MIL-STD-7566

NOTICE 1
31 August 1982
MILITARY STANDARD
RELIABILITY MODELING AND PREDICTION
TO ALL HOLDERS OF MIL-STD-7566:
1. THE FOLLOWlNG PAGES OF MIL-STD-756B HAVE BEEN R E V I S E D AND SUPERSEDE THE
PAGES LISTED:

Date

New Page

31 August 1982
31 August 1982

vi

2.

*. '

Date
18 November 1981
18 November 1981

vi

MAKE THE FOLLOkING PEN AND I N K CHANGES:

(a)

Page 1001-4 add " ( 1 1 ) " t o t h e r i g h t o f P s = PAPBP1P2.

(b)

Page 1001-6 add " ( 1 5 ) " t o t h e r i g h t o f P s = PAPB PC

(c)

Page 1001-7 add

(d)

Page 1002-3 add " ( 2 ) " t o t h e r i g h t o f PS = 61E$1C2A+...

.......+B162CiC2A.

(e)

Page 1002-3 add " ( 3 ) " t o t h e r i g h t o f PS = 61C1+

+61E'2C1 C2A.

(f)

Page 1003-4 add " ( 1 ) "

.+61C,B2C2].

rrr

3.

Superseded Page

2 2

...

'I="

between PA

P6 =P6

, and

2
P c =Pc.

........
t o t h e r i g h t o f Ps = A[C1+C1c2]+ ....

R E T A I N T H I S NOTICE AND INSERT BEFORE TABLE OF CONTENTS.

4. Holders of MIL-STD-7566 w i l l v e r i f y t h a t page changes and a d d i t i o n s

i n d i c a t e d above have been entered. T h i s n o t i c e page w i l l be r e t a i n e d as a
check sheet. This issuance, t o g e t h e r w i t h appended pages, i s a separate
p u b l i c a t i o n . Each n o t i c e i s t o be r e t a i n e d by s t o c k i n g p o i n t s u n t i l t h e
m i l i t a r y standard i s completely r e v i s e d o r canceled.
Custodi ans :
Army
CR
Navy - AS
A i r Force

P r e p a r i ng A c t i v i t y :
NAVY - AS
( P r o j e c t No. RELI-0038)

17

Review A c t i v i t i e s :
Army - EA, AR
Navy - SH, US
Users :
Army

AM

Navy - EC
N a t i o n a l S e c u r i t y Agency - NS
Defense Mapping Agency - DMA
RELI

CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
FIGURES

Figure 1.
102.1
2003.1
2003.2
2003.3

Service use events in the logistic and

operational cycles
Performance parameters, limits and failure
criteria
Failure-rate estimating chart for electronic
analog function.
Failure-rate estimation chart for digital
electronics functions.
Failure-rate estimation chart for mechanical
devices.

.............

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102-3
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2003-3
. . . . . . . . . . . . 2003-5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2003-7
TABLES

Table 1002-1
1002-11
1003-1
1004-1
1004-11
200-1
2003-1
2003-11
2003-111

Truth table calculation for the mission

reliability diagram.
Reduction tabulation
Logic diagram examples
Success/Failure array for the mission
reliability diagram.
Success/Failure array for the mission
reliability diagram.
Environmental symbol identification and
description.
Weighting factors for different classes of
electronic AEGs used in estimating analog
complexity for Figure 2003.1
Weighting factors for estimating digital
electronics AEG complexity for use with
Figure 2003.2.
Weighting factors for shipboard mechanical
elements for use in conjunction with
Figure 2003.3.

...........
............
...........
...........
...........
...............

1002-2
1002-4
1003-2
1004-3
1004-5

200-5

.......

2003-2

..............

2003-5

..............

2003-6

31 August 1982

TASK SECTIONS
Task
Section 100
200

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 100-1
. . . . . . . . . . . . 200-1

Reliability modeling
Reliability prediction

TASKS

. . . . . . . . . . . . 101-1
. . . . . . . . . . . 102-1
. . . . . . . . . 201-1
. . . . . . . . 202-1

Task 101
102
201
202

Basic reliability model

Mission reliability model
Basic reliability prediction
Mission reliability prediction
METHODS

. . . . . . . . . . . 1001-1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1002-1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1003-1
. . . . . . . . . . . . 1004-1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2001-1
. . . . . . . . . . . . 2002-1
. . . . . . . . . . 2003-1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2004-1
. . . . . . . . . 2005-1

Conventional probability
Boolean truth table
Logic diagram
Monte carlo simulation
Similar item method
Similar circuit method
Active element group method
Parts count method
Parts stress analysis method

Method 1001
1002
1003
1004
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005

APPENDIX A
Paragraph
10
10.1
10.2
10.3
10.4

.
30.
40.
20

APPLICATION AND TAILORING GUIDE

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1
. . . . . . . . . . . . A-1
.
.
. . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. A-1
A-1

GENERAL
Scope
Tailoring requirements
Duplication of effort
Limitations

. . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1
DEFINITIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1
GENERAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A-2
Ordering data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-2
Data item descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . A-2
APPLICATION CRITERIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-2
General considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . A-2
Level of detail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-2
Timing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A-2
Intended use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-3
REFERENCED DOCUMENTS

40.1
40.2

50
50.1
50.1.1
50.1.2
50.1.3

*U.S.

31 August 1982

GOVERNMENT PRINTING

vi

OFFICE: 1982.50

5.022/4443

MIL-STD-756B
I8 NOVEMBER 1981
SUPERSEDING
MIL-STD-756A
15 MAY 1963

MILITARY STANDARD
RELIABILITY MODELING AND PREDICTION

AMSC N3125

FSC RELl

MIL-STD-756B
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Washington, DC 20301
RELIABILITY MODELING AND PREDICTION
MIL-STD-756B

1.

This Military Standard is approved for use by all Departments and

Agencies of the Department of Defense.

2.

Beneficial comments (recommendations, additions, deletions) and any

pertinent data which may be of use in improving this document
should be addressed to: Commanding Officer, Engineering Specifications
and Standards Department (Code 93), Naval Air Engineering Center,
Lakehurst, New Jersey 08733, by using the self-addressed Standardization
Document Improvement Proposal (DD Form 1426) appearing at the end
of this document or by letter.

MIL-STD-756B

FOREWORD

R e l i a b i l i t y prediction is an e s s e n t i a l function i n evaluating a design

from concept through development and i n c o n t r o l l i n g changes d u r i n g
production. P r e d i c t i o n provides a r a t i o n a l b a s i s f o r design decisions
s u c h as t h e c h o i c e between a l t e r n a t i v e c o n c e p t s , c h o i c e of p a r t q u a l i t y
levels, d e r a t i n g t o b e a p p l i e d , u s e of proven v e r s u s s t a t e - o f - t h e - a r t
t e c h n i q u e s , and o t h e r f a c t o r s .
It i s e s s e n t i a l t h a t common ground r u l e s b e e s t a b l i s h e d f o r t e c h n i q u e s
and d a t a s o u r c e s used i n t h e f o r m u l a t i o n of r e l i a b i l i t y models and
p r e d i c t i o n s s o t h a t t h e y may be a p p l i e d and i n t e r p r e t e d uniformly. T h i s
s t a n d a r d e s t a b l i s h e s procedures and ground r u l e s i n t e n d e d t o a c h i e v e
t h i s purpose.
It must be recognized t h a t r e l i a b i l i t y p r e d i c t i o n i s a b e s t estimate of
t h e r e l i a b i l i t y a n t i c i p a t e d from a g i v e n d e s i g n w i t h i n d a t a l i m i t a t i o n s
and t h e e x t e n t of i t e m d e f i n i t i o n . A p r o p e r l y performed r e l i a b i l i t y
p r e d i c t i o n i s i n v a l u a b l e t o t h o s e r e s p o n s i b l e f o r making program d e c i s i o n s
r e g a r d i n g t h e f e a s i b i l i t y and adequacy of a d e s i g n approach.
R e l i a b i l i t y p r e d i c t i o n s are g e n e r a l l y based on e x p e r i e n c e d a t a from
similar i t e m s , o r t h e i r components, used i n a s a m e o r s i m i l a r manner.
Extreme c a u t i o n must be e x e r c i s e d i n a s c e r t a i n i n g t h e s i m i l a r i t y of
o t h e r i t e m s and t h e d e g r e e of s i m i l a r i t y i n t h e c o n d i t i o n s of use. T h i s
s t a n d a r d emphasizes v e r i f i c a t i o n and j u s t i f i c a t i o n of t h e v a l i d i t y and
a p p l i c a b i l i t y of d a t a s o u r c e s t o t h e p r e p a r a t i o n of p r e d i c t i o n s .
The n e c e s s i t y f o r d e t e r m i n i n g t h e c o s t s of a c h i e v i n g and s u s t a i n i n g t h e
r e l i a b i l i t y of an i t e m r e q u i r e s t h a t r e l i a b i l i t y be c o n s i d e r e d from two
p e r s p e c t i v e s , r e l i a b i l i t y a s a measure of o p e r a t i o n a l e f f e c t i v e n e s s
(Mission R e l i a b i l i t y ) and r e l i a b i l i t y as a measure of ownership c o s t
(Basic R e l i a b i l i t y )
The i n c o r p o r a t i o n of redundancies and a l t e r n a t e
modes of o p e r a t i o n t o improve Mission R e l i a b i l i t y i n v a r i a b l y d e c r e a s e s
Basic R e l i a b i l i t y and i n c r e a s e s procurement and l o g i s t i c s u p p o r t c o s t s .
T h i s s t a n d a r d a d d r e s s e s Mission R e l i a b i l i t y p r e d i c t i o n and Basic R e l i a b i l i t y
p r e d i c t i o n as s e p a r a t e b u t companion p r e d i c t i o n s both of which are
e s s e n t i a l t o a d e q u a t e l y q u a n t i f y t h e r e l i a b i l i t y of an i t e m .

The need f o r u p d a t i n g a g i v e n p r e d i c t i o n w i l l v a r y from program t o

program and cannot be p r e c i s e l y e s t a b l i s h e d i n a g e n e r a l s t a n d a r d .
Updating w i l l depend p r i m a r i l y on t h e d e g r e e t o which t h e i t e m h a s been
d e f i n e d , and t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y of p e r t i n e n t d a t a . P r o v i s i o n s should be
made f o r r e l i a b i l i t y p r e d i c t i o n u p d a t e s a t a l l d e s i g n review p o i n t s and
o t h e r major program m i l e s t o n e s .

iii

MIL-STD-756B

CONTENTS

Page

P ar agraph

1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.4.1
1.5
1.5.1
1.5.2
1.6

2
2.1
2.2

3
3.1

4
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6

4.7
4.8
4.8.1
4.8.2
4.8.2.1
4.8.2.2
4.8.2.2.1
4.8.2.3
4.9
4.9.1
4.9.2

5
5.1
5.1.1

......................
......................
...................
.....................
................
....................
....................
....................
........
...............
REFERENCED DOCUMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I s s u e s of documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Other p u b l i c a t i o n s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
DEFINITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ground rules and assumptions . . . . . . . . . .
Indenture l e v e l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Coding system
.................
Mission s u c c e s s d e f i n i t i o n . . . . . . . . . . .
Coordination of e f f o r t . . . . . . . . . . . . .
General procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I t e m definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
S e r v i c e use p r o f i l e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Logistic cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Operational c y c l e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mission p r o f i l e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Environmental p r o f i l e . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
R e l i a b i l i t y modeling and p r e d i c t i o n r e p o r t . . .
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
R e l i a b i l i t y c r i t i c a l element l i s t s . . . . . . .
DETAILED REQUIREMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Task d e s c r i p t i o n and methods . . . . . . . . . .
Details t o be s p e c i f i e d . . . . . . . . . . . . .

SCOPE
Scope
Application
Purpose
Numbering system
C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of t a s k s e c t i o n s . t a s k s and
methods
Revisions
Standard
Task s e c t i o n s . t a s k s . and methods
Method of r e f e r e n c e

1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2

3
_ a

2
3
4
4

4
4
4
5
5
5

5
5

5
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7

9
\

9
9

iv

__ -.___

--.

......

......_....I.I

._I--.

......

...

...

MIL-STD-756B
CONTENTS (Continued)

Page
FIGURES

Figure 1

F i g u r e 102.1

F i g u r e 2003.1

F i g u r e 2003.2

F i g u r e 2003.3

S e r v i c e u s e e v e n t s i n t h e l o g i s t i c and
operational cycles
Performance parameters. l i m i t s and f a i l u r e
criteria

102-3

Failure- rate estimating chart f o r e l e c t r o n i c

analog f u n c t i o n

2003-3

Failure- rate estimation chart f o r d i g i t a l

electronics functions

2003-5

F a i l u r e - r a t e e s t i m a t i o n c h a r t f o r mechanical
devices

2003-7

..............
...................

...............
............

...................

TASK SECTIONS
Task
S e c t i o n 100
200

..............
.............

100-1
200-1

............
...........
..........
.........

101-1
102-1
201-1
202-1

R e l i a b i l i t y modeling
Reliability prediction
TASKS

Task 101
102
201
202

B a s i c r e l i a b i l i t y model
Mission r e l i a b i l i t y model
Basic r e l i a b i l i t y p r e d i c t i o n
Mission r e l i a b i l i t y p r e d i c t i o n
METHODS

Method 1001
1002
1003
1004
2001
2002
2003
2004

2005

............
..............
.................
.............
..............
.............
..........
..............
..........

Conventional p r o b a b i l i t y
Boolean t r u t h t a b l e
Logic diagram
Monte c a r l o s i m u l a t i o n
S i m i l a r i t e m method
S i m i l a r c i r c u i t method
A c t i v e element group method
P a r t s count method
P a r t s stress a n a l y s i s method

1001-1
1002-1
1003-1
1004-1
2001-1
2002-1
2003-1
2004-1
2005-1

MIL-STD-756B
CONTENTS (Continued)
APPENDIX A
Paragraph
10
10.1
10.2
10.3
10.4

.
30 .
20

APPLICATION AND TAILORING GUIDE

....................
.....................
.............
.............
..................
REFERENCED DOCUMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A-1

DEFINITIONS

A- 1

GENERAL
Scope
T a i l o r i n g requirements
D u p l i c a t i o n of e f f o r t
Limitations

....................
.................
............
APPLICATION CRITERIA . . . . . . . . . . . . .
General c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . . . . . . . . . . . .
Level of d e t a i l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Timing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Intended u s e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

40
40.1
40.2

GENEWL
Ordering d a t a
Data i t e m d e s c r i p t i o n s

50
50.1
50.1.1
50.1.2
50.1.3

A- 1
A- 1
A-1
A-1
A- 1

A-2
A-2
A-2
A-2
A-2
A-2
A-2
A-3

vi

._

....

MIL-STD-756B
1.

SCOPE
1.1

Scope. This standard establishes uniform procedures

and ground rules for the preparation of Mission Reliability and Basic
Reliability models and predictions for electronic, electrical, electromechanical, mechanical, and ordnance systems and equipments, hereinafter
referred to as items. Item complexity may range from a complete weapon
system to the simplest subdivision of a system. The primary value of
Reliability Prediction is as a design tool to provide relative measures
of item reliability to design decisions. Great caution must be used
when applying and translating the absolute value of the Reliability
Prediction to measures of Field Reliability.
1.2
Application. The requirements and procedures established
by this standard may be applied to any Department of Defense procurement
for item development and production. It is not intended that all the
requirements herein will need to be applied to every program or program
phase. Procuring activities shall tailor the requirements.of this
standard to the minimum needs of each procurement and shall encourage
contractors to submit cost effective tailoring recommendations.

1.3
Purpose. Reliability modeling and prediction is a
methodology for estimating an item's ability to meet specified reliability
requirements. A Mission Reliability prediction estimates the probability
that an item will perform its required functions during the mission. A
Basic Reliability prediction estimates the demand for maintenance and
logistic support caused by an item's unreliability. When used in combination,
the two predictions provide a basis for identifying areas wherein special
emphasis or attention is needed, and for comparing the ownership costeffectiveness of various design configurations. The two predictions may
also be used as a basis for the apportionment (allocation) of ownership
cost and operational effectiveness requirements to various subdivisions.

1.4
Numbering system. Task sections, tasks, and methods
are numbered sequentially as they are introduced into this standard in
accordance with the following classification system.
1.4.1

Classification of task sections, tasks, and methods.

100
101 to 199
1001 to 1999

200
201 to 299
2001 to 2999

- Reliability modeling

Reliability
Reliability
Reliability
Reliability
Reliability

task section
modeling tasks
modeling methods
prediction task section
prediction tasks
prediction methods

MIL-STD-75 6B

1.5

Revisions.

1.5.1
Standard. Any g e n e r a l r e v i s i o n of t h i s s t a n d a r d
which r e s u l t s i n a r e v i s i o n of s e c t i o n s 1, 2, 3 o r 4 w i l l b e i n d i c a t e d
by a r e v i s i o n l e t t e r a f t e r t h i s s t a n d a r d number, t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e d a t e
of r e v i s i o n .
1.5.2
Task s e c t i o n s , t a s k s , and methods. Revisions are
numbered c o n s e c u t i v e l y i n d i c a t e d by a l e t t e r f o l l o w i n g t h e number. For
example; f o r t a s k 101, t h e f i r s t r e v i s i o n i s 101A, t h e second r e v i s i o n
i s 101B. When t h e Basic Document i s r e v i s e d , t h o s e requirements n o t
a f f e c t e d by change r e t a i n t h e i r e x i s t i n g d a t e .
1.6
Method of r e f e r e n c e . The t a s k s and methods c o n t a i n e d
h e r e i n s h a l l b e r e f e r e n c e d by s p e c i f y i n g :

a.
b.
c.
d.

2.

T h i s s t a n d a r d number
Task number(s)
Method number(s)
Other d a t a as c a l l e d f o r i n t h e i n d i v i d u a l
t a s k o r method

REFERENCED DOCUMENTS

2.1
I s s u e s of documents. The f o l l o w i n g documents of t h e
i s s u e i n e f f e c t on d a t e of i n v i t a t i o n f o r b i d s o r r e q u e s t f o r p r o p o s a l ,
are r e f e r e n c e d i n t h i s s t a n d a r d f o r i n f o r m a t i o n and guidance.
STANDARDS
Military
MIL-STD-280

D e f i n i t i o n s of I t e m L e v e l s , I t e m E x c h a n g e a b i l i t y ,
Models and R e l a t e d T e r m s

MIL-STD-470

M a i n t a i n a b i l i t y Program Requirements

MIL-STD-721

D e f i n i t i o n s of T e r m s f o r R e l i a b i l i t y and M a i n t a i n a b i l i t y

MIL-STD-780

Work U n i t Codes f o r A e r o n a u t i c a l Equipment;

Uniform Numbering System

MIL-STD-785

R e l i a b i l i t y Program f o r Systems and Equipment

Development and P r o d u c t i o n

MIL-STD-881

Work Breakdown S t r u c t u r e s f o r Defense Material

It e m s

MIL-STD-882

System S a f e t y Program Requirements

MIL-STD-756B
STANDARDS (Cont inued)

M i l i t a r y (Continued)
MIL-S TD- 1 388

L o g i s t i c s Support Analysis

MIL-STD-1591

On A i r c r a f t , F a u l t Diagnosis, Subsystems,
A n a l y s i s / S y n t h e s i s of

MIL-STD-1670

Environmental C r i t e r i a and G u i d e l i n e s f o r A i r Launched Weapons

MIL-STD-2072

S u r v i v a b i l i t y , A i r c r a f t ; Establishment and
Conduct of Programs For

MIL-STD-2080

Maintenance P l a n Analysis f o r A i r c r a f t and

Ground Support Equipments

HANDBOOKS

Militarv
MIL-HDBK-2 1 7

R e l i a b i l i t y P r e d i c t i o n of E l e c t r o n i c Equipment

MIL-HDBK-251

R e l i a b i l i t y / D e s i g n Thermal A p p l i c a t i o n s

(Copies of s p e c i f i c a t i o n s , s t a n d a r d s , drawings, and p u b l i c a t i o n s

r e q u i r e d by c o n t r a c t o r s i n connection w i t h s p e c i f i c procurement f u n c t i o n s
should be obtained from t h e p r o c u r i n g a c t i v i t y o r as d i r e c t e d by t h e
contracting officer.)
PUBLICATIONS
Naval Sea Systems Command
NAVORD OD 44622

R e l i a b i l i t y Data A n a l y s i s and I n t e r p r e t a t i o n
Volume 4

( A p p l i c a t i o n f o r c o p i e s should be addressed t o : Commanding O f f i c e r ,

Naval S h i p Weapon Systems Engineering S t a t i o n (Code 5743), P o r t Hueneme,
CA 93043.)
I

2.2
Other p u b l i c a t i o n s . The f o l l o w i n g documents are
p o t e n t i a l s o u r c e s of r e l i a b i l i t y d a t a t h a t may be used i n c o n j u n c t i o n
w i t h t h i s s t a n d a r d . S p e c i f i c requirements f o r u s e of t h e s e o r o t h e r
d a t a s o u r c e s must be s p e c i f i e d by t h e p r o c u r i n g a c t i v i t y .

