Sunteți pe pagina 1din 11

International Journal of Computational Intelligence and Information Security, July 2014 Vol. 5, No. 4 ISSN: 1837-7823

CONSISTENCY OF A TWO-UNIT PARALLEL REDUNDENT SYSTEM WORKING IN THREE DIFFERENT WEATHER CONDITIONS

Dr. Deepankar Sharma

Prof. & Dean-Academics, 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 two-unit 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 Non-Markovian, 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. Steady-state 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.

International Journal of Computational Intelligence and Information Security, July 2014 Vol. 5, No. 4 ISSN: 1837-7823

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 two-unit parallel redundant system for its ability evaluation while it is working in three different weather conditions. Transition-state diagram for this system has been shown in fig-1. Mathematical model has been developed for this system using inclusion of supplementary variables. The probabilities of various transition states of fig-1 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 S-independent.

(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

:

:

:

International Journal of Computational Intelligence and Information Security, July 2014 Vol. 5, No. 4 ISSN: 1837-7823

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

International Journal of Computational Intelligence and Information Security, July 2014 Vol. 5, No. 4 ISSN: 1837-7823

w 1 2 P ( x t , ) w 1 µ ( x )
w
1
2
P
(
x t
,
)
w
1
µ
(
x
)
w
1
w
2
2
P
( )
t
2
P
(
y t
,
)
w
2
µ
(
y
)
w
2
w
3
2
P
(
z t
,
)
w
3
µ
(
z
)
w
3
e
1
P (m,t)
β(r)
E
e
2
w
1
1
P
(
x t
,
)
w
1
1
P
(
r t
,
)
µ
(
x
)
w
1
w
1
P
(
y t
,
)
φ(m)
2
w
2
µ
(
y
)
w
2
w
3
1
R
P
(
z t
,
)
P (n,t)
w
E
3
µ
(
z
)
w
3
µ
(n)
E

Fig-1: State-Transition Diagram

International Journal of Computational Intelligence and Information Security, July 2014 Vol. 5, No. 4 ISSN: 1837-7823

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)

International Journal of Computational Intelligence and Information Security, July 2014 Vol. 5, No. 4 ISSN: 1837-7823

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)

(12)

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)

International Journal of Computational Intelligence and Information Security, July 2014 Vol. 5, No. 4 ISSN: 1837-7823

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. Steady-state 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 steady-state 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)

International Journal of Computational Intelligence and Information Security, July 2014 Vol. 5, No. 4 ISSN: 1837-7823

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

=

µ E , S i s + µ E
µ
E
, S
i
s +
µ
E

( )

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 transition-state 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)

International Journal of Computational Intelligence and Information Security, July 2014 Vol. 5, No. 4 ISSN: 1837-7823

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 table-1 and the

corresponding graphs have been shown in fig-2, 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

Table-1

12

International Journal of Computational Intelligence and Information Security, July 2014 Vol. 5, No. 4 ISSN: 1837-7823

Availability Vs Time 1.2 1 0.8 A1 0.6 A2 A3 0.4 0.2 0 1 2
Availability Vs Time
1.2
1
0.8
A1
0.6
A2
A3
0.4
0.2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Time-->
Availability-->
Reliability ----->

1.2

1

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Time ----->

Fig-2: Availability Vs Time

Fig-3: Reliability Vs Time

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 .01 .02 .03 .04 .05 .06 .07
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
.01
.02
.03
.04
.05
.06
.07
.08
.09
.10
λ
----->
M.T.T.F. ----->

Fig-4: MTTF Vs Failure rate λ

11. Results and discussion Observation of table-1 and fig-2 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 fig-3 yields that reliability of considered system decreases slowly in the beginning but thereafter it decreases rapidly with increase in the values of time t. Fig-4 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: 1837-7823

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, 449-455. [2]. Agnihotri, R.K. and S.K. Satsangi (1996); Two unit identical system with priority based on repair and inspection, Microelectron Reliab., 36, 279-282. [3]. Dhillon, B.S. and N-Yang (1992); Reliability and availability analysis of warm standby with common cause failure and human error, Microelectron Reliab., 32, 561-576. [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), 379-391. [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), 827-833. [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, 1019-1021. [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), 589-603. [8]. Murari, K. and Vibha Goel (1984) ‘Comparison of two-unit cold standby reliability models with three types of repair facilities’ Microelectron Reliab., 24(1), 35-39. [9]. Osaki, S. (1972); Reliability of a two-unit standby redundant system with preventive maintenance, IEEE Trans. Reliab., R-21, 24-29. [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), 747-750.

14