of time t. Fig4 shows that mean time to failure of the considered system decreases nearly in a constant manner as we make increase in the value of failure rate λ .
w
1
and
w
2
are low as compared to
w
3
.
13
International Journal of Computational Intelligence and Information Security, July 2014 Vol. 5, No. 4 ISSN: 18377823
Also, it is worth noticing that system remains available continuously although it efficiency decreases with time.
12. References
[1]. Adachi, K. and M. Kodama (1980); Availability analysis of two unit warm standby system with inspection time, Microelectron Reliab., 20, 449455. [2]. Agnihotri, R.K. and S.K. Satsangi (1996); Two unit identical system with priority based on repair and inspection, Microelectron Reliab., 36, 279282. [3]. Dhillon, B.S. and NYang (1992); Reliability and availability analysis of warm standby with common cause failure and human error, Microelectron Reliab., 32, 561576. [4]. Goel, L.R., P. Srivastava and R. Gupta (1992); Two unit cold standby system with correlated failures and repairs, Int. Jr. of System Science, 23(3), 379391. [5]. Goel, L.R. and P. Srivastava (1991); Profit analysis of a two unit redundant system with provision for rest and correlated failures and repairs, Microelectron Reliab., 31(5), 827833. [6]. Gopalan, M.N., R. RadhaKrishna and A. Vijay Kumar (1984); Cost benefit analysis of a two unit cold standby system subject to slow switch, Microelectron Reliab., 24, 10191021. [7]. Kumar, A. and R. Lal (1979); ‘Stochastic behaviour of a two unit standby system with constant failure and intermittently repair facility’ Int. Jr. of System Science, 10(6), 589603. [8]. Murari, K. and Vibha Goel (1984) ‘Comparison of twounit cold standby reliability models with three types of repair facilities’ Microelectron Reliab., 24(1), 3539. [9]. Osaki, S. (1972); Reliability of a twounit standby redundant system with preventive maintenance, IEEE Trans. Reliab., R21, 2429. [10]. Singh, S.K. and A.K. Mishra (1994); Profit evaluating of a two unit cold standby redundant system with two operating systems; Microelectron Reliab., 34(4), 747750.
14
Mult mai mult decât documente.
Descoperiți tot ce are Scribd de oferit, inclusiv cărți și cărți audio de la editori majori.
Anulați oricând.