MIL-STD-756B
RADC-TR- 73-248
(AD-768619)

Dormancy and Power On-Off Cycling Effects

on Electronic Equipment and Part Reliability

RADC-TR-74-269
(AD/A-O02838)

Effects of Dormancy on Nonelectronic

Components and Materials

LC-7 8-1
(AD/A-053403)

Storage Reliability of Missile Material

Program, Missile Material Reliability Handbook
Parts Count Prediction

(.Application for copies should be addressed to the National Technical

Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, 5385 Port Royal Road,
Springfield , VA 22161. )
GIDEP

Government Industry Data Exchange Program,

Summaries of Failure Rates

(Application for copies should be addressed to the Fleet Analysis

Center, GIDEP Operations Center, Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach,
Corona Annex, Corona, CA 91720.)
NPRD-1

Nonelectronic Parts Reliability Data, 1978

(Application for copies should be addressed to the Reliability

Analysis Center, RADC/RBRAC, Griffiss AFB, NY 13441.)
3.

DEFINITIONS

3.1
Terms, Terms used in this document are as defined
in MIL-STD-280 and MIL-STD-721.
4.

GENERAL REQUIREMJINTS

4.1
General. Reliability modeling and prediction shall
be planned and performed in accordance with the general requirements of
this standard and the task(s) and method(s) specified by the procuring
activity

4.2
Implementation. Reliability modeling and prediction
shall be initiated early in the configuration definition stage to aid in
the evaluation of the design and to provide a basis for item reliability
allocation (apportionment) and establishing corrective action priorities.
Reliability models and predictions shall be updated when there is a
significant change in the item design, availability of design details,
environmental requirements, stress data, failure rate data, or service
use profile. A planned schedule for updates shall be specified by
the procuring activity.

MIL-S TD- 7 56B

4.3
Ground r u l e s and assumptions. The c o n t r a c t o r s h a l l
develop ground r u l e s and a n a l y s i s assumptions. The ground r u l e s s h a l l
i d e n t i f y t h e r e l i a b i l i t y modeling and p r e d i c t i o n approach, t h e lowest
i n d e n t u r e level t o b e a n a l y z e d , and i n c l u d e a d e f i n i t i o n o f m i s s i o n
s u c c e s s f o r t h e i t e m f n terms of performance c r i t e r i a and a l l o w a b l e
l i m i t s . Ground r u l e s and a n a l y s i s assumptions are n o t i n f l e x i b l e and
may b e added, modified, o r d e l e t e d i f requfrements change. Ground r u l e s
and a n a l y s i s assumptions s h a l l b e documented and i n c l u d e d i n t h e r e l i a b i l i t y
modeling and p r e d i c t i o n r e p o r t .
4.4
I n d e n t u r e l e v e l . The i n d e n t u r e level a p p l i e s t o t h e
i t e m hardware o r f u n c t i o n a l l e v e l a t which t h e i t e m c o n f i g u r a t i o n i s
d e f i n e d . Unless o t h e r w i s e s p e c i f i e d , t h e c o n t r a c t o r s h a l l e s t a b l i s h t h e
lowest indenture level of a n a l y s i s using t h e following gufdelines:

a.

The lowest l e v e l s p e c i f i e d f o r t h e F a i l u r e
Mode, E f f e c t s , and C r i t i c a l f t y A n a l y s i s (FMECA)
t o e n s u r e c o n s i s t e n c y and a l l o w c r o s s r e f e r e n c i n g .

b.

The s p e c i f i e d o r fntended maintenance and

r e p a i r l e v e l f o r hardware elements of t h e i t e m .

4.5
Coding system. For c o n s i s t e n t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of
i t e m f u n c t f o n s and hardware elements, t h e c o n t r a c t o r s h a l l adhere t o a
coding system based upon t h e hardware breakdown s t r u c t u r e , work u n i t
code numbering system o f MIZ-STD-780, o r o t h e r s i m i l a r uniform numbering
system. The coding system s h a l l b e c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e FMECA ( i f r e q u i r e d )
and f u n c t i o n a l b l o c k diagram numbering system t o p r o v i d e complete v i s i b i l i t y
o f each modeled element and i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p t o t h e i t e m .

4.6

Mission s u c c e s s d e f i n i t i o n . The c o n t r a c t o r s h a l l
develop g e n e r a l s t a t e m e n t s of i t e m m i s s i o n s u c c e s s i n terms of performance
and a l l o w a b l e l i m f t s f o r each s p e c i f i e d o u t p u t . Mission s u c c e s s d e f i n i t i o n s
s h a l l b e i n c l u d e d i n t h e ground r u l e s d i s c u s s e d i n 4.3.

4.7
Coordination o f e f f o r t . R e l i a b i l i t y and o t h e r
o r g a n i z a t i o n a l elements s h a l l make coimcident performance and u s e of t h e
Consideration s h a l l be given t o t h e
r e i e a b i l i t y models and p r e d i c t i o n s .
requirements t o perform and u s e t h e r e l i a b i l i t y models and p r e d i c t i o n s
i n s u p p o r t o f a r e l i a b i l i t y program i n accordance w i t h MIL-STD-785,
m a i n t a i n a b i l f t y program i n accordance w i t h MIL-STD-470, s a f e t y program
i n accordance w i t h MIL-STD-882, s u r v i v a b i l i t y and v u l n e r a b i l i t y program
i n accordance w i t h MIL-STD-2072, l o g i s t i c s support a n a l y s i s i n accordance
w i t h MIL-STD-1388, maintenance p l a n a n a l y s i s (MPA) i n accordance w i t h
MIL-STD-2080, f a u l t diagrams a n a l y s i s en g e n e r a l accordance w i t h MILSTD-1591, and o t h e r c o n t r a c t u a l p r o v i s i o n s .
General procedure. The s t e p s set f o r t h below d e f i n e
4.8
t h e procedure f o r developing a r e l 2 a b i l i t y model and performing a r e l i a b i l i t y
predictfon.
E f f o r t t o develop t h e i n f o r m a t i o n f o r t h e s t e p s below s h a l l
b e c l o s e l y c o o r d h a t e d w i t h r e l a t e d program a c t i v i t i e s (such as d e s i g n
e n g i n e e r i n g , system e n g i n e e r i n g , m a i n t a i n a b i l i t y , and l o g i s t i c s ) t o
minbqize d u p l i c a t i o n s and t o a s s u r e c o n s i s t e n c y and c o r r e c t n e s s .

MIL-STD-756B

a.

Define t h e i t e m f o r which t h e p r e d i c t i o n i s
a p p l i c a b l e (see 4.8.1).

b.

Define t h e service u s e ( l i f e c y c l e ) f o r which

i t e m r e l i a b i l i t y w i l l be modeled and p r e d i c t e d
( s e e 4.8.2).

C.

Define t h e i t e m r e l i a b i l i t y block diagrams ( s e e

2.3 of Task S e c t i o n 100).

d.

Define t h e mathematical models f o r computing

i t e m r e l i a b i l i t y (see 2.4 of Task S e c t i o n 100).

e.

Define t h e p a r t s of t h e i t e m ( s e e 2.2 of Task

S e c t i o n 200).

f.

Define t h e environmental d a t a ( s e e 2.3 of Task

S e c t i o n 200).

g*

Define t h e stress d a t a ( s e e 2.4 of Task S e c t i o n

200).

h.

Define t h e f a i l u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n (see 2.5 of

Task S e c t i o n 200).

i.

Define t h e f a i l u r e rates (see 2.6 of Task

S e c t i o n 200).

j.

Compute t h e i t e m r e l i a b i l i t y ( s e e 2 . 7 of Task
S e c t i o n 200).

4.8.1
I t e m d e f i n i t i o n . I t e m d e f i n i t i o n s h a l l include
performance requirements and hardware concept t o t h e e x t e n t known a t t h e
t i m e t h e model and p r e d i c t i o n are prepared. C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e i t e m
s h a l l b e s t a t e d i n terms of range, a l t i t u d e , speed, m a n e u v e r a b i l i t y ,
environmental c o n d i t i o n s , power, o r such o t h e r parameters as may be
a p p l i c a b l e . The manner i n which t h e i t e m and i t s s u b d i v i s i o n o p e r a t e i s
u s u a l l y expressed by means of f u n c t i o n a l diagrams whech can become t h e
b a s i s f o r t h e r e l e a b e l i t y b l o c k dlagrams (see 2.3 of Task S e c t i o n 100).
Normally, t h e i m i t i a l i t e m d e f % n i t + o n used f o r t h e f e a s i b i l i t y p r e d i c t i o n
w i l l b e l a c k i n g several d e t a i l s and w i l l r e q u i r e c e r t a i n assumptions as
t o environmental c o n d i t i o n s , d e s i g n c o n f i g u r a t i o n , e t c . The i t e m d e f i n i t i o n
s h a l l b e r e f i n e d and updated a s more i n f o r m a t i o n becomes a v a i l a b l e t o
s u p p o r t t h e p r e l i m i n a r y d e s i g n p r e d i c t i o n , and subsequently, t h e d e t a i l e d
d e s i g n p r e d i c t i o n . A s t h e i t e m d e s c r i p t i o n i s p r o g r e s s i v e l y updated,
h i g h e r l e v e l s o f accuracy w i l l b e a t t a i n e d f o r p r e d i c t i o n r e s u l t s .
4.8.2
Service u s e p r o f i l e . The service u s e ( l i f e c y c l e )
p r o f i l e o r p o r t i o n t h e r e o f t o b e used f o r r e l i a b i l i t y modeling and
p r e d i c t r o n s h a l l e i t h e r b e proveded by t h e p r o c u r i n g a c t i v i t y o r s p e c i f i e d
f o r c o n t r a c t o r p r e p a r a t i o n . The service u s e p r o f i l e i s a thorough
d e s c r i p t i o n o f a i l e v e n t s and environments a s s o c i a t e d w i t h an i t e m from

MIL-STD-756B
final factory acceptance through i t s terminal expenditure or removal
from inventory. Each significant servtce use event, such as transportation,
storage, test and checkout, operational deployment, etc., is addressed.
U
e 1 i l l u s t r a t e s the major service use events t o be considered i n
the l o g i s t i c and operational cycles. The profile depicts expected time
spans, environments, operating modes (including standby and ready modes),
etc. , f o r each event. Information from l o g i s t i c cycles, operational
cycles, mission profiles, and environmental profiles i s used t o develop
the service use proffle.
4.8.2.1
Logistic cycle. The l o g i s t i c cycle shall describe
the expected duration and sequence of events which maintain, transport,
and s t o r e an item t o assure operational availability.

4.8.2.2
Operational cycle. The operational cycle shall
describe the expected duration and sequence of events of the period from
an item's assignment t o an operational user through expenditure or
return t o some phase of the l o g i s t i c cycle.
4.8.2.2.1
Mission profile. The mission profile shall describe
events and conditions associated w i t h a specific operational usage of an
item. A mission profile i s one segment o f the operational cycle: The
profile shall depict the time spans of the events and operational conditions
t o be anticipated. Multiple mission profiles may be required t o adequately
describe an item's multimission capabilities.

4.8.2.3

Environmental profile.

The environmental profile

s h a l l describe the specific natural and induced environments (nominal

and worst case) w i t h the operations, events, and functions described by

the l o g i s t i c and operational cycles.

associated environmental profile.

Each mission profile shall have an

Re1 iabi 1i t y model i ng and prediction report. The

4.9
r e l i a b i l i t y models and r e l i a b i l i t y Dredictions shall be documented i n a
report that identifies the level of' analysis, summarizes the results,
documents the data sources and techniques used i n performing the analysis,
and includes the item definition narrative, resultant analysis data,
worksheets, ground rules and assumptions. Interim reports shall be
available a t each design review t o provide comparisons of a1 ternative
designs and t o highlight h i g h f a i l u r e rate elements of the item design,
potential mission r e l i a b i l i t y single f a i l u r e points, and proposed design
corrections o r improvements. The final report shall r e f l e c t the final
design and provide identification of high f a i l u r e r a t e elements, overstressed
parts, and mission r e l i a b i l i t y single f a i l u r e points which could not be
eliminated from the design. EIhen submitting a report applicable for an
Expl oratory/Advanced Devel opment Model , a simp1 i f i ed re1 i abi 1i ty model i ng
and prediction report i s required.
4.9.1
Summary. The report shall contain a summary which
provides the contractor's conclusions and recommendations based upon the
analysis. Contractor interpretation and comments concerning the analysis
and the i n i t i a t e d as recomnended actions f o r the elimination or reduction

MIL-STD-756B

LOGISTIC CYCLE

OPERATIONAL CYCLE

--pq

U
PROCUREMENT-

I
I

PACKAGING

I
I

TRANSPORT

I
I
STORAGE

TRANSPORT

REPETITIVE CYCLES
FOR VARIOUS TYPES
OF STORAGE AND
VARIOUS GEOGRAPHIC
AREAS OF STORAGE

TRANSPORT

r,

MAINTENANCE

5
TRANSPORT

DISPOSAL

Figure 1.

Service Use Events in the Logistic

and Operational Cycles.

.
.
_.
_
.
.
_I

....-

xI
-

...

MIL-STD-756B
of f a i l u r e r i s k s s h a l l be included. A d e s i g n e v a l u a t i o n summary of
major problems d e t e c t e d d u r i n g t h e a n a l y s i s s h a l l be provided i n t h e
f i n a l r e p o r t . A l i s t of hardware o r f u n c t i o n a l elements of t h e i t e m
omitted from t h e r e l i a b i l i t y models and r e l i a b i l i t y p r e d i c t i o n s s h a l l be
i n c l u d e d w i t h r a t i o n a l e f o r each e l e m e n t ' s e x c l u s i o n .
4.9.2
R e l i a b i l i t y c r i t i c a l element l i s t s . R e l i a b i l i t y
c r i t i c a l elements of t h e i t e m e x t r a c t e d from t h e r e l i a b i l i t y modeling
and r e l i a b i l i t y p r e d i c t i o n e f f o r t s h a l l be l i s t e d and included i n t h e
summary. R e l i a b i l i t y c r i t i c a l elements i n c l u d e h i g h f a i l u r e r a t e e l e m e n t s ,
o v e r s t r e s s e d p a r t s ( i . e . , exceed e s t a b l i s h e d p a r t s d e r a t i n g c r i t e r i a ) ,
and mission r e l i a b i l i t y s i n g l e f a i l u r e p o i n t s .
5.

DETAIL REQUIREMENTS

5.1
Task d e s c r i p t i o n and methods. The d e t a i l t a s k s and
methods f o r p r e p a r i n g r e l i a b i l i t y models and performing r e l i a b i l i t y
p r e d i c t i o n s follow. The t a s k d e s c r i p t i o n s and methods are d i v i d e d i n t o
two g e n e r a l s e c t i o n s : S e c t i o n 100, R e l i a b i l i t y Modeling; and S e c t i o n
200, R e l i a b i l i t y P r e d i c t i o n .
D e t a i l s t o be s p e c i f i e d . The "Details t o b e S p e c i f i e d "
5.1.1
paragraph under each Task S e c t i o n i s i n t e n d e d f o r l i s t i n g t h e s p e c i f i c
d e t a i l s , a d d i t i o n s , m o d i f i c a t i o n s , d e l e t i o n s , o r o p t i o n s t o t h e requirements
of t h e t a s k s covered by t h e s e c t i o n t h a t should b e considered by t h e
P r e p a r i n g A c t i v i t y (PA) when t a i l o r i n g t h e t a s k d e s c r i p t i o n t o f i t
program needs. "Details" a n n o t a t e d by an "(R)" ARE ESSENTIAL and s h a l l
b e provided t h e c o n t r a c t o r f o r p r o p e r implementation of t h e t a s k .

Custodians:
Army
CR
Navy
AS
A i r Force

Preparing Activity:
AS
Navy
P r o j e c t No. RELI-0001

17

Review A c t i v i t i e s :
Army - EA, AR
Navy - SHY 0s
Users :
Army - AM
Navy - EC
N a t i o n a l S e c u r i t y Agency - NS
Defense Mapping Agency - DMA

MIL-STD-756B
TASK SECTION 100
RELIABILITY MODELING

1.

DOCUMENTS REFERENCED I N TASK SECTION 100:

STANDARDS
MILITARY

2.

MIL-STD-780

Work Unit Codes f o r A e r o n a u t i c a l Equipment;

Uniform Numbering System

MIL-STD-881

Work Breakdown S t r u c t u r e s f o r Defense Material

Items

REQUIREMENTS

2.1
Basic R e l i a b i l i t y model. The Basic R e l i a b i l i t y model s h a l l
c o n s i s t of a r e l i a b i l i t y b l o c k diagram and an a s s o c i a t e d mathematical
model. By d e f i n i t i o n , t h e Basic R e l i a b i l i t y model i s an a l l series
model which i n c l u d e s elements of t h e i t e m intended s o l e l y f o r redundancy
and a l t e r n a t e modes of o p e r a t i o n .
2.2
Mission R e l i a b i l i t y model. The Mission R e l i a b i l i t y model
s h a l l c o n s i s t of a r e l i a b i l i t y b l o c k diagram and an a s s o c i a t e d mathematical
model. The Mission R e l i a b i l i t y model s h a l l be c o n s t r u c t e d t o d e p i c t t h e
i n t e n d e d u t i l i z a t i o n of t h e elements of t h e i t e m t o a c h i e v e m i s s i o n
s u c c e s s . Elements of t h e item intended f o r redundancy o r a l t e r n a t e
modes of o p e r a t i o n s h a l l be modeled i n a p a r a l l e l c o n f i g u r a t i o n o r
similar c o n s t r u c t a p p r o p r i a t e t o t h e m i s s i o n phase and m i s s i o n a p p l i c a t i o n .

2.3
R e l i a b i l i t y b l o c k diagrams. R e l i a b i l i t y b l o c k diagram s h a l l
b e prepared t o show i n t e r d e p e n d e n c i e s among a l l elements (subsystems,
equipments, etc.) o r f u n c t i o n a l groups of t h e i t e m f o r i t e m s u c c e s s i n
each service use event. The purpose of t h e r e l s a b i l i t y b l o c k diagram i s
t o show by c o n c i s e v i s u a l shorthand t h e v a r i o u s s e r i e s - p a r a l l e l b l o c k
pornbinations ( p a t h s ) t h a t r e s u l t 5n i t e m s u c c e s s . A complete u n d e r s t a n d i n g
of t h e $tern's miss5on d e f i n i t i o n , and service u s e p r o f i l e i s r e q u i r e d t o
produce t h e r e l i a b i l i t y diagram.
2.3.1
Block diagram t i t l e . Each r e l i a b i l i t y b l o c k diagram s h a l l
have a t i t l e i n c l u d i n g i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of t h e i t e m , t h e m i s s i o n i d e n t i f i c a t i o n
o r p o r t i o n of t h e service u s e p r o f i l e addressed, and a d e s c r i p t i o n of
t h e mode of o p e r a t i o n f o r which t h e p r e d i c t i o n i s t o be performed.

2.3.2
Statement of c o n d i t i o n s . Each r e l i a b i l i t y block diagram s h a l l
i n c l u d e a s t a t e m e n t of c o n d i t i o n s l i s t i n g a l l c o n s t r a i n t s which i n f l u e n c e
t h e c h o i c e of b l o c k p r e s e n t a t i o n , t h e r e l i a b i l i t y parameters o r r e l i a b i l i t y
v a r i a b l e s u t i l i z e d i n t h e a n a l y s i s , and t h e assumptions o r s i m p l i f i c a t i o n s
u t i l i z e d t o develop t h e diagram. Once e s t a b l i s h e d , t h e s e c o n d i t i o n s
s h a l l be observed throughout t h e a n a l y s i s .

100-1

TASK SECTION 100

18 November 1981

MIL-STD- 756B
2.3.3
Statement of s u c c e s s . A s t a t e m e n t of s u c c e s s s h a l l be d e f i n e d
i n s p e c i f i c terms s t a t i n g e x a c t l y what t h e c a l c u l a t e d r e l i a b i l i t y r e p r e s e n t s
f o r t h e i t e m s as d i a g r a m e d and performing under t h e c r i t e r i a p r e s e n t e d
i n t h e s t a t e m e n t of c o n d i t i o n s .
2.3.4
Order of t h e diagram. The b l o c k s i n t h e diagram s h a l l f o l l o w
a l o g i c a l o r d e r which r e l a t e s t h e sequence of e v e n t s d u r i n g t h e p r e s c r i b e d
o p e r a t i o n of t h e i t e m .
2.3.5
Block r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . The r e l i a b i l i t y b l o c k diagram s h a l l be
drawn s o t h a t each element o r f u n c t i o n employed i n t h e i t e m can b e
i d e n t i f i e d . Each block of t h e r e l i a b i l i t y b l o c k diagram s h a l l r e p r e s e n t
one element of f u n c t i o n c o n t a i n e d i n t h e i t e m .
A l l b l o c k s of t h e r e l i a b i l i t y
b l o c k diagram s h a l l be configured i n series, p a r a l l e l , standby, o r
combinations t h e r e o f as a p p r o p r i a t e .
2.3.6
I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of b l o c k s . Each b l o c k of t h e r e l i a b i l i t y b l o c k
diagram s h a l l be i d e n t i f i e d . Diagrams c o n t a i n i n g few b l o c k s may have
t h e f u l l i d e n t i f i c a t i o n w r i t t e n i n t h e block. Diagrams c o n t a i n i n g many
b l o c k s s h a l l u s e a c o n s i s t e n t and l o g i c a l code i d e n t i f i c a t i o n w r i t t e n
f o r each block. The coding system s h a l l be based upon t h e work breakdown
s t r u c t u r e of MIL-STD-881, work u n i t code numbering system of MIL-STD-780,
o r o t h e r similar uniform i d e n t i f i c a t i o n system t h a t w i l l permit unambiguous
t r a c e a b i l i t y of t h e r e l i a b i l i t y b l o c k t o i t s hardware ( o r f u n c t i o n a l )
e q u i v a l e n t as d e f i n e d i n program documentation. The code s h a l l be
identified i n a separate listing.
2.3.6.1
Non-modeled elements. Hardware o r f u n c t i o n a l elements o f t h e
i t e m which are n o t included i n t h e r e l i a b i l i t y model s h a l l be i d e n t i f i e d
i n a s e p a r a t e l i s t i n g u t i l i z i n g t h e coding system employed i n 2.3.6 of
Task S e c t i o n 100. R a t i o n a l e f o r each e l e m e n t ' s e x c l u s i o n from t h e
r e l i a b i l i t y model s h a l l be provided.
2.3.7
R e l i a b i l i t y v a r i a b l e . R e l i a b i l i t y v a r i a b l e s s h a l l be determined
f o r each block and p r e s e n t e d i n such a manner t h a t t h e a s s o c i a t i o n
between t h e block and i t s v a r i a b l e i s a p p a r e n t . The r e l i a b i l i t y v a r i a b l e
i s a number ( t i m e , c y c l e s , e v e n t s , e t c . ) used t o d e s c r i b e t h e d u r a t i o n
of o p e r a t i o n r e q u i r e d by each b l o c k t o perform i t s s t a t e d f u n c t i o n .
T h i s v a r i a b l e shall be used i n c a l c u l a t i n g t h e r e l i a b i l i t y of t h e block.
2.3.8
Block diagram assumptions. Two t y p e s of assumptions s h a l l be
used i n p r e p a r i n g r e l i a b i l i t y b l o c k diagrams:
(1) t e c h n i c a l and (2)
g e n e r a l . T e c h n i c a l assumptions may b e d i f f e r e n t f o r each i t e m and f o r
each mode of o p e r a t i o n . The t e c h n i c a l assumptions s h a l l be s e t f o r t h
under t h e s t a t e m e n t of c o n d i t i o n s . The g e n e r a l assumptions are t h o s e
a p p l i c a b l e t o a l l r e l i a b i l i t y block diagrams. It i s n o t n e c e s s a r y t o
l i s t t h e g e n e r a l assumptions s t a t e d i n t h i s s t a n d a r d on t h e r e l i a b i l i t y
b l o c k diagrams, provided r e f e r e n c e h a s been made t o t h i s paragraph. The
f o l l o w i n g g e n e r a l assumptions s h a l l a p p l y t o r e l i a b i l i t y b l o c k diagrams:

TASK SECTION 100

100-2

18 November 1981

- -

___

____
__-

I
-

---

MIL-STD-756B
a.

The b l o c k s d e n o t e elements o r f u n c t i o n s of t h e i t e m s t h a t are

c o n s i d e r e d when e v a l u a t i n g r e l i a b i l i t y and which have r e l i a b i l i t y
v a l u e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h them.

b.

All l i n e s c o n n e c t i n g b l o c k s have no r e l i a b i l i t y v a l u e s .

The
l i n e s serve o n l y t o g i v e o r d e r and d i r e c t i o n t o t h e diagram
and do n o t r e p r e s e n t t h e w i r i n g c a b l e s and c o n n e c t o r s a s s o c i a t e d
w i t h t h e i t e m . Cabling and c o n n e c t o r s are i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o a
s i n g l e b l o c k o r i n c l u d e d as p a r t of t h e b l o c k f o r a n element
o r function.

C.

A l l i n p u t s t o t h e i t e m are w i t h i n s p e c i f i c a t i o n l i m i t s .

d.

F a i l u r e of any element o r f u n c t i o n denoted by a block i n t h e

diagram w i l l cause f a i l u r e of t h e e n t i r e i t e m , except where
a l t e r n a t i v e modes of o p e r a t i o n may be p r e s e n t .

e.

Each element o r f u n c t i o n denoted by a b l o c k i n t h e diagram i s

independent, w i t h r e g a r d t o p r o b a b i l i t y of f a i l u r e , from a l l
o t h e r blocks.

2.3.8.1

Software r e l i a b i l i t y assumption. The assumption t h a t a l l

s o f t w a r e is completely r e l i a b l e s h a l l be s t a t e d i n i n s t a n c e s when s o f t w a r e
r e l i a b i l i t y i s not incorporated i n t h e i t e m r e l i a b i l i t y prediction.

2.3.8.2
Human r e l i a b i l i t y assumption. The
elements are completely r e l i a b l e and t h a t no
between human elements and t h e item s h a l l be
human r e l i a b i l i t y i s n o t i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t h e
Mathematical models.

2.4

assumption t h a t a l l human
i n t e r f a c e problems occur
s t a t e d i n i n s t a n c e s when
i t e m r e l i a b i l i t y prediction.

Models s h a l l be d e r i v e d t o m a t h e m a t i c a l l y

r e l a t e r e l i a b i l i t y b l o c k diagrams t o time- event r e l a t i o n s h i p s and f a i l u r e

r a t e d a t a . The s o l u t i o n of t h e models will b e t h e item p r e d i c t e d r e l i a b i l i t y .
The mathematical model s h a l l be c a p a b l e of b e i n g r e a d i l y updated w i t h
i q f a r m a t i o n r e s u l t i n g from r e l i a b i l i t y and o t h e r r e l e v a n t tests as w e l l
as changes i n i t e m c o n f i g u r a t i o n , m i s s i o n parameters and o p e r a t i o n a l
constraints.
3.
5.1.1).

Details t o b e s p e c i f i e d by t h e P r e p a r i n g A c f i v i t y (PA) (See

The f o l l o w i n g are a p p l i c a b l e when Task 101 o r 102 are invoked:

a.

I n d e n t u r e l e v e l (4.4)

b.

Software R e l i a b i l i t y A p p l i c a b i l i t y (2.3.8.1

of Task S e c t i o n

100).

c.

Human R e l i a b i l i t y A p p l i c a b i l i t y (2.3.8.2

100-3

of Task S e c t i o n 100).

TASK SECTION 100

18 November 1981

MIL-STD-756B

(R)

d.

Modeling Method(s).
An option is to allow contractor selection
Different prediction
of the appropriate modeling method(s).
methods may be applicable to different system components.

e.

DI-R-7094 Reliability Mathematical Models should be specified

when deliverable data is desired in conjunction with this
task.

(R)

f.

Item definition (4.8.1).

(R)

g.

Service use profile (4.8.2).

TASK SECTION 100

18 November 1981

_.

100-4
-----

----

MIL-STD- 7 5 6B
TASK 101
BASIC RELIABILITY MODEL

1.

PURPOSE/RATIONALE

1.1
A Basic Reliability model is a series model used for estimating
the demand for maintenance and logistic support caused by an item and
its component parts. Accordingly, all elements of the item provided for
redundancy or alternate modes of operation are modeled in series.
Except for those instances in which there is neither redundancy nor
alternate modes of operation provided f o r the item, the Basic Reliability
model cannot be used to estimate Mission Reliability. However, both the
Basic Reliability model and the Mission Reliability model are used in
combination to compare the ownership cost-effectiveness of various
design configurations and as a basis for apportionment (allocation) of
ownership cost and operational effectiveness requirements to various
subdivisions of an item.
1.2
The basic information for the Basic Reliability model is
derived from documentation identifying all equipments and associated
quantities that comprise the item. As the proposed item design is
firmed and comes under configuration control, the established configuration
baseline should be the basis for the Basic Reliability model.

1.3

The Basic Reliability model should be developed to the level

of detail (equipment, subassembly, or part level) for which information

is available and for which failure rate, (or equivalent), data can be
applied to evaluate the maintenance and logistic support impact of the
item design.

1.4

Together with duty cycle and mission duration, information,

the Basic Reliability model is used to develop mathematical expressions
or computer programs which, with appropriate failure rate data, can
provide apportionment, estimates and assessments of Basic Reliability.
REQUIREMENT

2,l
The contractor shall develop and maintain a Basic Reliability
model based upon a defined item configuration. All equipments and
associated quantities comprising the item shall be included in the
model. All equipments, including those intended solely for item redundancy
and alternate modes of operation, shall be modeled in series. A Basic
Reliability block diagram shall be developed and maintained for the item
with associated allocations and predictions in each reliability block.
The Basic Reliability block diagram shall be keyed and traceable to the
Mission Reliability model, functional block diagrams, schematics and
drawings, and shall provide the basis for accurate mathematical representation
o f Basic Reliability. Nomenclature of elements o f the item used in the
Basic Reliability block diagrams shall be consistent with that used in
the Mission Reliability model, functional block diagrams, drawings and
schematics, weight statements, power budgets and specifications.

101- 1

TASK 101

18 November 1981

MIL-STD-756B
TASK 102
MISSION RELIABILITY MODEL

PURPOSE / RATIONALE

1.

1.1
A Mission R e l i a b i l i t y model i s used f o r e v a l u a t i n g complex
s e r i e s - p a r a l l e l equipment arrangements which u s u a l l y e x i s t i n weapon
systems.
MISSION RELIABILITY MODELING

2.

2.1
How t o Define t h e I t e m f o r Modeling. A p r e r e q u i s i t e f o r
developing Mission R e l i a b i l i t y models i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e d e f i n i t i o n of
t h e i t e m as r e l a t e d t o t h e d e f i n i t i o n of r e l i a b i l i t y . For Basic R e l i a b i l i t y
modeling, t h e i t e m d e f i n i t i o n i s simple - a l l equipments comprising t h e
item are modeled i n series. "All" equipments i n c l u d e s any equipments
provided s o l e l y f o r redundancy o r f o r a l t e r n a t e modes of o p e r a t i o n .
However, f o r Mission R e l i a b i l t y modeling, t h e i t e m r e l i a b i l i t y model and
m i s s i o n s u c c e s s d e f i n i t i o n c a n become e l u s i v e problems e s p e c i a l l y f o r
complex multimodel systems i n c o r p o r a t i n g redundancies and a l t e r n a t e
modes of o p e r a t i o n . I n i t e m d e f i n i t i o n , emphasis i s placed on p r o p e r l y
s p e c i f y i n g r e l i a b i l i t y w i t h i n t h e c o n t e x t of a l l o t h e r p r e s s i n g requirements
and r e s t r a i n t s t h a t comprise a f u n c t i o n i n g i t e m . A proper d e f i n i t i o n i s
important i n o r d e r t o e s t a b l i s h meaningful requirements and g o a l s . An
a d e q u a t e i t e m d e f i n i t i o n a i d s i n determining when t h e i t e m i s being used
as intended, when i t sees i t s a n t i c i p a t e d environment, when i t s c o n f i g u r a t i o n
h a s been changed beyond i t s o r i g i n a l c o n c e p t , as w e l l as when i t i s
performing i t s s p e c i f i e d f u n c t i o n . I t e m r e l i a b i l i t y i s d e f i n e d as t h e
p r o b a b i l i t y of performing a s p e c i f i e d f u n c t i o n o r m i s s i o n under s p e c i f i e d
c o n d i t i o n s f o r a s p e c i f i e d t i m e . T h e r e f o r e , a r e l i a b i l i t y requirement
f o r f u n c t i o n o r m i s s i o n s u c c e s s must i n c l u d e :
a.

A d e f i n i t i o n of i t e m performance such t h a t every c o n d i t i o n i s

d e f i n e d as a c c e p t a b l e ( s u c c e s s ) o r u n a c c e p t a b l e ( f a i l u r e ) .
Obviously, i t e m modes of o p e r a t i o n must be known t o d e f i n e
s u c c e s s and f a i l u r e . For example, simultaneous t r a n s m i s s i o n
of r e a l t i m e and s t o r e d d a t a might b e d e f i n e d as s u c c e s s f o r
one i t e m , w h i l e a n o t h e r i t e m may n o t r e q u i r e simultaneous
t r a n s m i s s i o n of r e a l t i m e and s t o r e d d a t a . I f t h e l a t t e r i t e m
had two t r a n s m i t t e r s f o r sending d a t a t h e y would be c o n s i d e r e d
redundant, o r p r o v i d e an a l t e r n a t e mode of o p e r a t i o n . I n t h e
former i t e m , however, t h e requirement r u l e s o u t t h i s a l t e r n a t e
mode of o p e r a t i o n . Another i t e m requirement might be t h a t a
c e r t a i n d a t a r a t e o r amount of d a t a be t r a n s m i t t e d from a
s a t e l l i t e t o e a r t h . A n a l y s i s of t h e i t e m may show t h a t i f
some channels i n a m u l t i p l e x e r f a i l , t h e r e q u i r e d d a t a r a t e o r
amount of d a t a i s s t i l l achieved. T h i s c o n d i t i o n would b e
d e f i n e d as s u c c e s s .

102-1

TASK 102
18 November 1981

MIL-STD-756B
b.

A definition of the conditions.

C.

A definition of mission time.

d.

A definition of the reliability variable of the item elements.

The reliability variable is a number (time, cycles, events,
etc.) used to describe the duration required by each item
element (and included in the Mission Reliability block diagram)
to perform its stated function.

This involves defining the

environmental conditions which prevail on the various equipments
of the item throughout the mission. In addition, duty cycle
or periods of operation for the various equipments must be
,
defined.
A careful quantitative statement
of the time during which the item must function is important.
In complex items which operate in different functional modes
at different stages of the mission or which use certain subsystems
only if conditions require, the functioning-time requirements
for each subordinate group should be established. If the time
requirements cannot be specified definitely, it may be necessary
to determine probabilities of successful functioning during a
range of mission times.

2.2
Developing the Item Definition. A complete definition of the
item covers the use, performance, restraints, and failure definitions.
Thus, it is necessary to define:

a.

Purpose, intended use, or mission.

b.

Performance parameters and allowable limits.

c.

Physical and functional boundaries.

d.

Conditions which constitute mission failure.

e.

Service use profile.

Step 1 - Define the purpose and intended use or mission of the item.
This includes:
a.

Defining mission functions and modes of operation. A particular

item can be utilized for more than one type mission. For
example, an aircraft may be used on a military reconnaissance
mission, a bombing mission, an intercept mission, or a strafing
mission. If separate aircraft were used for these missions,
they would be treated independently, with a separate Mission
Reliability model for each mission or aircraft. If the same
aircraft were used to perform all these missions, they could
be treated as functions and one item reliability model could
be generated to cover all functions. It is also possible to
have separate reliability requirements and models for each
mission.

TASK 102

18 November 1981

102-2

MIL-STD-756B

b.

Defining the mission in terms of performing functions. For

purpose of clarity, functional and alternate modes of operation
have been defined- below.

1.

2.

Functional Mode of Operation - Some versatile items

perform multiple functions with different equipment or
groups of equipment being required for each function. A
function is a task to be performed by the hardware and
therefore, a functional mode of operation consists of
performing a specific function. For example, in a radar
system, searching and tracking would be two functional
modes of operation.
Alternative Modes of Operation - When an item has more
than one method of performing a particular function, it
has alternative modes of operation. For example, a UHF
transmitter may be used as an alternative method of communicating data sent normally via a 'VHF transmitter.

Before a model can be developed, requirements must be formulated. A

word statement of what is required for mission success or a Mission
Reliability block diagram must be generated. The Mission Reliability
block diagram is a pictorial f o m of a statement of what is required for
mission success. When requirements are not firm, it is possible to
develop several Mission Reliability models assuming different requirements.
In other words, a family of item reliability diagrams can be generated
for various requirements for mission success.
Step 2 - Establish and specify the item and subsystem performance parameters
and allowable limits.

It is desirable to construct a list or chart for convenience. The list

of parameters should be all inclusive, completely defining the entire
item under consideration. The allowable upper and lower limits for
these parameters should be developed. Columns (1) , (2) , and ( 3 ) of
..Figure 1 0 2 . 1 illustrate a list of performance parameters and allowable
limits.
Failure Classification
in Terms of
Performance Limits
(4)

Units of
Measure
(2)

Specified
Requirement
(3)

1. Power output (PO)

Horsepower,
Kilowatts, etc.

PO=500f20%

Major:
200<P0<400
Critical:
P0<200

2. Channel capacity (n)

Number of
channels

n=48+0

Major:
Critical:

24<n<40
n<24

3. Voltage pain (A)

Decibels

A-40t3db

Major:
Critical:

30<A<37
A<30

4 . Detection range (HI

Nautical
miles

H-30M
-50

Major:
Critical:

150<H<250
H<150

5. Miss distance (d,J

Meters

d=WlO
- 0

Major:
Critical:

20>%>10

performance
Parameter

(1)

Figure 1 0 2 . 1 .

$>20

Performance Parameters, Limits,

and Failure Criteria.
102- 3

TASK 102
18 November 1987

MIL-STD-756B
Step 3

Determine t h e p h y s i c a l and f u n c t i o n a l boundaries of t h e i t e m .

P h y s i c a l boundaries:

a.

Maximum dimensions.

b.

Maximum weight.

c.

Safety provisions.

d.

Human f a c t o r s r e s t r a i n t s .

e.

Materials c a p a b i l i t i e s .

f.

etc.

F u n c t i o n a l boundaries:
Whenever t h e i t e m under c o n s i d e r a t i o n i s c o n t a i n e d i n o r
depends upon a n o t h e r i t e m , i t e m i n t e r f a c e s must be c o o r d i n a t e d
f o r compatibility.
Examples i n c l u d e man-machine i n t e r f a c e s ,
i n t e r f a c e w i t h s h i p s c e n t r a l c o n t r o l , power s o u r c e s , d a t a
requirements, etc.

a.

Step 4

Determine t h e c o n d i t i o n s which c o n s t i t u t e m i s s i o n f a i l u r e .

A f a i l u r e i s an i n a b i l i t y t o complete a s t a t e d m i s s i o n w i t h i n s p e c i f i c
l i m i t s . Using t h e p r e v i o u s s t e p s , i d e n t i f y and l i s t t h e c o n d i t i o n s t h a t
would c o n s t i t u t e m i s s i o n f a i l u r e . For example, one c o n d i t i o n of s u c c e s s f u l
m i s s i o n completion may be a requirement of a minimum 200 k i l o w a t t s (KW)
f o r t h e power o u t p u t of a t r a n s m i t t e r . Hence, any s i n g l e o r combination
of i t e m hardware and s o f t w a r e f a i l u r e ( s ) t h a t would r e s u l t i n less t h a n
200 KW of t r a n s m i t t e r power o u t p u t would c o n s t i t u t e a m i s s i o n f a i l u r e .
Column (4) of F i g u r e 102.1 i l l u s t r a t e s a d e f i n i t i o n of f a i l u r e c r i t e r i a .
d

I n c e r t a i n i n s t a n c e s where a f a i l u r e c o n d i t i o n e x i s t s , a m i s s i o n c a n
s t i l l be completed i n a somewhat l i m i t e d manner. I n t h e s e i n s t a n c e s i t
i s u s u a l l y worthwhile t o i d e n t i f y t h e m i s s i o n o p t i o n s a v a i l a b l e as a
r e s u l t of a prime m i s s i o n f a i l u r e c o n d i t i o n .
Step 5

Define t h e service u s e p r o f i l e .

The service u s e p r o f i l e i s a thorough d e s c r i p t i o n of a l l e v e n t s and

environments a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a n i t e m from f i n a l a c c e p t a n c e through i t s
t e r m i n a l e x p e n d i t u r e o r removal from i n v e n t o r y . The p r o f i l e d e p i c t s
expected t i m e spans, environments, o p e r a t i n g modes ( i n c l u d i n g standby
and ready modes), etc. , f o r each event. Although t h e Mission R e l i a b i l i t y
model should, and o f t e n does, c o n s i d e r t h e complete l o g i s t i c and o p e r a t i o n a l
c y c l e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e service u s e p r o f i l e i t i s t h e m i s s i o n p r o f i l e
and environmental p r o f i l e t h a t receives t h e most a t t e n t i o n .

TASK 102
18 November 1981

102-4

MIL-STD-7 5 6B
a.

The m i s s i o n p r o f i l e d e s c r i b e s e v e n t s and c o n d i t i o n s a s s o c i a t e d
w i t h a s p e c i f i c o p e r a t i o n a l usage of a n i t e m . M u l t i p l e m i s s i o n
p r o f i l e s may b e r e q u i r e d t o a d e q u a t e l y d e s c r i b e an item's
m u l t i m i s s i o n c a p a b i l i t i e s . The m i s s i o n p r o f i l e ( s ) needs t o
a d d r e s s t h e i t e m d u t y c y c l e s o r p e r i o d s of o p e r a t i o n . The
i t e m should be subdivided i n t o components o r equipments and a
p l o t of t h e i n t e n d e d u s e through t i m e f o r each component o r
equipment should be developed. Duty c y c l e i s t h e r a t i o of
o p e r a t i n g t i m e t o t o t a l t i m e . The method t o handle d u t y c y c l e
i n c a l c u l a t i o n s i s as f o l l o w s :
1.

I f t h e component i s c o n s i d e r e d t o have a n e g l i g i b l e
f a i l u r e rate d u r i n g a non- operation p e r i o d , t h e f a i l u r e
r a t e can be modified by a d u t y c y c l e f a c t o r . For example
t h e e q u a t i o n P, = e-Xtd can be used f o r a c o n s t a n t f a i l u r e
r a t e component where d , t h e d u t y c y c l e f a c t o r , i s t h e
r a t i o of o p e r a t i n g t i m e t o t o t a l m i s s i o n t i m e , t .

2.

When a component has a f a i l u r e r a t e d u r i n g non- operating

p e r i o d s d i f f e r e n t from t h a t experienced d u r i n g o p e r a t i n g
p e r i o d s , t h e f o l l o w i n g e q u a t i o n c a n be used:

Ps = Ps ( o p e r a t i n g ) *Ps (nonoperating)
For t h e c o n s t a n t f i g u r e r a t e component, t h i s e q u a t i o n y i e l d s

Ps

= e

-[Xltd

X,t(l-d>]

Where

b.

X1

= failure

x2

= f a i l u r e rate d u r i n g non- operation

rate during operation

An environmental p r o f i l e d e s c r i b e s t h e s p e c i f i c n a t u r a l and
induced environments (nominal and worst c a s e ) a s s o c i a t e d w i t h
t h e o p e r a t i o n s , e v e n t s , and f u n c t i o n s d e s c r i b e d by t h e o p e r a t i o n a l
cycle

Items can be u t i l i z e d i n more t h a n one environment. For

example, a g i v e n i t e m might be used a t a ground s i t e , on
s h i p b o a r d , and i n an a i r b o r n e environment. I n a d d i t i o n , a
g i v e n m i s s i o n may c o n s i s t of several phases of o p e r a t i o n . A
phase of o p e r a t i o n i s a p e r i o d of t i m e d u r i n g which a given
environment p r e v a i l s . For example, i n a s a t e l l i t e , b o o s t ,
o r b i t , r e e n t r y , and recovery w i t h t h e i r a s s o c i a t e d environments
a r e phases of o p e r a t i o n .

102-5

TASK 102

18 November 1981

MIL-STD-756B

These environmental c o n s i d e r a t i o n s a r e handled as f o l l o w s i n

Mission R e l i a b i l i t y models.

1.

For i t e m s having more t h a n one end u s e , each w i t h a

d i f f e r e n t environment, t h e Mission R e l i a b i l i t y model
would be t h e same f o r a l l environments e x c e p t t h a t
t h e f a i l u r e rates f o r t h e v a r i o u s equipments of t h e
i t e m would be d i f f e r e n t f o r t h e v a r i o u s environments.

2.

For i t e m s having s e v e r a l phases of o p e r a t i o n , s e p a r a t e

Mission R e l i a b i l i t y models can be generated and
p r e d i c t i o n s made f o r each phase of o p e r a t i o n . The
r e s u l t s can t h e n be combined i n t o an o v e r a l l i t e m model
and i t e m p r e d i c t i o n .

2.3

How To Construct a Mission R e l i a b i l i t y Model

2.3.1
discusses
the basis
equations

Fundamental r u l e s f o r p r o b a b i l i t y computations. This s e c t i o n

t h e fundamental r u l e s f o r p r o b a b i l i t y computations t h a t p r o v i d e
f o r t h e d e r i v a t i o n of t h e p r o b a b i l i t y of s u r v i v a l (P,)
developed i n Method 1001.

2.3.1.1
The a d d i t i o n r u l e ( e x c l u s i v e c a s e ) . I f A and B a r e two m u t u a l l y
e x c l u s i v e e v e n t s , i . e . , occurrence of e i t h e r event e x c l u d e s t h e o t h e r ,
t h e p r o b a b i l i t y of e i t h e r of them happening i s t h e sum of t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e
probabilities:
P(A o r B) = P(A

+ B)

= P(A)

+ P(B)

(1)

T h i s r u l e c a n apply t o any number of mutually e x c l u s i v e e v e n t s :

P(A

+ B...+

N) = P(A)

+ P(B) ...+ P(N)

(2)

2.3.1.2
The a d d i t i o n r u l e (non- exclusive c a s e ) . I f A and B are two
e v e n t s n o t mutually e x c l u s i v e , i . e . , e i t h e r o r both can o c c u r , t h e
p r o b a b i l i t y of a t l e a s t one of them o c c u r r i n g i s :
P(A o r B) = P(A

+ B)

= P(A)

+ P(B) -

P(AB)

(3)

The e q u a t i o n f o r t h r e e e v e n t s becomes:
P(A

+ B + C)

= P(A)

+ P(B) + P(C)
- P(AC) - P(BC)

P(AB)
P(ABC)

T h i s r u l e c a n b e extended t o any number of e v e n t s .

TASK 102

18 November 1981

102-6

(4)

MIL-STD-756B

2.3.1.3
The m u l t i p l i c a t i o n r u l e . I f e v e n t s A and B are independent,
i . e . , t h e o c c u r r e n c e of one does n o t a f f e c t t h e p r o b a b i l i t y of o c c u r r e n c e
of t h e o t h e r , t h e p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t b o t h w i l l o c c u r i s e q u a l t o t h e p r o d u c t
of t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e p r o b a b i l i t i e s .
P(A and B) = P(AB) = P(A) P(B)

(5)

Equation ( 5 ) may be extended t o any number of independent e v e n t s :

P(AB.. .N) = P(A) P(B)

...P(N)

(6)

2.3.1.4
C o n d i t i o n a l p r o b a b i l i t i e s . If e v e n t s A and B are n o t independent,
i . e . , t h e occurrence of one a f f e c t s t h e p r o b a b i l i t y of o c c u r r e n c e of t h e
o t h e r , a c o n d i t i o n a l p r o b a b i l i t y exists. The p r o b a b i l i t y of A g i v e n t h a t
B h a s o c c u r r e d i s denoted by P(A B ) , and s i m i l a r l y B g i v e n A is denoted
by P(B A). Thus, i f A and B are n o t independent, t h e n t h e p r o b a b i l i t y
of both o c c u r r i n g is:
P(AB) = P(A) P(B,/A) = P(B) P(A/B)

(7)

I f A and B are independent, P(A B) = P(A) and P(B A) = P(B) and Equation
( 7 ) r e d u c e s t o Equation ( 5 ) .
For t h r e e e v e n t s , A, B and C
P(ABC) = P(A) P(B/A) P(C/AB)

2.3.2

(8)

Procedure f o r developing i t e m models.

Step 1 -

Define what i s r e q u i r e d f o r m i s s i o n s u c c e s s and t r a n s l a t e t h i s i n t o a m i s s i o n s u c c e s s diagram.

Step 2

Step 3

C a l c u l a t e Ps f o r each of t h e equipments of t h e i t e m .
T h i s i s done by u t i l i z i n g one of t h e v a r i o u s reliab i l i t y p r e d i c t i o n techniques.

Step 4

The p r o b a b i l i t y of s u c c e s s numbers f o r t h e v a r i o u s
equipments d e r i v e d i n S t e p 3 are i n s e r t e d i n t h e
formula d e r i v e d i n S t e p 2 f o r t h e i t e m p r o b a b i l i t y
of s u c c e s s .

Step 5

Step 6

Write t h e p r o b a b i l i t y of s u c c e s s , Ps, e q u a t i o n f o r t h e
item.

A p r o b a b i l i t y of s u c c e s s c u r v e v e r s u s t i m e c a n be
p l o t t e d by t a k i n g several v a l u e s of t i m e f o r m i s s i o n
t i m e , and e v a l u a t i n g t h e p r o b a b i l i t y of i t e m s u c c e s s
by t h e above procedure f o r t h e several v a l u e s of
t i m e chosen.
A d d i t i o n a l s t e p s i n t h e a n a i y s i s w i l l depend
upon t h e d e c i s i o n s t h a t t h e a n a l y s i s i s i n t e n d e d t o
optimize

102-7

Y
TASK 102
18 November 1981

MIL-STD-756B
2.4
D i s c u s s i o n of procedure. A s d e s c r i b e d i n 1 . 2 of Task 1 0 2 i t
i s n e c e s s a r y t o d e f i n e t h e s p e c i f i c m i s s i o n of i n t e r e s t ( i f more t h a n
one e x i s t s ) , t h e phases of o p e r a t i o n , t h e f u n c t i o n s and a l t e r n a t e modes
of o p e r a t i o n t o perform t h e s e f u n c t i o n s .

Defining m i s s i o n s u c c e s s i s tantamount t o w r i t i n g a word s t a t e m e n t which

d e s c r i b e s what equipments o r combinations of equipments are r e q u i r e d f o r
m i s s i o n s u c c e s s and drawing a r e l i a b i l i t y b l o c k diagram f o r t h e s t a t e m e n t .
S e v e r a l methods of going from a r e l i a b i l i t y b l o c k diagram t o a p r o b a b i l i t y
of s u r v i v a l formula are shown i n t h i s s e c t i o n .
For example, a word s t a t e m e n t might be:
Equipments A, B , and C , o r D and E , and equipment F must work f o r m i s s i o n
s u c c e s s . The Mission R e l i a b i l i t y b l o c k diagram would be as f o l l o w s :

SUCCESS

It i s n o t convenient t o go d i r e c t l y from t h i s Mission R e l i a b i l i t y diagram

t o a p r o b a b i l i t y of s u c c e s s e q u a t i o n f o r t h e system. The c o r r e c t p r o b a b i l i t y
of s u r v i v a l e q u a t i o n is:

ps

+ PDPEPF -

PAPBPCPF

PAPBPCPDPEPF

A t f i r s t i t might appear t h a t t h e p r o b a b i l i t y of s u c c e s s e q u a t i o n c o u l d
be w r i t t e n as

where PA = p r o b a b i l i t y of equipment A working.

The e v e n t t h a t A , B , C , and F works ( r e p r e s e n t e d by ABCF) and t h a t t h e
e v e n t D, E , and F works ( r e p r e s e n t e d by DEF) are n o t mutually e x c l u s i v e .
Consequently, adding t h e p r o b a b i l i t i e s of t h e s e two e v e n t s , PAPBPcPF +PDPEPF does n o t y i e l d t h e c o r r e c t r e s u l t .
Another word s t a t e m e n t could be t h a t any two of t h r e e g e n e r a t o r s A , B , and
C must work f o r s u c c e s s . I n o t h e r words, t h e g e n e r a t o r s are p h y s i c a l l y
o p e r a t i n g i n p a r a l l e l and any two have t h e c a p a b i l i t y t o supply t h e needs
of t h e system. Its m i s s i o n s u c c e s s diagram may be shown i n one of two ways:
I

TASK 102

102-8

18 November 1981
_

____

--

.--

--__ "

-__

MIL-STD-756B
or

The "(2/3)" of diagram (a) denotes that two of the three equipments must
operate for success. Diagram (a) is the easiest technique to model
success criteria of parallel equipments. Diagram (b) is the equivalent
of diagram (a) but becomes a cumbersome technique when expanded beyond
three parallel equipments.
3.

REQUIREMENT

3.1

The contractor shall develop and maintain a Mission Reliability

model for each configured item required to perform the mission functions.
A Mission Reliability block diagram shall be developed and maintained
for the item with associated allocations and predictions in each reliabilty
block. The Mission Reliability block diagram shall be keyed and traceable
to the Basic Reliability model, functional block diagram, schematics and
drawings, and shall provide the basis for accurate mathematical representation
of Mission Reliability. Nomenclature of elements of the item used in
the Mission Reliability diagrams shall be consistent with that used in
the Basic Reliability model, functional block diagram, drawings and
schematics, weight statements, power budgets and specifications.
3.2

Hardware or functional elements of the item which are not

included in the Mission Reliability model shall be identified. Rationale
for each element's exclusion from the Mission Reliability model shall be
provided.
3.3
The Mission Reliability mathematical model shall be capable of
being readily updated with information resulting from reliability and
other relevant tests as well as changes in item configuration, mission
parameters and operational constraints.
3.4
If a Failure Mode, Effects and Criticality Analysis (FMECA) is
required, the Mission Reliability model and the FMECA shall be consistent
in the definition of mission success and utilization of elements of the
item in redundant and alternate modes of operation in specific mission
phases.

102-9

TASK 102
18 November 1981

MIL-S TD- 756 B

TASK SECTION 200

RELIABILITY PREDICTION

1.

DOCUMENTS REFERENCED I N TASK SECTION 200:

STANDARDS
Military
MIL-STD-1670

Environmental C r i t e r i a and G u i d e l i n e s f o r A i r Launched Weapons

HANDBOOKS
Military
MIL-HDBK-217

R e l i a b i l i t y P r e d i c t i o n of E l e c t r o n i c Equipment

MIL-HDBK-251

R e l i a b i l i t y / D e s i g n Thermal A p p l i c a t i o n s

OTHER PUBLICATIONS

2.

RADC-TR-73-248

Dormancy and Power On-Off Cycling E f f e c t s on

E l e c t r o n i c Equipment and P a r t R e l i a b i l i t y

RADC-TR- 7 4- 26 9

E f f e c t s of Dormancy on Nonelectronic Components

and Materials

LC- 7 8-1

S t o r a g e R e l i a b i l i t y of Missile Material Program,

Missile Material R e l i a b i l i t y Handbook P a r t
Count P r e d i c t i o n

GIDEP

Government I n d u s t r y Data Exchange Program,

Summaries of F a i l u r e Rates

NPRD-1

N o n e l e c t r o n i c P a r t s R e l i a b i l i t y Data, 1978

GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

2.1
C l a s s i f i c a t i o n . R e l i a b i l i t y p r e d i c t i o n s , as d e f i n e d h e r e i n ,
are c l a s s i f i e d as f o l l o w s :
Type I

Feasibility prediction

Type I1

Preliminary design prediction

Type I11

Detailed design p r e d i c t i o n

200-1

TASK SECTION 200

18 November 1981

MIL-STD-756B
Generalized d e s c r i p t i o n s of p r e d i c t i o n s s p e c i f i e d by t h i s s t a n d a r d w i l l
be found i n t h e f o l l o w i n g paragraphs. Examples of r e l i a b i l i t y p r e d i c t i o n
methods a p p r o p r i a t e f o r t h e t h r e e t y p e s of p r e d i c t i o n s are provided by
Methods 2001 through 2005. The a p p l i c a b i l i t y of i n d i v i d u a l requirements
of S e c t i o n 200 h e r e i n i s a f u n c t i o n of t h e t y p e of p r e d i c t i o n t o be
performed; t h e s t e p s d e l i n e a t e d w i l l be performed t o t h e e x t e n t p e r m i t t e d
by t h e l e v e l of d e s i g n c o n f i g u r a t i o n d a t a a v a i l a b l e . Unless o t h e r w i s e
s p e c i f i e d , t h e r e l i a b i l i t y p r e d i c t i o n s h a l l be f o r worst case o p e r a t i n g
and environmental c o n d i t i o n s .

2.1.1
F e a s i b i l i t y p r e d i c t i o n (Type I ) . F e a s i b i l i t y p r e d i c t i o n i s
i n t e n d e d f o r u s e i n t h e c o n c e p t u a l phase of i t e m development.
During
t h i s phase t h e l e v e l of d e t a i l e d d e s i g n i n f o r m a t i o n i s g e n e r a l l y r e s t r i c t e d
t o o v e r a l l a s p e c t s of t h e i t e m .
Detailed configuration d a t a generally
a r e l i m i t e d t o t h a t which may be d e r i v e d from e x i s t i n g i t e m s having
f u n c t i o n a l and o p e r a t i o n a l requirements s i m i l a r t o t h o s e of t h e i t e m
b e i n g developed. Methods 2001, 2002, and 2003 d e s c r i b e f e a s i b i l i t y
p r e d i c t i o n methods.
2.1.2
P r e l i m i n a r y d e s i g n p r e d i c t i o n (Type 11). P r e l i m i n a r y d e s i g n
p r e d i c t i o n i s i n t e n d e d f o r u s e i n t h e e a r l y d e t a i l e d d e s i g n phase.
During t h i s phase d e s i g n c o n f i g u r a t i o n d a t a a r e documented by e n g i n e e r i n g
s k e t c h e s and p r e l i m i n a r y drawings. The l e v e l of d e t a i l e d i n f o r m a t i o n
a v a i l a b l e may be r e s t r i c t e d t o p a r t l i s t i n g s . S t r e s s a n a l y s i s d a t a are
n o t g e n e r a l l y a v a i l a b l e . Method 2004 d e s c r i b e s a p r e l i m i n a r y d e s i g n
p r e d i c t i o n method.
2.1.3
D e t a i l e d d e s i g n p r e d i c t i o n (Type 111). D e t a i l e d d e s i g n p r e d i c t i o n
i s i n t e n d e d f o r use i n and subsequent t o t h e d e t a i l e d d e s i g-~
n phase.
T h i s phase i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by drawings which i d e n t i f y a l l p a r t s , materials,
and p r o c e s s e s needed t o produce t h e i t e m .
Operating stress and t e m p e r a t u r e
a n a l y s i s d a t a are n e c e s s a r y f o r each p a r t i n t h e i t e m . The a n a l y s i s
d a t a s h a l l be based on d e s i g n a n a l y s i s and measurement t e c h n i q u e s a c c e p t a b l e
t o t h e p r o c u r i n g a c t i v i t y . Method 2005 d e s c r i b e s a d e t a i l e d d e s i g n
p r e d i c t i o n method.
2.2
P a r t d e s c r i p t i o n . P a r t and a p p l i c a t i o n d e s c r i p t i o n s s h a l l be
provided f o r any p r e d i c t i o n based upon p a r t f a i l u r e rates. 'The p a r t
i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number from t h e schematic diagram, t h e a p p l i c a b l e s p e c i f i c a t i o n
and t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n t y p e number s h a l l be i n c l u d e d .
2.3
Environmental d a t a . Environmental d a t a a f f e c t i n g p a r t f a i l u r e
r a t e s must be d e f i n e d . These d a t a i n c l u d e t h e s p e c i f i c n a t u r a l and
induced environments (nominal and worst c a s e ) a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e
o p e r a t i o n s , e v e n t s , and f u n c t i o n s d e s c r i b e d by t h e l o g i s t i c and o p e r a t i o n a l
c y c l e s . G u i d e l i n e s f o r determining t h e environmental c o n d i t i o n s of u s e
f o r air- launched weapons are found i n MIL-STD-1670.

TASK SECTION 200

200-2

18 November 1981
..

_I___

--..__ _____

_--_

.-.-

I
_
_
I
x

MIL-STD-756B

2.3.1
Environmental c a t e g o r i e s . Environmental c a t e g o r i e s s h a l l be
d e f i n e d f o r each service u s e e v e n t u s i n g Table 700-Las a g u i d e of
t y p i c a l c a t e g o r i e s . Data s o u r c e s , such as MIL-HDBK-217 and WRD-1 which
u t i l i z e environmental f a c t o r s t o a d j u s t f a i l u r e rates, s h a l l apply t h e
environmental f a c t o r which most c l o s e l y matches t h e i n t e n d e d environment.
F a c t o r s u t i l i z e d s h a l l be c i t e d and s u b s t a n t i a t e d .
2.3.2
P a r t o p e r a t i n g temperature. P a r t t e m p e r a t u r e s used f o r p r e d i c t i o n
purposes s h a l l i n c l u d e t h e i t e m i n t e r n a l t e m p e r a t u r e r i s e as determined
by thermal a n a l y s i s o r t e s t d a t a . For g e n e r a l guidance and d e t a i l e d
thermal a n a l y s i s procedures, r e f e r t o MIL-HDBK-251.
2.4
S t r e s s a n a l y s i s . Analyses s h a l l be performed t o determine t h e
o p e r a t i n g stresses t o be experienced by each p a r t commensurate w i t h t h e
p r e d i c t i o n c l a s s i f i c a t i o n and t h e d e s i g n d e t a i l a v a i l a b l e . These a n a l y s e s
s h a l l be based on t e c h n i q u e s a c c e p t a b l e t o t h e p r o c u r i n g a c t i v i t y .
F a i l u r e r a t e s s h a l l be modified by a p p r o p r i a t e f a c t o r s t o account f o r
t h e e f f e c t of a p p l i e d stress. S t r e s s r a t i o s c i t e d i n t h e p r e d i c t i o n
r e p o r t s h a l l be i n d i v i d u a l l y i d e n t i f i e d as Estimated ( E ) , C a l c u l a t e d
(C) , o r Measured (M)

2.5
F a i l u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n s . The f a i l u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n a p p r o p r i a t e
t o t h e s p e c i f i c e l e c t r o n i c , e l e c t r i c a l , e l e c t r o m e c h a n i c a l , mechanical,
and ordnance i t e m s h a l l be used i n computation. I n i n s t a n c e s where t h e
f a i l u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r t h e item i s n o t known, t h e e x p o n e n t i a l , binominal,
w e i b u l l , o r o t h e r f a i l u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n may be assumed. The f a i l u r e
d i s t r i b u t i o n s u t i l i z e d s h a l l be c i t e d and any assumptions s u b s t a n t i a t e d
in t h e p r e d i c t i o n r e p o r t .
2.6
F a i l u r e rates. F a i l u r e r a t e s f o r a l l e l e c t r o n i c , e l e c t r i c a l ,
e l e c t r o m e c h a n i c a l , mechanical, and ordnance items are r e q u i r e d f o r each
s i g n i f i c a n t event and environment d e f i n e d by t h e service u s e p r o f i l e .
All s o u r c e s of f a i l u r e d a t a s h a l l be approved by t h e p r o c u r i n g a c t i v i t y
p r i o r t o use. Basic f a i l u r e rates from most d a t a s o u r c e s must be modified
w i t h a p p r o p r i a t e f a c t o r s t o account f o r t h e s p e c i f i c i t e m a p p l i c a t i o n
under c o n s i d e r a t i o n . F a c t o r s used s h a l l be c i t e d and s u b s t a n t i a t e d i n
the prediction report.
2.6.1
F u n c t i o n a l group f a i l u r e r a t e s . F u n c t i o n a l group f a i l u r e
r a t e s may be d e r i v e d from f a i l u r e rate d a t a f o r f u n c t i o n a l l y s i m i l a r
groups o r i t e m s . The GIDEP F a i l u r e R a t e Summaries are an a v a i l a b l e
s o u r c e f o r l o c a t i n g group and i t e m f a i l u r e rates.
2.6.2
Operating f a i l u r e r a t e s . Operating f a i l u r e rates f o r e l e c t r o n i c
and e l e c t r o m e c h a n i c a l p a r t s may be found i n MIL-HDBK-217. F a i l u r e r a t e s
f o r o t h e r p a r t s may be found i n NPRD-1, t h e GIDEP F a i l u r e R a t e Summaries,
and o t h e r s o u r c e s .

200-3

TASK SECTION 200

18 November 1981

MIL-STD-756B
2.6.3
Nonoperating f a i l u r e rates. Nonoperating f a i l u r e r a t e s f o r
p a r t s t a k e i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n p e r t i n e n t environmental i n f l u e n c e s o r
o t h e r stresses of t h e a p p l i c a t i o n . Data s o u r c e s such as RADC-TR-73-248,
RADC-TR-74-269,
and LC-78-1 p r o v i d e nonoperating f a i l u r e rates.
2.6.4
S t o r a g e f a i l u r e rates. S t o r a g e f a i l u r e rates f o r p a r t s may be
found i n d a t a s o u r c e s such as WC-TR-73-248,
WC-TR-74-269,
and LC78-1.
2.7
Item r e l i a b i l i t y . I t e m r e l i a b i l i t y s h a l l be computed u s i n g
mathematical models and a p p l i c a b l e f a i l u r e r a t e d a t a . The p r e d i c t i o n
r e s u l t s s h a l l be expressed i n t e r m s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e s p e c i f i e d r e l i a b i l i t y
requirements.

3.
DETAILS TO BE SPECIFIED BY THE PA (SEE 5.1.1).
are a p p l i c a b l e when Tasks 201 o r 202 are involved:

(R)

(R)

The f o l l o w i n g

a.

S i n c e r e l i a b i l i t y modeling t a s k s are normally p r e r e q u i s i t e

t a s k s t o p r e d i c t i o n t a s k s , elements i n 3 of Task S e c t i o n 100 a p p l y .

b*

P r e d i c t i o n Type (See 2.1 of Task S e c t i o n 200).

C.

Worst Case A p p l i c a b i l i t y (See 2.1 of Task S e c t i o n 200).

d.

Environmental C a t e g o r i e s (See 2.3.1

e.

S t r e s s A n a l y s i s A p p l i c a b i l i t y (See 2.4 of Task S e c t i o n 200).

f.

F a i l u r e R a t e Data Sources (See 2.6 of Task S e c t i o n 200).

g*

I t e m R e l i a b i l i t y Requirements (See 2.7 of Task S e c t i o n 200).

h.

DI-R-7095 ( R e l i a b i l i t y P r e d i c t i o n and Documentation of Supporting

Data) should b e s p e c i f i e d when d e l i v e r a b l e d a t a i s d e s i r e d i n
conjunction with t h i s task.

i.

P r e d i c t i o n Method(s). An o p t i o n i s t o a l l o w c o n t r a c t o r s e l e c t i o n
of t h e a p p r o p r i a t e p r e d i c t i o n method(s). D i f f e r e n t p r e d i c t i o n
methods may b e a p p l i c a b l e t o d i f f e r e n t system components.

TASK SEC I O N 2

4!

18 Novem er 19

200-4

of Task S e c t i o n 200).

MIL-STD-756B

Table 200-1.

Environmental Symbol Identification and Description.

Symbol
Ground, Benign

GB

Space, Flight

SF

Ground, Fixed

Ground, Mobile

Naval, Sheltered
Naval, Unsheltered
Airborne,
Inhabited,
Transport

Airborne,
Inhabited,
Fighter
Airborne,
Inhabited,
Helicopter
Airborne,
Uninhabited,
Transport

Airborne,
Uninhabited,
Fighter
Airborne,
Uninhabited.
Helicopter

GF

GM

Nominal Environmental Conditions

Nearly zero environmental stress.
Earth orbital. Approaches Ground, Benign conditions.
Vehicle neither under powered flight nor in atmospheric reentry.
Conditions less than ideal to include installation
in permanent racks with adequate cooling air and
possible installation in unheated buildings.
Conditions more severe than those h r GF, mostly
for vibration and shock. Cooling air supply may
also be more limited.

NS

Surface ship conditions similar to GF but subject to

occasional high shock and vibration.

NU

Nominal surface shipborne conditions but with

repetitive high levels of shock and vibration.

AIT

Typical conditions in transport or bomber compartments

occupied by aircrew without environmental extremes of
pressure, temperature, shock and vibration, and
installed on long mission aircraft such as transports
and bombers.

AIF

Same as AIT but installed on high performance aircraft

such as fighters and interceptors.

AIH

Same as AI but installed on rotary wing aircraft such

as helicopTers.

%T

%F

Bomb bay, equipment bay, tail, or wing installations

where extreme pressure, vibration and temperature
cycling may be aggravated by contamination from oil,
hydraulic fluid and engine exhaust. Installed on long
mission aircraft such as transports and bombers.
Same as A
but installed on high performance aircraft
such as fyihters and interceptors.
installed on rotary wing aircraft such

%H

Severe conditions of noise, vibration, and other

environments related to missile launch, and space
vehicle boost into orbit, vehicle re-entry and landing
by parachute. Conditions may also apply to installation near main rocket engines during launch operations.

Missile, Launch

Y,

Missile, Captive
Carry

MC

Same as A, , % or
aircraft pTatfoFm.

Missile, Free
Flight

MF

Typical conditions of pressure, vibration and temperature experienced in atmospheric flight to target.

200-5

AVH depending on the applicable

TASK SECTION 200

18 November 1981

MIL-STD-756B
TASK 201
BASIC RELIABILITY PREDICTION
1.

PURP0SE/ RATIONALE

A Basic Reliability prediction utilizes a series model for

1.1
estimating the demand for maintenance and logistic support caused by an
item and its component parts.

1.2
The Basic Reliability prediction is used in conjunction with a
Mission Reliability prediction. Whereas the Mission Reliability prediction
indicates the capability of the item design to successfully accomplish
mission objectives, the Basic Reliability prediction indicates the
degree of maintenance and logistic support burden to be anticipated due
to item unreliability. It would be expected that for alternative item
design configurations with equivalent mission reliability and technical
development risk, the item design configuration with the higher support
reliability is the preferred design for enhancing operational readiness
and minimizing the costs associated with maintenance and logistics
support. In certain instances, a design configuration with less mission
reliability than other design configurations may be preferred if the
design's Basic reliability is significantly better than the competing
design.
1.3
A Basic Reliability prediction should be prepared as soon as
possible and updated whenever changes in design or data occur. While
early predictions are inherently unrefined because of insufficient
design detail, they provide useful feedback to designers and management
in either establishing reliability requirements in the form of apportionments
(allocations) or the feasibility of meeting reliability requirements.

1.4

A s the item progresses from paper design to hardware stages,

predictions evolve into assessments as actual program test data become
available and are integrated into the calculations. The validity of
bnth predictions and assessments i s a function of data quality and
asswptions. yalid, timely aqalyses projecting or indicating deficient
reliability attainment grovide the basis for corrective action, and the
sooner that corrective action is identtfied, the less its implementation
is impacted by program constraints, and the higher are the payoffs over
the life of the item.

1.5
The prediction and assessment tasks, iterative and interrelated
with activities such as reliability allocation and configuration analyses,
should be specified by the procuring activity during the early acquisition
phases to determine reliability feasibility and, during the development
production phases, to determine reliability acceptability.
2.

REQUIREMENT

2.1
The contractor shall prepare, and maintain a Basic Reliability
prediction based upon a defined configuration and an associated Basic
Reliability model. All equipments and associated quantities comprising

201-1

TASK 201
18 November 7 981

M I L-STD- 756B
t h e i t e m s h a l l be included i n t h e model except f o r documented e x c l u s i o n s
approved by the procuring a c t i v i t y . F a i l u r e r a t e d a t a ( o r e q u i v a l e n t
r e l i a b i l i t y parameters) s h a l l be c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e level of d e t a i l of
t h e Basic R e l i a b i l i t y model and a v a i l a b i l i t y of p r o c u r i n g a c t i v i t y
approved r e l e v a n t d a t a s o u r c e s f o r a comprehensive p r e d i c t i o n (e.g.,
software r e l i a b i l i t y , human r e l i a b i l i t y , s t o r a g e r e l i a b i l i t y , e t c . ) .

2.2
When r e q u i r e d , p r e d i c t i o n s s h a l l account f o r , and d i f f e r e n t i a t e
between, each mode of i t e m o p e r a t i o n as d e f i n e d i n t h e i t e m s p e c i f i c a t i o n .
P r e d i c t i o n s s h a l l be made showing t h e c a p a b i l i t y of t h e i t e m t o m e e t a l l
r e l i a b i l i t y requirements s p e c i f i e d by t h e procuring a c t i v i t y . The
p r e d i c t i o n shall be based upon t h e worst- case s e r v i c e use p o r f i l e u n l e s s
otherwise s p e c i f i e d .

2.3
A l l d a t a s o u r c e s f o r f a i l u r e rates, f a i l u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n and
f a i l u r e rate adjustment f a c t o r s ( e . g . , stress f a c t o r s , d u t y c y c l e , e t c . )
s h a l l be i d e n t i f i e d f o r each r e l i a b i l i t y block. Data s o u r c e s s h a l l be
as s p e c i f i e d o r otherwise approved by t h e procuring a c t i v i t y .

TASK 201

18 November 1981

201-2

MIL-STD-756B
TASK 202

MISSION RELIABILITY PmDICTION

1.

PURPOSE/RATIONALE

A Mission R e l i a b i l i t y p r e d i c t i o n normally u t i l i z e s a complex

1.1
s e r i e s - p a r a l l e l model f o r e s t i m a t i n g an item's c a p a b i l i t y t o s u c c e s s f u l l y
perform s p e c i f i e d mission o b j e c t i v e s .

1.2
The Mission R e l i a b i l i t y p r e d i c t i o n i s used i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h
a Support R e l i a b i l i t y p r e d i c t i o n . Whereas t h e Mission R e l i a b i l i t y
p r e d i c t i o n i n d i c a t e s t h e c a p a b i l i t y of t h e i t e m d e s i g n t o s u c c e s s f u l l y
accomplish mission o b j e c t i v e s , t h e Support R e l i a b i l i t y p r e d i c t i o n i n d i c a t e s
t h e degree of maintenance and l o g i s t i c support burden t o be a n t i c i p a t e d
due t o i t e m u n r e l i a b i l i t y . Obviously, f o r a l t e r n a t i v e i t e m d e s i g n
c o n f i g u r a t i o n s w i t h e q u i v a l e n t mission r e l i a b i l i t y and t e c h n i c a l development
r i s k , t h e i t e m d e s i g n c o n f i g u r a t i o n s w i t h t h e h i g h e r support r e l i a b i l i t y
i s t h e p r e f e r r e d d e s i g n f o r enhancing o p e r a t i o n a l r e a d i n e s s and minimizing
t h e c o s t s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h maintenance and l o g i s t i c s s u p p o r t . I n c e r t a i n
i n s t a n c e s , a d e s i g n c o n f i g u r a t i o n w i t h less mission r e l i a b i l i t y t h a n
o t h e r d e s i g n c o n f i g u r a t i o n s may be p r e f e r r e d i f t h e d e s i g n ' s support
r e l i a b i l i t y i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y b e t t e r t h a n t h e competing design.

1.3
A Mission R e l i a b i l i t y p r e d i c t i o n should be prepared as soon as
p o s s i b l e and updated whenever changes i n d e s i g n o r d a t a occur. While
early p r e d i c t i o n s are i n h e r e n t l y unrefined because of i n s u f f i c i e n t
d e s i g n d e t a i l , t h e y provide u s e f u l feedback t o d e s i g n e r s and management
An e i t h e r e s t a b l i s h i n g r e l i a b i l i t y requirements i n t h e form of apportionments
(allocatiQns) o r t h e f e a s i b i l i t y of meeting r e l i a b i l i t y requirements.

1.4

As t h e item p r o g r e s s e s from paper d e s i g n t o hardware s t a g e s ,

p r e d i c t i o n s evolve i n t o assessments as a c t u a l program t e s t d a t a become

a v a i l a b l e gqd are i n t e g r a t e d i n t o t h e c a l c u l a t i o n s . The v a l i d i t y of
boqh pxediscions and assessments i s a f u n c t i o n of d a t a q u a l i t y and
gs.qun)ptioqs, valid, timely a n a l y s e s p r o j e c t i n g o r i n d i c a t i n g d e f i c i e n t
xeli,abil,ity atqainment provide t h e bqsis f o r c o r r e c t i v e acqion, and t h e
sooner t h a t c o r r e c t i v e a c t i o n i s i d e n t i f i e d , t h e less i t s implementation
i s impacted by program c o n s t r a i n t s , and t h e h i g h e r a r e . t h e p a y o f f s over
t h e l i f e of t h e i t e m .

1.5
The p r e d i c t i o n and assessment t a s k s , i t e r a t i v e and i n t e r r e l a t e d
w i t h a c t i v i t i e s such as r e l i a b i l i t y a l l o c a t i o n and c o n f i g u r a t i o n a n a l y s e s ,
should be s p e c i f i e d by t h e procuring a c t i v i t y d u r i n g t h e e a r l y a c q u i s i t i o n
phases t o determine r e l i a b i l i t y f e a s i b i l i t y and, during t h e development
and production phases, t o determine r e l i a b i l i t y a c c e p t a b i l i t y .

202-1

TASK 202

18 November '1 981

MIL-STD-756B

2.

REQUIREMENT

2.1
The c o n t r a c t o r s h a l l p r e p a r e and m a i n t a i n a Mission R e l i a b i l i t y
p r e d i c t i o n based upon a d e f i n e d c o n f i g u r a t i o n and an a s s o c i a t e d Mission
R e l i a b i l i t y model. A l l equipments and a s s o c i a t e d q u a n t i t i e s comprising
t h e i t e m s h a l l be i n c l u d e d i n t h e model except f o r documented e x c l u s i o n s
approved by t h e p r o c u r i n g a c t i v i t y . The p r e d i c t i o n s h a l l r e f l e c t d e s i g n
p r o v i s i o n s f o r i t e m redundancies and a l t e r n a t e modes of o p e r a t i o n i n t e n d e d
t o enhance m i s s i o n s u c c e s s . F a i l u r e r a t e d a t a ( o r e q u i v a l e n t r e l i a b i l i t y
parameters) s h a l l be c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e l e v e l of d e t a i l of t h e Mission
R e l i a b i l i t y model and a v a i l a b i l i t y of p r o c u r i n g a c t i v i t y approved r e l e v a n t
d a t a s o u r c e s f o r a comprehensive p r e d i c t i o n (e.g., s o f t w a r e r e l i a b i l i t y ,
human r e l i a b i l i t y , s t o r a g e r e l i a b i l i t y , e t c . ) .
2.2
When r e q u i r e d , p r e d i c t i o n s s h a l l account f o r , and d i f f e r e n t i a t e
between, each mode of i t e m o p e r a t i o n as d e f i n e d i n t h e i t e m s p e c i f i c a t i o n .
P r e d i c t i o n s s h a l l be made showing t h e c a p a b i l i t y of t h e i t e m t o m e e t a l l
r e l i a b i l i t y requirements s p e c i f i e d by t h e p r o c u r i n g a c t i v i t y . The
p r e d i c t i o n s h a l l be based upon t h e worst case service u s e p r o f i l e u n l e s s
otherwise specified.

2.3
A l l d a t a s o u r c e s f o r f a i l u r e r a t e s , f a i l u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n s and
f a i l u r e r a t e adjustment f a c t o r s (e.g., stress f a c t o r s , d u t y c y c l e , e t c . )
Data s o u r c e s s h a l l be
s h a l l be i d e n t i f i e d f o r each r e l i a b i l i t y block.
a s s p e c i f i e d o r o t h e r w i s e approved by t h e p r o c u r i n g a c t i v i t y .

TASK 202

18 November 1981

202-2

MIL-STD-756B
METHOD 1001
CONVENTIONAL PROBABILITY

1.
PURPOSE. The purpose of t h e c o n v e n t i o n a l p r o b a b i l i t y method
i s t o p r e p a r e a r e l i a b i l i t y mathematical model from a r e l i a b i l i t y block
diagram by means of c o n v e n t i o n a l p r o b a b i l i t y r e l a t i o n s h i p s . The conventional
p r o b a b i l i t y method i s a p p l i c a b l e t o s i n g l e f u n c t i o n e d and m u l t i f u n c t i o n e d
sy s t e m s .
2.

PROCEDURE.

2.1
S i n g l e f u n c t i o n e d systems. S i n g l e f u n c t i o n e d systems c o n s i s t
of equipments considered t o have a s i n g l e f u n c t i o n a s s o c i a t e d w i t h
equipment performance. The s i n g l e f u n c t i o n e d system Mission R e l i a b i l i t y
diagram can t a k e t h e form of equipments connected i n series, p a r a l l e l ,
s e r i e s - p a r a l l e l , o r a complex c o n f i g u r a t i o n .
A l t e r n a t e modes of o p e r a t i o n
can be considered i n s i n g l e f u n c t i o n e d system models. The s i n g l e f u n c t i o n e d
system Basic R e l i a b i l i t y diagram can only be a series c o n f i g u r a t i o n i n
which any equipments provided f o r redundancy o r a l t e r n a t e modes of
o p e r a t i o n f o r m i s s i o n s u c c e s s are modeled i n series. The c o n v e n t i o n a l
p r o b a b i l i t y method makes u s e of t h e e q u a t i o n s developed f o r redundancy
t o handle series, p a r a l l e l , and s e r i e s - p a r a l l e l combinations of equipments.
For non- series p a r a l l e l o r complex c o n f i g u r a t i o n s , u s e o r r e p e a t e d u s e
of t h e f o l l o w i n g e q u a t i o n i s r e q u i r e d .
Ps = Ps ( i f X i s good)

Where

% + Ps

( i f X is bad) Qx

(1)

Ps = r e l i a b i l i t y of m i s s i o n
Ps ( i f X i s good) = r e l i a b i l i t y of m i s s i o n i f X i s good
Ps ( i f X i s bad) = r e l i a b i l i t y of m i s s i o n i f X i s bad

%=
Qx

r e l i a b i l i t y of X

= u n r e l i a b i l i t y of 3 =

1-

In QtheF words, t h e r e l i a b i l i t y of t h e m i s s i o n i s e q u a l t o t h e r e l i a b i l i t y
of t h e m i s s i o n g i v e n a s p e c i f i c p o r t i o n of t h e system works t i m e s t h e
p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t a p o r t i o n of t h e system w i l l work p l u s t h e r e l i a b i l i t y of
t h e m i s s i o n given t h a t a s p e c i f i c p o r t i o n of t h e system f a i l s t i m e s t h e
probability that that portion f a i l s .
The aboye formula can a l s o be used t o g e n e r a t e p r o b a b i l i t y of s u c c e s s
equations f o r s e r i e s - p a r a l l e l configurations.
Formulas f o r p r o b a b i l i t y of s u c c e s s , Ps, f o r v a r i o u s system c o n f i g u r a t i o n s
are d e r i v e d as f o l l o w s f o r y a r i o u s s u c c e s s diagrams. Each formula shown
can be used as a b u i l d i n g block t o e y a l u a t e a more complex s u c c e s s diagram.

1001-1

METHOD 1001
18 November 1981

MIL-STD-756B
2.1.1

S e r i e s model.

2.1.1.1

If t h e r e i s o n l y one equipment i n t h e system and i t i s r e q u i r e d ,

t h e n t h e Mission R e l i a b i l i t y (and Basic R e l i a b i l i t y ) diagram i s :

-m-~

SUCCESS

The p r o b a b i l i t y of s u c c e s s f o r t h e system i s o b v i o u s l y t h e p r o b a b i l i t y
of s u c c e s s of equipment A, o r
Ps = PA

(2)

The p r o b a b i l i t y of A f a i l i n g would be 1

PA

2.1.1.2
For a two equipment s e r i a l system t h e Mission R e l i a b i l i t y
(and Basic R e l i a b i l i t y ) diagram i s :

Ps = P ( s u c c e s s w i t h A working) P
A

P ( s u c c e s s w i t h A f a i l u r e ) P (A f a i l i n g )

S
'

= A
'

B
'

i f A and B are i d e n t i c a l

2.1.1.3
For a t h r e e equipment s e r i a l system t h e Mission R e l i a b i l i t y
(and Basic R e l i a b i l i t y ) diagram i s :

PCJ = P ( s u c c e s s w i t h A working) PA
P ( s u c c e s s w i t h A f a i l e d ) (1
Ps = (PB PC) PA
Where

0 (1

- PA)

PA)

i s d e r i v e d as i n (3) above.

Ps = PA PB Pc

(5)

MIL-STD-756B
2.1.2

P a r a l l e l models.

2.1.2.1
For a two equipment active p a r a l l e l system t h e Mission
R e l i a b i l i t y diagram is:

Ps

+
- PA)

P(mission s u c c e s s w i t h A working) PA
P(mission s u c c e s s w i t h A f a i l e d ) (1

i f A and B are i d e n t i c a l

The e q u i v a l e n t Basic R e l i a b i l i t y mathematical model f o r t h i s system

is ( 3 ) .

2.1.2.2
For a t h r e e equipment active p a r a l l e l system t h e Mission
R e l i a b i l i t y diagram i s :

pS

PA

+ pB + Pc - PA Pg - PA Pc - Pg Pc + PA PB Pc

(8)

if A, B, and C are i d e n t i c a l

The e q u i v a l e n t Basic R e l i a b i l i t y mathematical model f o r t h i s system i s (5).

1001-3

METHOD 1001
18 November 1981

MIL-STD-756B
2.1.2.3
For a two equipment standby p a r a l l e l system t h e Mission R e l i a b i l i t y
diagram is:

I
The s w i t c h , S , d e t e c t s a f a i l u r e of t h e o p e r a t i v e element and i n s t a n t a n e o u s l y
s w i t c h e s from t h e f a i l e d element t o a standby element.
The s w i t c h may f a i l i n two ways: (1) t h e s w i t c h may f a i l t o o p e r a t e when
r e q u i r e d , Q and (2) t h e s w i t c h may o p e r a t e w i t h o u t command ( i . e . ,
prematurely!,
Q2.
Ps = P ( m i s s i o n s u c c e s s w i t h A working) PA
P(mission s u c c e s s w i t h A f a i l e d ) (1

PA)

ps Ps =
Where

P1 = p r o b a b i l i t y of no f a i l u r e t o s w i t c h when r e q u i r e d
P2 = p r o b a b i l i t y of no premature s w i t c h i n g .

The e q u i v a l e n t Basic R e l i a b i l i t y mathematical model f o r t h i s system i s :

Ps = A'

B'

1
' 2'

For a t h r e e element m a j o r i t y v o t i n g redundancy t h e Mission

2.1.2.4
R e l i a b i l i t y diagram is:

METHOD 1001

18 November 1981

1001-4

MIL-STD-756B
In majority voting redundancy the proper output of the system is presumed
to be the output of the majority of the individual elements which feed
the vote comparator. The output is determined by the vote comparator,
which decides what the majority of the elements indicates. In the three
element case, at least two good elements are required for successful
operation:
Ps = Pv (PA PB
Where Pv

+ PA PC + PB PC -

2 PA PB Pc)

(12)

reliability of the vote comparator.

The equivalent Basic Reliability mathematical model for this system is:
P s = PV PA P B PC
2.1.3

(13)

Series-parallel models.

2.1.3.1
As one example of a complex series-parallel combination of
equipments the Mission Reliability diagram is:

The system requirement would be that equipment A and either equipment

C1 or C2 work, or that equipments B1 and C1 work, or that B2 and C2 work
for success. Equipments with the same letter are identical, i.e.,
C1 = C2 and B1 = B2.
Ps

P(mission success with A working) PA

+P(mission success with A failed) (1

PA)

An example involving the above diagram follows:

Assuming
P

0.3

pB1
pcl

= P

B2

= 0.1

pc2 = 0.2

1001-5

METHOD 1001
18 November 1981

MIL-STD-756B
and t h e r e f ore,

(1

(1
(1

- PA)
- PB)
- Pc)

0.7

= 0.9
= 0.8

Evaluating t h e p r o b a b i l i t y of success f o r a given mission as:

Ps = ( - 4

.04).3

C.04

.0004] ( - 7 )

Ps = 0.13572

The e q u i v a l e n t Basic R e l i a b i l i t y mathematical model f o r t h i s system is:

2
2
Ps = PA PB pC

(1

and t h e Basic R e l i a b i l i t y i s 0.00012.

2.1.3.2
The same procedure can be followed f o r any complex Mission
R e l i a b i l i t y diagram. A s t h e Mission R e l i a b i l i t y diagram becomes
i n c r e a s i n g l y complex i t could be broken down i n t o p a r t s as shown i n t h e
diagram below. Equipments w i t h t h e same l e t t e r are i d e n t i c a l .

Reducing t h e mission success diagram using (14) and (7)

D'

METHOD 1001
18 November 1981

1001-6

57

MIL-STD-756B

And f i n a l l y u s i n g 2.1.2.1

NOTE:

and 2.1.1.2

t h e e q u a t i o n becomes

T h i s e q u a t i o n c a n be expanded and reduced.

The e q u i v a l e n t Basic R e l i a b i l i t y mathematical model f o r t h i s c o n f i g u r a t i o n

is:

P s = P A PB
2.1.3.3

pt
D'

E
'

A 2 o u t of 3 system Mission R e l i a b i l i t y diagram is:

or

Using (3) and ( 6 ) t h e answer c a n be w r i t t e n d i r e c t l y from diagram (b)

P s = P A pB + P A PC + P g P c - P A PB PA PC
PA Pc PB Pc

- PA PB PB Pc + PA PB PA Pc

PB Pc

(18)

When t h e same equipment a p p e a r s more t h a n once i n a diagram, t h e e q u a t i o n s

must be expanded i n t o i n d i v i d u a l terms and a l l h i g h e r o r d e r f a c t o r s
must be reduced t o s i n g l e o r d e r f a c t o r s b e f o r e i n s e r t i n g equipment
p r o b a b i l i t i e s numbers i n t o t h e e q u a t i o n . Thus,
2
2
2
PA = P A , PB = PB, and Pc = Pc
which r e s u l t s i n

The e q u i v a l e n t Basic R e l i a b i l i t y mathematical model for t h i s c o n f i g u r a t i o n

i s (5).

1001-7

METHOD 1001
18 November 1981

MIL-STD-756B

2.1.3.4

Mixed s e r i e s - p a r a l l e l s y s t e m M i s s i o n R e l i a b i l i t y d i a g r a m i s :

The example shows r e p e a t e d u s e of t h e M i s s i o n R e l i a b i l i t y f o r m u l a .

+
(1 - PB)

Ps = P ( m i s s i o n s u c c e s s w i t h B working) PB
P(mission success with B f a i l e d )

By s e l e c t i n g B and t h e X p o r t i o n of t h e e q u a t i o n , t h e s y s t e m d o e s n o t
1001)
( S e e 2.1 of Methodr e d u c e t o a series p a r a l l e l .
__.I f B f a i l s Mission R e l i a b i l i t y
diagram r e d u c e s t o :

If B works M i s s i o n R e l i a b i l i t y diagram
reduces to:

The f i r s t term of t h e M i s s i o n R e l i a b i l i t y d i a g r a m h a s n o t been reduced

t o a s e r i e s p a r a l l e l c o n f i g u r a t i o n . T h e r e f o r e , t h e p r o c e s s must be r e p e a t e d
as though t h i s d i a g r a m were t h e new system.
Ps = P ( m i s s i o n s u c c e s s w i t h B working) PB

P ( m i s s i o n s u c c e s s w i t h B working) = P ( s u c c e s s w i t h B and C working) PC

P ( s u c c e s s w i t h B working and C f a i l e d )
( 1 - Pc>

1001-8

METHOD 1001

18 November 1981

__

---- -

--.-

.--

MIL-STD-756B

P ( s u c c e s s w i t h B working and C f a i l e d ) = PA PE PD
P ( s u c c e s s w i t h B and C working) = (PA + PF
S u b s t i t u t i n g we g e t P

(PA

+ PF pE

PA PF) PD

PA PF)PD Pc

PF PC

+ PA PD PE

PE pF 'C)PD

(1

(l

Pc) PB -t

pB)

(20)

The e q u i v a l e n t Basic R e l i a b i l i t y mathematical model f o r t h i s system i s :

2.2
M u l t i f u n c t i o n e d systems, M u l t i f u n c t i o n e d systems c a n be t r e a t e d
s i m i l a r l y t o s i n g l e - f u n c t i o n e d systems i f one of t h e f o l l o w i n g a p p l i e s :
a.

If no equipment appears i n more t h a n one f u n c t i o n .

b.

If f u n c t i o n s a r e t i m e independent, i . e . , t h e y are e i t h e r
t i m e sequenced f u n c t i o n s o r t h e y are never used s i m u l t a n e o u s l y .

I f e i t h e r ( a ) o r (b) above a p p l i e s , t h e procedure i s as f o l l o w s :

Treat each f u n c t i o n s e p a r a t e l y as d e s c r i b e d under s i n g l e f u n c t i o n e d systems.
For t h e system, t h e f u n c t i o n s are t r e a t e d as equipments and can be
combined i n series o r p a r a l l e l depending on t h e requirements. The r e s u l t a n t
diagram i s t r e a t e d as a s i n g l e f u n c t i o n e d system. Each separate
f u n c t i o n can be compared with a r e l i a b i l i t y requirement f o r t h a t f u n c t i o n
i f desired.

When an equipment a p p e a r s i n several f u n c t i o n s , t h e f u n c t i o n s cannot be

t r e a t e d s e p a r a t e l y . The f o l l o w i n g example i l l u s t r a t e s t h e p o i n t .
A system has two f u n c t i o n s . The f i r s t f u n c t i o n r e q u i r e s A o r B f o r
s u c c e s s and t h e second f u n c t i o n r e q u i r e s B o r C f o r s u c c e s s . Both
f u n c t i o n s are r e q u i r e d f o r m i s s i o n s u c c e s s . Mission R e l i a b i l i t y diagrams
f o r Function 1, Function 2 , and t h e system a r e shown below.

Function 1

Function 2

System

Assuming
PA = 0.9
PB = 0.8
P c = 0.7

1001-9

METHOD 1001
18 November 1981

MIL-STP-756B
Then the reliability of the function would be
Function 1 = 0.9

+ 0.8 -

(0.9)

+ 0.7 -

(0.8) (0.7)

(0.8)

= 0.98

Function 2 = 0.8
= 0.94

Mission Reliability cannot be derived by multiplying function reliabilities

because of the counnon element B.
Mission Reliability # (0.98)

(0.94)

= 0.9212

+ PA Pc - PA PB PC
(0.8) + (0.9) (0.7) -

Mission Reliability = PB
=

(0.9)

(0.8)

(0.7)

(22)

= 0.926

The equivalent Basic Reliability mathematical model for this system

is (5) and the Basic Reliability is 0.504.
2.2.1

Conventional probability method.

Ps can be written directly

This equation must be reduced before inserting the probabilities for the
various equipments. This is the basic difference between using this method
for single and multifunctioned systems.
Reduce the equation by multiplying terms

Where the same,probability appears twice in a term delete one of the

common factors.

METHOD 1001

18 November 1981

1001-10

MIL-STD-756B

Ps = P

+ PA Pc - PA PB Pc + PB + PB Pc - PB Pc

- PA PB P C + PA PB Pc
= PA Pc + PB - PA Pg P c

PAPB

simplifying P

The same r e s u l t c o u l d be achieved u s i n g (1) as f o l l o w s :

Ps = P(mission s u c c e s s w i t h B working) PB

+ P(mission
Ps = (1) PB
P s = PB

s u c c e s s w i t h B f a i l e d ) (1

+ PA Pc

+ PA PC -

P,)

(1 - PB)

PA PB PC

1001-11

METHOD 1001

18 November 1981

MIL-STD-756B

METHOD 1002

BOOLEAN TRUTH TABLE

1.
PURPOSE. The purpose of t h e Boolean T r u t h Table method i s t o
p r e p a r e a r e l i a b i l i t y mathematical model from a r e l i a b i l i t y b l o c k diagram
by means of Boolean a l g e b r a . The Boolean Truth Table method i s a p p l i c a b l e
t o s i n g l e f u n c t i o n e d and m u l t i f u n c t i o n e d systems. T h i s method i s more
t e d i o u s t h a n t h e c o n v e n t i o n a l p r o b a b i l i t y method b u t i s u s e f u l when
t h e r e i s f a m i l i a r i t y w i t h Boolean a l g e b r a .
2.

PROCEDURE.

2.1
S i n g l e f u n c t i o n e d systems. S i n g l e f u n c t i o n e d systems c o n s i s t
of equipments c o n s i d e r e d t o have a s i n g l e f u n c t i o n a s s o c i a t e d w i t h
equipment performance. The s i n g l e f u n c t i o n e d system Mission R e l i a b i l i t y
diagram can t a k e t h e form of equipments connected i n series, p a r a l l e l ,
s e r i e s - p a r a l l e l , o r a complex c o n f i g u r a t i o n . A l t e r n a t e modes of o p e r a t i o n
can b e c o n s i d e r e d i n s i n g l e f u n c t i o n e d system models. The s i n g l e f u n c t i o n e d
system Basic R e l i a b i l i t y diagram can o n l y b e a series c o n f i g u r a t i o n i n
which any equipments provided f o r redundancy o r a l t e r n a t e modes of
o p e r a t i o n f o r m i s s i o n s u c c e s s are modeled i n series. The procedure f o r
t h e Boolean T r u t h Table approach i s i l l u s t r a t e d by t h e f o l l o w i n g example.
The Mission R e l i a b i l i t y diagram i s given as:

given :
PA = 0.3
PB1 = PB2 = 0.1

- PA
1 - Pg
1

and t h e r e f o r e

= 0.7
=

0.9

= 0.2
1 P = 0.8
C
c2
The Boolean a l g e b r a approach l i s t s a l l equipments i n a t r u t h t a b l e form
(See Table 1002-IL ,me t r u t h t a b l e h a s 2" e n t r i e s where n i s t h e
number of equipments i n t h e system. The t a b l e h a s a 1 o r 0 e n t r y i n
each column i n d i c a t i n g s u c c e s s o r f a i l u r e r e s p e c t i v e l y on each equipment.
A l l p o s s i b l e combinations of a l l equipments working and f a i l i n g are t h u s
l i s t e d . The procedure i s t o examine each row of t h e t r u t h t a b l e and
d e c i d e whether t h e combination of equipments working and f a i l e d y i e l d s
system s u c c e s s ( S ) o r f a i l u r e ( F ) . I n s e r t an S o r F r e s p e c t i v e l y i n t h e
n e x t column i n t h e t a b l e . For each S e n t r y , m u l t i p l y t h e r e s p e c t i v e
p r o b a b i l i t i e s f o r t h e i n d i c a t e d s t a t e of each equipment t o y i e l d a P s
f o r t h a t entry.

pcl

= P

1002- 1

METHOD 1002
18 November 1981

MIL-STD-756B

Entry number 4 i s t h e e n t r y with a success i n d i c a t e d and .03888 i s obtained

by mu1t i p l y i n g
(1

-P

(1

B1

- PB

( . 9 ) (.9) (.8)

) -(I

Pcl)

or

Pc2 PA

(.2) (.3) = .03888

A l l f i g u r e s i n t h e Ps column are then added f o r a Mission R e l i a b i l i t y

p r o b a b i l i t y o r .13572 i n t h i s example.

The e q u i v a l e n t Basic R e l i a b i l i t y mathematical model f o r t h i s system i s :

and t h e Basic R e l i a b i l i t y p r o b a b i l i t y i s 0.00012.

Table 1002-1. Truth Table Calculation for the
Mission R e l i a b i l i t y Diagram.
Entry N o .

B1

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

2
3

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32

B2

c1

c2

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1

0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1

0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1.
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0

1
0
1
0
1
0
1

Success
or Failure

F
F
F
S
F
S
F
S
F
F
S

S
F

pS

.03888

.03888

.00972

.01008
.00432

.00432
.00252
.00108

F
F
F
S
S
S

.00432
,01008
.00432

0
1
0

-00252

S
F

-00108

1
0
1
0
1
0
1

S
S
S

S
S
S

.00112
.00048
.00112
.00048
.00028
.00012

C All success paths = .13572

METHOD 1002

18 November 1981

1002-2

MIL-STD-756B

2.1.1
Boolean a l g e b r a e q u a t i o n . A Mission R e l i a b i l i t y e q u a t i o n can
b e w r i t t e n from t h e t r u t h t a b l e (Table 1002-1) i s d e s i r e d . I n t h i s case
i t would look l i k e t h e o
w
n
g
:lio
lf

+ B1

z2Fl C2 A + B1 x2 C1 C2 A + B1 z2 C1 c2 A + B1

-t- B1

y2 C1

B1 B2 C1

C2 A

+ B1

c2A + B1

B2

Tl C2 A + B1

B2 C1 C2

A + B1

B2

Tl C2

+ B1

B2 C1

C2

- -

B2 C1 C2 A

B2 C1 C2 A

(2)

A b a r above a l e t t e r i n d i c a t e s t h e complement o r u n r e l i a b i l i t y , e.g.,

A = (1 - A).

With t h e a i d of a r e d u c t i o n t e c h n i q u e t h e n i n e t e e n terms of ( 2 ) can b e

reduced a s f o l l o w s :

a.

A r e d u c t i o n t a b l e (Table 1007-TTL i s c o n s t r u c t e d which a l l o w s

t h e r e d u c t i o n of t h e 19 Boolean s u c c e s s terms t o a s i m p l i f i e d
e x p r e s s i o n f o r t h e given Mission R e l i a b i l i t y model. A l l 19
s u c c e s s p a t h s are f i r s t l i s t e d i n Column 1 of Table lQ(&IL.
A l l l e t t e r s r e p r e s e n t e d by a z e r o (0) i n Table
*
1002-1 are
i n d i c a t e d w i t h a b a r over t h e l e t t e r . T h i s i n d i c a t e s u n r e l i a b i l i t y . Any l e t t e r r e p r e s e n t e d w i t h a one (1) i n Table
l-will
be l i s t e d w i t h o u t a b a r above i t i n d i c a t i n g r e l i a b i l i t y .

b.

By a comparative p r o c e s s , product p a i r s are formed f o r t h o s e

terms i n Column 1 of Table 1002-11 which d i f f e r o n l y by a
l e t t e r i n v e r s e , t h u s forming a new product term which h a g this
l e t t e r missing. For example, i f Column 1 t h e two t e r m s B 1 B 2
C 1 C 2 A and g1 gz C 1 C2 A d i f f e r o n l y i n t h e l e t t e r C l and
t h e r e f o r e can b e combined t o form t h e product term A
3 2 C2
e n t e r e d i n Column 2. Again, t h i s p r o c e s s i s r e p e a t e d by
comparing product terms i n Column 2 which d i f f e r o n l y by a
l e t t e r i n v e r s e , t h u s forming a new product t e r m which i s then
e n t e r e d i n Column 3. It should b e noted t h a t once a term i s
used i n a comparison, i t i s e l i m i n a t e d from a l l f u r t h e r comparisons,
t h u s e n s u r i n g t h a t a l l remaining terms are s t i l l mutually
e x c l u s i v e . The o r d e r of terms s e l e c t e d f o r t h e comparison
p r o c e s s i n Table J Q Q L L L i s n o t a n e c e s s a r y c o n s i d e r a t i o n ; t h e
r e s u l t i n g d i s j o i n t group of Boolean terms can always b e i n t e r p r e t e d ,
on a one- for- one b a s i s , as t h e s i m p l i f i e d p r o b a b i l i t y of
s u c c e s s ( r e l i a b i l i t y ) e x p r e s s i o n . For t h e g i v e n model, t h e
p r o b a b i l i t y of Mission R e l i a b i l i t y h a s been reduced t o t h e
f o l l o w i n g terms:

1002-3

METHOD 1002
18 November 1981

MIL-STD-756B

B1

c1

B1

c1

B1

c1

B1

B1

c1

B1

c1

c1

B1 B2 C1

c2

B1 B2 C1

F2 A

B1 B2 C1 C2

7B1 B2 c1 c2

B1 B2 c1 c2 A

METHOD 1002

18 November 1981

1002-4

B1

MIL-STD-756B

c.

S u b s t i t u t i n g t h e r e l i a b i l i t i e s and u n r e l i a b i l i t i e s used
p r e v i o u s l y i n t o (3), w e o b t a i n :

P:s = ( - 1 ) ( - 2 )

(.1)

(.1)

( - 9 ) ( - 1 ) (.2)

(.8)

(.2)

(.1)

( - 3 ) ( - 9 ) (.9)

(.9)

(-2)

( - 3 ) ( . 9 ) ( . 2 ) (.8)

(.8) (.2) ( . 3 ) = .13572 which i s

t h e same p r o b a b i l i t y of s u c c e s s shown i n t h e summation f o r Table

1002-1.

2.2
M u l t i f u n c t i o n e d systems. M u l t i f u n c t i o n e d systems can b e t r e a t e d
s i m i l a r l y t o s i n g l e f u n c t i o n e d systems i f one of t h e f o l l o w i n g a p p l i e s :

a.

I f no equipment a p p e a r s i n more than one f u n c t i o n .

b.

I f f u n c t i o n s are t i m e independent, i . e . , t h e y are e i t h e r t i m e

sequenced f u n c t i o n s o r they are never used s i m u l t a n e o u s l y .

If e i t h e r ( a ) o r (b) above a p p l i e s , t h e procedure i s a s f o l l o w s :

Treat each f u n c t i o n s e p a r a t e l y as d e s c r i b e d under s i n g l e f u n c t i o n e d
systems. For t h e system, t h e f u n c t i o n s are t r e a t e d as equipments and can
b e combined i n series o r p a r a l l e l depending on t h e requirements. The
r e s u l t a n t diagram i s t r e a t e d as a s i n g l e f u n c t i o n e d system. Each s e p a r a t e
f u n c t i o n can b e compared w i t h a r e l i a b i l i t y requirement f o r t h a t f u n c t i o n
i f desired.
When an equipment a p p e a r s i n s e v e r a l f u n c t i o n s , t h e f u n c t i o n s cannot b e
t r e a t e d s e p a r a t e l y . The f o l l o w i n g example i l l u s t r a t e s t h e p o i n t .
A system h a s two f u n c t i o n s . The f i r s t f u n c t i o n r e q u i r e s A o r B f o r s u c c e s s
and t h e second f u n c t i o n r e q u i r e s B o r C f o r s u c c e s s . Both f u n c t i o n s are
r e q u i r e d f o r m i s s i o n success. Mission R e l i a b i l i t y diagrams f o r Function
1, Function 2 , and t h e system are shown below:

Function 1

Function 2

System

Assuming
P A = 0.9
Pk = 0.8

P c = 0.7
Then t h e r e l i a b i l i t y of t h e f u n c t i o n would b e

1002-5

METHOD 1002
18 November 1981

MIL-STD-756B

Function 1 = 0.9

(0.9) (0.8)

+ 0.7 -

(0.8) (0.7)

0.8

= 0.98

Function 2 = 0.8
= 0.94

Mission R e l i a b i l i t y cannot b e d e r i v e d by m u l t z p l y i n g f u n c t i o n r e l i a b i l i t i e s
because of t h e common element B.
Mission R e l i a b i l i t y

# (0.98) (0.94)

Mission R e l i a b i l i t y = PB

PA Pc

= (0.8)
=

0.9212

- PA PB Pc

(0.9) (0.7)

(0.9) (0.8) (0.7)

(4)

0.926

The Boolean T r u t h Table s o l u t i o n i s :

A

0
0
0
0

0
0

0
1

F
F

1
1

5
5

0
1

1
1

Success or Failure

.024

1
0

1
0
1

5
5
5

.126
.216
.504

-056

TOTAL

.926

The e q u i v a l e n t Basic R e l i a b i l i t y mathematical model f o r t h i s system i s :

P s = PA PB PC

(5)

The Basic R e l i a b i l i t y i s 0.504.

METHOD 1002

18 November 1981

1002-5

MIL-STD-756B
METHOD 1003

LOGIC DIAGRAMS

1.
PURPOSE. The purpose of t h e l o g i c diagram method i s t o p r e p a r e
a r e l i a b i l i t y mathematical model from a r e l i a b i l i t y b l o c k diagram by means
o f l o g i c diagrams. The l o g i c diagram method i s a p p l i c a b l e t o s i n g l e f u n c t i o n e d
and m u l t i f u n c t i o n e d systems. This method i s more t e d i o u s t h a n t h e c o n v e n t i o n a l
p r o b a b i l i t y method b u t is a s h o r t c u t method f o r t h e Boolean t r u t h t a b l e
approach i n combining terms t o s i m p l i f y t h e Mission R e l i a b i l i t y e q u a t i o n .
2.

PROCEDURE.

2.1
S i n g l e f u n c t i o n e d systems. S i n g l e f u n c t i o n e d systems c o n s i s t
o f equipments c o n s i d e r e d t o have a s i n g l e f u n c t i o n a s s o c i a t e d w i t h
equipment performance. The s i n g l e f u n c t i o n e d system Mission R e l i a b i l i t y
diagram can t a k e t h e form of equipments connected i n series, p a r a l l e l ,
s e r i e s - p a r a l l e l , o r a complex c o n f i g u r a t i o n . A l t e r n a t e modes of o p e r a t i o n
can b e c o n s i d e r e d i n s i n g l e f u n c t i o n e d system models. The s i n g l e f u n c t i o n e d
system Basic R e l i a b i l i t y diagram can o n l y b e a series c o n f i g u r a t i o n i n
which any equipments provided f o r redundancy o r a l t e r n a t e modes of
o p e r a t i o n f o r m i s s i o n s u c c e s s are modeled i n series. The l o g i c diagram
procedure i s t o t r a n s l a t e t h e r e l i a b i l i t y b l o c k diagram i n t o a s w i t c h i n g
network. A c l o s e d c o n t a c t r e p r e s e n t s equipment s u c c e s s , an open c o n t a c t
equipment f a i l u r e . Each complete p a t h of c o n t a c t s r e p r e s e n t s a n a l t e r n a t e
mode of o p e r a t i o n . Each equipment t h a t i s r e q u i r e d f o r each a l t e r n a t i v e
mode of o p e r a t i o n i s i d e n t i f i e d by a c o n t a c t a l o n g a p a t h . A l l p a t h s
t e r m i n a t e a t t h e same p o i n t ( s u c c e s s ) . The l o g i c diagram i s developed
so t h a t a l l p a t h s are m u t u a l l y e x c l u s i v e ; by u s e of a few s i m p l e m a n i p u l a t i o n s ,
t h e amount of e f f o r t involved o v e r t h e Boolean t r u t h t a b l e method can b e
shortened.
Logic diagrams f o r s e r i e s , p a r a l l e l , and s e r i e s - p a r a l l e l diagrams are
e a s y t o draw as shown i n Table 1003-1.
For complex c o n f i g u r a t i o n s t h e procedure is t o reduce t h e r e l i a b i l i t y
diagram t o a s e r i e s - p a r a l l e l c o n f i g u r a t i o n by s u c c e s s i v e l y s p l i t t i n g t h e
diagram i n t o subdiagrams by removing one equipment and r e p l a c i n g i t w i t h
a s h o r t c i r c u i t and an open c i r c u i t . An example w i l l c l a r i f y t h e procedure.

1003-1

mTHOD 1003

18 November 1981

MIL-S TD- 75 6B
Table 1003-1.

Logic Diagram Examples

m
MISS ION RE L IABILITY DIAGRAM

LOGIC DIAGRAM

~~

OTHER SERIES PARALLEL COMBINATIONS

CAN BE QUITE SIMPLY DRAWN.

NOTE:

When one l o g i c switch A i s open, a l l must be open and a l l x m v s t be

closed and s i m i l a r l y f o r B and C l o g i c switches.

METHOD 1003
18 November 1981

1003-2

Remove equipment A by s p l i t t i n g t h e diagram a s f o l l o w s :

( I n t h e diagrams which f o l l o w , t h e term " s h o r t " i n d i c a t e s a c i r c u i t
which i s always o p e r a t i v e ; t h e term "open'' i n d i c a t e s a c i r c u i t which i s
never o p e r a t i v e ) .

SHORT

Now s t a r t t h e l o g i c diagram

X and Y a r e now i n series p a r a l l e l form and can b e drawn d i r e c t l y ,

t h e r e f o r e , t h e l o g i c diagram would appear as f o l l o w s :

If removing one equipment by r e p l a c i n g i t by an open and s h o r t c i r c u i t

w i l l n o t reduce t h e system t o two series p a r a l l e l diagrams, two equipments
must b e removed. The l o g i c diagram would t h e n look as f o l l o w s :

METHOD 1003

1003-3

18 November 1981

MIL-STD-756B

A f t e r t h e l o g i c diagram i s drawn, two

numerical answer. The f i r s t i n v o l v e s
of s u c c e s s , PS, by w r i t i n g down every
a l l paths.
The second approach i s t o
probabilities directly into the logic
and add p a r a l l e l terms u n t i l j u s t one
t h e answer. For t h e above example:
pS

= A [Cl

+ c1 C 2 ] +

[B1 C1

approaches are p o s s i b l e f o r a
w r i t i n g an e q u a t i o n f o r t h e p r o b a b i l i t y
p a t h w i t h an a d d i t i o n s i g n j o i n i n g
i n s e r t values f o r the various
diagram and m u l t i p l y series terms
s e r i e s term remains. T h i s r e s u l t i s

+ B1

- c1

C1 B2 C2 + B1

B2

c2

2.2
M u l t i f u n c t i o n e d systems. M u l t i f u n c t i o n e d systems c a n b e
t r e a t e d s i m i l a r l y t o s i n g l e - f u n c t i o n e d systems i f one of t h e f o l l o w i n g
applies :
a.

I f no equipment a p p e a r s i n more t h a n one f u n c t i o n .

b.

I f f u n c t i o n s are t i m e independent, i . e . , they are e i t h e r t i m e

sequenced f u n c t i o n s o r they are never used s i m u l t a n e o u s l y .

I f e i t h e r ( a ) o r (b) above a p p l i e s , t h e procedure i s as f o l l o w s :

Treat each f u n c t i o n s e p a r a t e l y as d e s c r i b e d under s i n g l e f u n c t i o n e d

systems. For t h e system, t h e f u n c t i o n s are t r e a t e d as equipments and
can b e combined i n series o r p a r a l l e l depending on t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s .
The r e s u l t a n t diagram i s t r e a t e d as a s i n g l e f u n c t i o n e d system. Each
s e p a r a t e f u n c t i o n can b e compared w i t h a r e l i a b i l i t y requirement f o r
t h a t function i f desired.

When an equipment a p p e a r s i n several f u n c t i o n s , t h e f u n c t i o n s cannot b e

t r e a t e d s e p a r a t e l y . The f o l l o w i n g example i l l u s t r a t e s t h e p o i n t .
A system h a s two f u n c t i o n s . The f i r s t f u n c t i o n r e q u i r e s A o r B f o r
s u c c e s s and t h e second f u n c t i o n r e q u i r e s B o r C f o r s u c c e s s . Both
f u n c t i o n s are r e q u i r e d f o r m i s s i o n success. Mission R e l i a b i l i t y diagrams
f o r Function 1, Function 2, and t h e system are shown below.

Function 1
Assuming
P* = 0.9
PB = 0 . 8

P c = 0.7
METHOD 1003

18 November 1981

MIL- STD-7 5 6 B

Then t h e r e l i a b i l i t y of t h e f u n c t i o n would b e
Function 1 = 0.9

(0.9)

(0.8)

+ 0.7 -

(0.8)

(0.7)

0.8

= 0.98

Function 2 = 0.8
= 0.94

Mission R e l i a b i l i t y cannot b e d e r i v e d by m u l t i p l y i n g f u n c t i o n r e l i a b i l i t i e s
because of t h e common element B.
Mission R e l i a b i l i t y

(0.98)

( 0 . 9 4 ) = 0.9212

+ PA PC - PA PB PC
( 0 . 8 ) + ( 0 . 9 ) (0.7) -

Mission R e l i a b i l i t y = PB
=

= 0.926

(0.9)

(0.8)

(0.7)

(2)

The e q u i v a l e n t Basic R e l i a b i l i t y mathematical model f o r t h i s system i s :

Ps=P P P
A B C

(3)

and t h e Basic R e l i a b i l i t y i s 0.504.

2.2.1

Logic diagram method.

The l o g i c diagram would b e as f o l l o w s :

Using t h e l o g i c diagram method, t h e r e must b e no two similar i t e m s i n any

s u c c e s s path. T h i s i s t h e o n l y d i f f e r e n c e f o r m u l t i p l e f u n c t i o n e d systems.
I f t h e system i s a complex system and elements are taken o u t f o r conversion t o
a s e r i e s - p a r a l l e l system, an element must b e s h o r t e d o r opened every where
i t a p p e a r s b e f o r e reducing t o a series p a r a l l e l system.

1003-5

1003
T8"HOD
November

1981

MIL-STD-756B

METHOD 1004
MONTE CARL0 SIMULATION

1.

PURPO E.
The purpose of t h e Monte C a r a s i m u l a t i o n method i s
t o s y n t h e s i z e a system r e l i a b i l i t y p r e d i c t i o n from a r e l i a b i l i t y b l o c k
diagram by means of random sampling. The Monte Carlo s i m u l a t i o n method
i s employed i n i n s t a n c e s where i n d i v i d u a l equipment p r o b a b i l i t i e s ( o r
e q u i v a l e n t r e l i a b i l i t y parameter) are known b u t t h e m i s s i o n r e l i a b i l i t y
model i s exceedingly complex t o d e r i v e a g e n e r a l e q u a t i o n f o r s o l u t i o n .
The Monte C a r l o s i m u l a t i o n method does n o t r e s u l t i n a g e n e r a l p r o b a b i l i t y
of s u c c e s s e q u a t i o n b u t computes t h e system p r o b a b i l i t y of s u c c e s s from
t h e i n d i v i d u a l equipment p r o b a b i l i t i e s and t h e r e l i a b i l i t y b l o c k diagram.
A Monte C a r l o s i m u l a t i o n can b e performed manually b u t i s i n v a r i a b l y
performed by computer due t o t h e l a r g e number of r e p e t i t i v e t r i a l s and
c a l c u l a t i o n s r e q u i r e d t o o b t a i n a s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t . The Monte Carlo
s i m u l a t i o n method i s a p p l i c a b l e t o s i n g l e f u n c t i o n e d and m u l t i f u n c t i o n e d
systems.

2.

PROCEDURE.

2.1
S i n g l e f u n c t i o n e d systems. S i n g l e f u n c t i o n e d systems c o n s i s t
of equipments considered t o have a s i n g l e f u n c t i o n a s s o c i a t e d w i t h
equipment performance. The s i n g l e f u n c t i o n e d system Mission R e l i a b i l i t y
diagram can t a k e t h e form of equipments connected i n series, p a r a l l e l ,
s e r i e s - p a r a l l e l , o r a complex c o n f i g u r a t i o n . A l t e r n a t e modes of o p e r a t i o n
c a n be c o n s i d e r e d i n s i n g l e f u n c t i o n e d system models. The s i n g l e f u n c t i o n e d
system Basic R e l i a b i l i t y diagram can o n l y b e a series c o n f i g u r a t i o n i n
which any equipments provided f o r redundancy o r a l t e r n a t e modes of
o p e r a t i o n f o r m i s s i o n s u c c e s s are modeled i n series.
The Monte C a r l o s i m u l a t i o n procedure i s t o determine t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n of
a f u n c t i o n of one o r more v a r i a b l e s from t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n of t h e i n d i v i d u a l
v a r i a b l e s . The method i n v o l v e s random sampling from t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n s
of a l l v a r i a b l e s and i n s e r t i n g t h e v a l u e s s o o b t a i n e d i n t h e e q u a t i o n
f o r t h e f u n c t i o n of i n t e r e s t . Suppose t h e f u n c t i o n whose p r o b a b i l i t y of
s u c c e s s d i s t r i b u t i o n i s t o be e s t i m a t e d i s P ( x
xn) and t h a t t h e Xi,
X2
X, are independent random v a r i a b l e s whose d i s t r i b u t i o n s are
presumed t o b e known. The procedure i s t o p i c k a set of x's randomly
from t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n s of t h e X ' s , c a l c u l a t e P f o r t h a t s e t , and s t o r e
t h a t v a l u e of P. The procedure i s r e p e a t e d many t i m e s u n t i l enough
v a l u e s of P a r e o b t a i n e d . From t h i s sample of P v a l u e s , i t s d i s t r i b u t i o n
and parameters can b e e s t i m a t e d .

...,

The Monte Carlo s i m u l a t i o n method i s based on several p r i n c i p l e s of

p r o b a b i l i t y and on t h e t e c h n i q u e s of p r o b a b i l i t y t r a n s f o r m a t i o n .
One of
t h e u n d e r l y i n g p r i n c i p l e s i s t h e l a w of l a r g e numbers, which states t h a t
t h e l a r g e r t h e sample t h e more c e r t a i n l y t h e sample mean w i l l b e a good
estimate of t h e p o p u l a t i o n mean. The procedure f o r t h e Monte Carlo
s i m u l a t i o n method i s i l l u s t r a t e d by t h e f o l l o w i n g example. The Mission
R e l i a b i l i t y diagram i s given as:

1004-1

METHOP 1004
18 November 1981

MIL-STD-756B

given:
PA = 0.3

pB1

B2

0.1

= P
= 0.2
pC1
c2
Select a random number between 0.01 and 1.00 from a table of random numbers
or generated by a computer. Compare the random number with PA. If the
random number is equal to or less than 0.3 then equipment A is a success.
Once success (S) or failure (F) is determined, it is recorded as in Table
1004-1 and the procedure is repeated for equipments B1, B2, C1 and C2. A
new random number for each equipment is used to compare against that
equipment and results are recorded. If a success path can be found
among the failed and nonfailed equipments then the system function is
determined to be a success. Ps is the ratio of system successes to trials.

Table 1004-rdisplays the outcome of ten trials of a typical Monte Carlo

kimulation. In this particular outcome, there was one system success
for the ten trials (trial 8) resulting in Ps = 0.10. Depending upon
the random numbers generated, the success/failure array may differ from
simulation to simulation and the number of system successes may vary for any
fixed number of trials. However, as the number of trials increase,
the ratio of system successes to trials should approach the actual
PS of 0.13572. The degree of Monte Carlo precision is determined by the
number of trials conducted. Typically, a minimum of 100 trials is required.
The equivalent Basic Reliability mathematical model for this system is:

and the Basic Reliability probability is 0.00012.

2.2
Multifunctioned systems. Multifunctioned systems can be treated
similarly to single-functioned systems if one of the following applies:
a.

If no equipment appears in more than one function.

b.

If functions are time independent, i.e., they are either time

sequenced functions or they are never used simultaneously.

METHOD 1004
18 November 1981

1004-2

MIL-STD-7 5 6B
Table 1004-1. S u c c e s s / F a i l u r e Array f o r t h e
Mission R e l i a b i l i t y Diagram.

T r i a l No.

B1

B2

c1

c2

System

10

Ps
NOTE:

-==

0.10

T h i s i s o n l y one p o s s i b l e a r r a y and one p o s s i b l e outcome among

many t h a t can r e s u l t from a Monte Carlo s i m u l a t i o n of t e n
t r i a l s . A d d i t i o n a l t r i a l s a r e r e q u i r e d t o o b t a i n meaningful
p r e c i s i o n w i t h which t h e Monte C a r l o r e s u l t w i l l approximate
t h e a c t u a l answer.

I f e i t h e r ( a ) o r (b) a p p l i e s , t h e procedure i s as f o l l o w s :

Treat each f u n c t i o n s e p a r a t e l y as d e s c r i b e d under s i n g l e f u n c t i o n e d

systems. For t h e system, t h e f u n c t i o n s are t r e a t e d as equipments and
c a n b e combined i n series o r p a r a l l e l depending on t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s .
The r e s u l t a n t diagram i s t r e a t e d as a s i n g l e f u n c t i o n e d system. Each
s e p a r a t e f u n c t i o n can be compared w i t h a r e l i a b i l i t y requirement f o r
t h a t function i f desired.
When a n equipment a p p e a r s i n several f u n c t i o n s , t h e f u n c t i o n s cannot be
t r e a t e d s e p a r a t e l y . The f o l l o w i n g example i l l u s t r a t e s t h e p o i n t .
A system h a s two f u n c t i o n s . The f i r s t f u n c t i o n r e q u i r e s A o r B f o r
s u c c e s s and t h e second f u n c t i o n r e q u i r e s B o r C f o r s u c c e s s . Both
f u n c t i o n s are r e q u i r e d f o r m i s s i o n s u c c e s s . Mission R e l i a b i l i t y diagrams
f o r Function 1, Function 2, and t h e system are shown as f o l l o w s .

1004-3

METHOD 1004
18 November 1981

MTL-STD-756B

Function 2

Function 1

System

Assuming

Pc = 0.7
Then the reliability of the function would be
Function 1 = 0.9

0.8

(0.9) (0.8)

+ 0.7

(0.8) (0.7)

= 0.98

Function 2

0.8

0.94

Mission Reliability cannot be derived by multiplying function reliabilities

because of the common element B.
Mission Reliability # (0.98) (0.94)

0.9212

+ PA Pc - PA PB Pc
(0.8) + (0.9) (0.7) -

Mission Reliability = PB
=

(0.9) (0.8) (0.7)

(2)

= 0.926

The equivalent Basic Reliability mathematical model for this system is:
Ps = PA PB Pc

(3)

and the Basic Reliability is 0.504.

2.2.1
Monte Carlo simulation method. The Monte Carlo simulation
solution based upon ten trials is shown i n E b l e 1004-11. Additional
trials are required to better approximate the actual answer of 0.926.

METHOD 1004
18 November 1981

1004-4

MIL-STD-756B
Table 1004-11. S u c c e s s / F a i l u r e Array f o r t h e
Mission R e l i a b i l i t y Diagram.
~~

System

10

Trial No.

P s -- n =

NOTE:

0.80

T h i s i s o n l y one p o s s i b l e a r r a y and one p o s s i b l e outcome among

many t h a t can r e s u l t from a Monte C a r l o s i m u l a t i o n of t e n t r i a l s .
A d d i t i o n a l t r i a l s are r e q u i r e d t o o b t a i n meaningful p r e c i s i o n
w i t h which t h e Monte C a r l o r e s u l t w i l l approximate t h e a c t u a l
answer.

1004-5

METHOD 1004

18 November 1981

MIL-STD-756B

METHOD 2001
SIMILAR ITEM METHOD
1.
PURPOSE. T h i s p r e d i c t i o n method u t i l i z e s s p e c i f i c e x p e r i e n c e
on s i m i l a r i t e m s .
The most r a p i d way of e s t i m a t i n g r e l i a b i l i t y i s t o
compare t h e i t e m under c o n s i d e r a t i o n w i t h a s i m i l a r i t e m whose r e l i a b i l i t y
has p r e v i o u s l y been determined by some means and has undergone f i e l d
e v a l u a t i o n . T h i s method has a c o n t i n u i n g and meaningful a p p l i c a t i o n f o r
i t e m s undergoing o r d e r l y e v o l u t i o n . Not o n l y i s t h e contemplated new
d e s i g n s i m i l a r t o t h e o l d d e s i g n , b u t s m a l l d i f f e r e n c e s can b e e a s i l y
i s o l a t e d and evaluated.
I n a d d i t i o n , d i f f i c u l t i e s encountered i n t h e
o l d d e s i g n a r e s i g n p o s t s t o improvements i n t h e new d e s i g n . The similar
c i r c u i t method should be considered i f a s i m i l a r i t e m comparison cannot
be made.

2.

PROCEDURE.

2.1
Major f a c t o r s f o r a d i r e c t comparison of similar i t e m s should
include:

a.

Item p h y s i c a l and performance comparison

b.

Design s i m i l a r i t y

13.

Manufacturing s i m i l a r i t y

d.

S i m i l a r i t y of t h e s e r y i c e u s e p r o f i l e ( l o g i s t i c , o p e r a t i o n a l ,
and e n v i r o q n e n t a l )

e.

Program and p r o j e c t s i m i l a r i t y

f.

Proof of r e l i a b i l i t y achievement

2.2
The v a l i d i t y of t h e similar i t e m method i s dependent upon t h e
d e g r e e of equiyalence between t h e items and n o t simply t h e g e n e r i c term
used t o d e s c r i b e t h e i t e m s . For example, a l t h o u g h b o t h are power s u p p l i e s
( g e n e r i c t y p e ) , t h e achieved r e l i a b i l i t y of a t e n w a t t power supply
should n o t normally be used as a p r e d i c t i o n method f o r a proposed one
k i l o w a t t power supply as t h e much h i g h e r power l e v e l of t h e proposed
power supply may r e s u l t i n much lower r e l i a b i l i t y achievement due t o
d e s i g n d i f f e r e n c e s and stresses. A comparison may be made i f t h e r e are
scale f a c t o r s t o r e a l i s t i c a l l y r e l a t e r e l i a b i l i t y w i t h i t e m parameters
such as power levels.
2.3

GIDEP F a i l u r e Rate Summaries are a d a t a s o u r c e f o r t h i s method.

2001-1

METHOD 2001
18 November 1981

MIL-STD-756B

METHOD 2002
SIMILAR CIRCUIT METHOD

1.
PURPOSE. T h i s p r e d i c t i o n method u t i l i z e s s p e c i f i c e x p e r i e n c e
on similar c i r c u i t s such as o s c i l l a t o r s , d i s c r i m i n a t o r a m p l i f i e r s ,
modulators, p u l s e t r a n s f o r m i n g networks, etc. T h i s method i s employed
e i t h e r when o n l y a c i r c u i t i s being c o n s i d e r e d o r t h e s i m i l a r i t e m
method cannot be u t i l i z e d . The most r a p i d way of e s t i m a t i n g r e l i a b i l i t y
i s t o compare t h e c i r c u i t s of t h e i t e m under c o n s i d e r a t i o n w i t h s i m i l a r
c i r c u i t s whose r e l i a b i l i t y has p r e v i o u s l y been determined by some means
and has undergone f i e l d e v a l u a t i o n . I n d i v i d u a l c i r c u i t r e l i a b i l i t i e s
can be combined i n t o an i t e m r e l i a b i l i t y p r e d i c t i o n . T h i s method has a
c o n t i n u i n g and meaningful a p p l i c a t i o n f o r c i r c u i t s undergoing o r d e r l y
e v o l u t i o n . Not o n l y i s t h e contemplated new d e s i g n s i m i l a r t o t h e o l d
d e s i g n , b u t s m a l l d i f f e r e n c e s c a n b e e a s i l y i s o l a t e d and e v a l u a t e d . I n
a d d i t i o n , d i f f i c u l t i e s encountered i n t h e o l d d e s i g n are s i g n p o s t s t o
improvements i n t h e new d e s i g n .
2.

PROCEDURE

Major f a c t o r s f o r a d i r e c t comparison of similar c i r c u i t s

2.1
should i n c l u d e :

a.

C i r c u i t p h y s i c a l and performance comparison

b.

Design s i m i l a r i t y

c.

Manufacturing s i m i l a r i t y

d.

S i m i l a r i t y of t h e service u s e p r o f i l e ( l o g i s t i c , o p e r a t i o n a l ,
and environmental)

e.

Program and p r o j e c t s i m i l a r i t y

f.

Proof of r e l i a b i l i t y achievement

2.2
I n d i v i d u a l c i r c u i t r e l i a b i l i t i e s c a n be combined i n t o an item
C i r c u i t i n t e r c o n n e c t r e l i a b i l i t y f a c t o r s should
r e l i a b i l i t y p r e d i c t ion.
be considered when combining i n d i v i d u a l c i r c u i t r e l i a b i l i t i e s i n o r d e r
t o determine a r e a l i s t i c i t e m r e l i a b i l i t y p r e d i c t i o n .
2.3
The v a l i d i t y of t h e s i m i l a r c i r c u i t method i s dependent upon
t h e d e g r e e of e q u i v a l e n c e between t h e c i r c u i t s and n o t simply t h e g e n e r i c
term used t o d e s c r i b e t h e i t . e m s . For example, a l t h o u g h b o t h are a m p l i f i e r
c i r c u i t s ( g e n e r i c t e r m ) , t h e achieved r e l i a b i l i t y of a one m i l l i w a t t
a m p l i f i e r c i r c u i t should n o t normally be used as a p r e d i c t i o n method f o r
a proposed t e n w a t t a m p l i f i e r c i r c u i t as t h e much h i g h e r power level of
t h e proposed a m p l i f i e r c i r c u i t may r e s u l t i n much lower r e l i a b i l i t y
achievement due t o d e s i g n d i f f e r e n c e s and stresses. A comparison may be
made i f t h e r e are scale f a c t o r s t o r e a l i s t i c a l l y r e l a t e r e l i a b i l i t y w i t h
i t e m parameters such as power levels.

2002-1

METHOD 2002

18 November 1981

MIL-STD-756B
2.4
preferred
which may
Summaries

Various equipment m a n u f a c t u r e r s and m i l i t a r y a g e n c i e s have

c i r c u i t manuals o r documents w i t h a s s o c i a t e d f a i l u r e rates
be u t i l i z e d w i t h t h i s t y p e p r e d i c t i o n . GIDEP F a i l u r e Rate
may be a d a t a s o u r c e f o r t h i s method.

METHOD 2002

18 November 1981

2002-2

MIL-STD-7 56B

METHOD 2003
ACTIVE ELEMENT GROUP METHOD
1.
PURPOSE. The Active Element Group (AEG) method i s termed a
f e a s i b i l i t y e s t i m a t i n g procedure because i t i s u s e f u l f o r g r o s s estimates
o f a design i n t h e conceJ?_t formulation-and-preldminary design s t a g e-s .
Only a n estimate of t h e number of series AEGs r e q u i r e d to-perform t h e
d e s i g n f u n c t i o n i s needed. The AEG method relates item f u n c t i o n a l
complexity ( a c t i v e element groups) and a p p l i c a t i o n environment t o f a i l u r e
rates experienced i n f l e e t usage. Available d a t a f o r t h i s method fs
c u r r e n t l y l i m i t e d t o s h i p s and s h i p s ' m i s s i l e s .
"

2.

l
"
l
_
l
_

* x -

DOCUMENTS REFERENCED I N METHOD 2 0 0 3 :

PUBLI CATIONS
Naval Sea Systems Corrnnand
NAVORD OD 4 4 6 2 2

3.
3.1
e.g.,
Pump

R e l i a b i l i t y Data Analysis and I n t e r p r e t a t i o n

Volume 4

DEFINITIONS

Active element. A p a r t t h a t converts o r c o n t r o l s energy;

t r a n s i s t o r , diode, e l e c t r o n tube, r e l a y , valve, motor, h y d r a u l i c

3.2
Active element group. An active element and i t s a s s o c i a t e d
s u p p o r t i n g (passive) p a r t s ; e.g., an a m p l i f i e r c i r c u i t , a r e l a y c i r c u i t ,
a pump and i t s plumbing and f i t t i n g s .
3.3
P a s s i v e element, Any p a r t , n o t i t s e l f an a c t i v e element, used
i n conjunction w i t h an active element t o perform a d e s i r e d f u n c t i o n ;
e.g., c a p a c i t o r , r e s i s t o r , f i t t i n g .
4.

PROCEDURE.

4.1
General c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . I n t h e AEG method enough is known
about t h e design s o t h a t t h e number and types of active elements are
known o r can be e s t i m a t e s . Consideration must be given t o t h e i t e m
r e l f a b i l i t y model i n t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f AEG f a i l u r e rates used t o d e r i v e
an item r e l i a b i l i t y p r e d i c t f o n as AEGs may be u t i l i z e d i n redundant as
a l t e r n a t e mode hardware c o n f i g u r a t i o n s . The AEG method i s based on
several g e n e r a l i z e d assumptions which can be summarized as follows:
a.

All a c t f v e elements can be defined and c l a s s i f i e d as r e p r e s e n t a t i v e

t y p e s , and t h e q u a n t i t y of supporting passive elements i s
e f f e c t i v e l y c o n s t a n t for each type, r e g a r d l e s s of t h e end u s e
item.

2003- 1

METHOD 2003
18 November 1981

MIL-STD-756B
b.

The inaccuracy i n h e r e n t i n a s s i g n i n g a s i n g l e f a i l u r e r a t e t o
each of t h e active element t y p e s i s acceptable.

c.

A s i n g l e f a i l u r e r a t e can be used f o r each g e n e r i c p a s s i v e

element type.
d.

The change i n f a i l u r e r a t e with environmental s e v e r i t y i s

i d e n t i c a l f o r a l l p a r t types.

The shaded areas i n F i g u r e s 2003-1, 2003-2, and 2003-3 r e p r e s e n t upper

and lower f a i l u r e - r a t e bounds f o r t h e d a t a upon which t h e f i g u r e s were
prepared.
4.2
D e t a i l e d Procedure. For each r e l i a b i l i t y block determine if
t h e block's f u n c t i o n i s p r i m a r i l y analog, d i g i t a l , o r mechanical. Once
t h e n a t u r e of t h e f u n c t i o n i s determined, proceed w i t h one of t h e
following s t e p s .
4.2.1

E l e c t r o n i c Analog Function F a i l u r e Rate Estimation.

4.2.1.1
For each e l e c t r o n i c analog r e l i a b i l i t y block, determine t h e
number of series analog a c t i v e elements necessary t o perform t h e b l o c k ' s
f u n c t i o n . Use Table 2003-1 t o convert d i f f e r e n t classes of e l e c t r o n i c
AEGs t o e q u i v a l e n t analog A E G s .
4.2,l.Z
Determine t h e block's f a i l u r e r a t e from Figure 2003-1 based
upon t h e number of series e q u i v a l e n t analog AEGs and mission a p p l i c a t i o n .
Table 2003-1. Weighting F a c t o r s f o r D i f f e r e n t Classes
of E l e c t r o n i c AEGs Used i n Estimating Analog
Complexity f o r F i g u r e 2003-1.
AEG Type

Analog E l e c t r o n i c AEGs

Analog s i g n a l f u n c t i o n s :
Transistor
E l e c t r o n tube
Integrated c i r c u i t
Diode

1.0
1.0
1-0
0.1

Power supply f u n c t i o n s :
Transistor
E l e c t r o n tube
Diode ( r e c t i f i e r )

2.0
2.0
1.0

Microwave power tube

METHOD 2003

100.0

D i g i t a l Functions:
Transistor
Integrated c i r c u i t
Diode

0.1
0.1
0.01

Relays (general)

1.0

18 November 1981

2003-2

MIL-STD-756B

0
I
W
l-

a
a
W

a
0

a
W
a
v)

a
3

-J

a
a
W

3
-J

EQUIVALENT ANALOG FUNCTIONAL COMPLEXITY

N ACTIVE ELEMENTS

Figure 2003.1. Failure-Rate Estimating Chart for

Electronic Analog Function.

2003-3

METHOD 2003

18 November 1981

MIL-STD-756B

4.2.2

E l e c t r o n i c D i g i t a l Function F a i l u r e Rate E s t i m a t i o n

4.2.2.1
For each e l e c t r o n i c d i g i t a l r e l i a b i l i t y b l o c k , determine t h e
number of series d i g i t a l a c t i v e elements n e c e s s a r y t o perform t h e b l o c k ' s
f u n c t i o n . Use T a b l e 2003-11 t o c o n v e r t d i f f e r e n t classes of e l e c t r o n i c
AEGs t o e q u i v a l e n t d i g i t a l AEGs.
4.2.2.2
Determine t h e b l o c k ' s f a i l u r e rate from F i g u r e 2003-2 based
upon t h e number of series e q u i v a l e n t d i g i t a l AEGs and m i s s i o n a p p l i c a t i o n .
4.2.3

Mechanical Devices Function F a i l u r e Rate E s t i m a t i o n

4.2.3.1
For each mechanical d e v i c e r e l i a b i l i t y b l o c k , determine t h e
number of series mechanical active elements n e c e s s a r y t o perform t h e
b l o c k ' s f u n c t i o n . U s e Table 2003-111 t o c o n v e r t d i f f e r e n t classes of
mechanical AEGs t o e q u i v a l e n t analog AEGs.
4.2.3.2
Determine t h e b l o c k ' s f a i l u r e r a t e from F i g u r e 2003-3 based
upon The number of series e q u i v a l e n t mechanical analog AEGs and m i s s i o n
application.
4.2.4
Reference. A d d i t i o n a l d e t a i l s on t h e AEG method are provided
i n NAVORD OD 44622, Volume 4 .

METHOD 2003
18 November 1981
-

- -

2003-4

I-____-

__--

_ "

"_____--__--._l__l_-~-

MIL-STD-756B

a
3

0
I

a
u

v)

a
3

-I

2
z
W
l-

a
a
W

3
J

I"

102

103

104

105

FUNCTIONAL COMPLEXITY IN DIGITAL AEGs

Figure 2003..2. Failure-Rate Estimation Chart for
Digital Electronic Functions.

Table 2003-11. Weighting Factors for Estimating

Digital Electronics AEG Complexity for
Use With Figure 2003-2.
Digital
Electronic AEGs

AEG Type
Transistor

1.0

Integrated circuit

1.0

Diode

0.1

2003-5

NETHOD 2003

18 November 1981

MIL-STD-756B

Table 2003-111. Weighting Factors for Shipboard

Mechanical Elements for Use in Conjunction
With Figure 2003-3.

Analog
Mechanical
AEG Type

Actuator

AEGs

hydraulic

Bearing

Clutch

Cylinder and piston

hydraulic, pneumatic

Gear train (per gear)

Governor

speed regulating

Gyro

Limiter

Motor

hydraulic flow

Link mechanism

Pump

mechanical drive

hydraulic, vacuum, turbo, pneumatic, electric

hydraulic, pneumatic, vacuum

Relay

1
1

Quick disconnect
Regulator

pneumatic, hydraulic, flow, pressure

thermal, pressure, electromechanical

1
1

Safety and arming device

Switch Switch -

pressure, temperature

cam, interlock, pressure, thermal

sensitive, micro, etc.

Sensor

Transducer

pressure, feedback

Valve

bleed, diaphragm, gate, needle, relief

Valve

servo

METHOD 2003
18 November 1981

2003-6

MIL-STD-756B

10

10

I
(2:

a
v)

a
3

10'

l-

a
W

a
3

A 10

10

10

Figure 2003..3.

Failure-Rate Estimation Chart for

Mechanical Devices.
2003-7

BETHOD 2003

18 November 1981

MIL-STD-756B

METHOD 2004

PARTS COUNT METHOD

1.
PURPOSE. The p a r t s count method i s a p r e d i c t i o n method used
i n t h e preliminary d
---_
e s i g n s t a g e when t h e number of p a r t s i n each g e n e r i c
G p e class Z i i E E i capaElto?s, r e s i s t o r s , etc., are r e a s o n a b l y f i x e d and
t h e o v e r a l l d e s i g n complexity i s n o t expected t o change a p p r e c i a b l y
d u r i n g l a t e r s t a g e s of development and p r o d u c t i o n . The p a r t s count
method assumes t h e t i m e t o f a i l u r e of t h e p a r t s i s e x p o n e n t i a l l y d i s t r i b u t e d
(i.e. , a constant f a i l u r e rate).

2.

DOCUMENTS REFERENCED I N METHOD 2004:

HANDBOOKS
Military
MIL-HDBK-217

R e l i a b i l i t y P r e d i c t i o n of E l e c t r o n i c Equipment

OTHER PUBLICATIONS

3.

RADC-TR-7 3- 248

Dormancy and Power On-Off Cycling E f f e c t s on

E l e c t r o n i c Equipment and P a r t R e l i a b i l i t y

RADC-TR-74-269

E f f e c t s of Dormancy on N o n e l e c t r o n i c Components
and Materials

LC-7 8- 1

S t o r a g e R e l i a b i l i t y of Missile Material Program,

Missile Material R e l i a b i l i t y Handbook P a r t s
Count P r e d i c t i o n

GIDEP

Government I n d u s t r y Data Exchange Program,

Summaries of F a i l u r e Rates

NPRD-1

Nonelectronic P a r t s R e l i a b i l i t y Data, 1978

PROCEDURE.

3.1
The item f a i l u r e r a t e c a n be determined d i r e c t l y by t h e summation
of p a r t f a i l u r e rates i f a l l elements of t h e i t e m r e l i a b i l i t y model are
i n series o r can be assumed i n series f o r purposes of a n approximation.
I n t h e e v e n t t h e i t e m r e l i a b i l i t y model c o n s i s t s of non- series elements
(e.g., redundancies, a l t e r n a t e modes of o p e r a t i o n ) , i t e m r e l i a b i l i t y can
be determined e i t h e r by c o n s i d e r i n g o n l y t h e series elements of t h e
model as an approximation o r by summing p a r t f a i l u r e rates f o r t h e
i n d i v i d u a l elements and c a l c u l a t i n g an e q u i v a l e n t series f a i l u r e r a t e
f o r t h e non- series elements of t h e model.

2004-1

METHOD 2004

18 November 1981

MIL-STD-756B
3.2
The i n f o r m a t i o n needed t o s u p p o r t t h e p a r t s count method
includes:

3.3

a.

Generic p a r t t y p e s ( i n c l u d i n g complexity f o r m i c r o e l e c t r o n i c s ) ,

b.

part quantity,

C.

p a r t q u a l i t y levels (when known o r c a n be assumed), and

d.

i t e m environment.
The g e n e r a l e x p r e s s i o n f o r i t e m f a i l u r e r a t e w i t h t h i s method i s :

i=n
'ITEM

C Ni(A
7 ~ )
i=
1
G Q i

f o r a given i t e m environment where:

t o t a l f a i l u r e rate
g e n e r i c f a i l u r e rate f o r t h e ithg e n e r i c p a r t
quality factor f o r the i t h generic part
q u a n t i t y of i t h g e n e r i c p a r t
number of d i f f e r e n t g e n e r i c p a r t c a t e g o r i e s
Equation (1) a p p l i e s t o an e n t i r e i t e m being used i n one environment.
If t h e i t e m comprises several u n i t s o p e r a t i n g i n d i f f e r e n t environments
(such as a v i o n i c s w i t h u n i t s i n a i r b o r n e , i n h a b i t e d , f i g h t e r (AIF) and
u n i n h a b i t e d , f i g h t e r (AuF) environment), t h e n e q u a t i o n (1) should be
a p p l i e d t o t h e p o r t i o n s of t h e i t e m i n each environment. These "environmenti t e m " f a i l u r e rates should be added t o determine t o t a l i t e m f a i l u r e
rate.
3.4
Q u a l i t y f a c t o r s are t o be a p p l i e d t o each p a r t t y p e where
q u a l i t y l e v e l d a t a e x i s t s o r c a n be r e a s o n a b l y assumed. M u l t i - q u a l i t y
l e v e l s and d a t a e x i s t f o r p a r t s , such as m i c r o e l e c t r o n i c s , d i s c r e t e
semiconductors, and f o r e s t a b l i s h e d r e l i a b i l i t y (ER) r e s i s t o r s and
c a p a c i t o r s . For o t h e r p a r t s such as n o n e l e c t r o n i c s , IT^ = 1 p r o v i d i n g
t h a t p a r t s are procured i n accordance w i t h a p p l i c a b l e p a r t s s p e c i f i c a t i o n s .
3.5
F a i l u r e r a t e d a t a s o u r c e s such as MIL-HDBK-217, NPRD-1, GLDEP,
RADC-TR-73-248, RADC-TR-74-269 and LC-78-1 should be used w i t h t h i s
method. However, GIDEP should o n l y be used i f t h e p a r t of i n t e r e s t i s
n o t i n c l u d e d i n t h e o t h e r s t a t e d f a i l u r e r a t e s o u r c e s . Other f a i l u r e
r a t e d a t a s o u r c e s , i n c l u d i n g c o n t r a c t o r in- house d a t a , s h a l l r e q u i r e
p r o c u r i n g a c t i v i t y approval.

MIL-STD-756B

METHOD 2005
PARTS STRESS ANALYSIS METHOD

1.
PURPOSE. The p a r t s stress a n a l y s i s method i s a p r e d i c t i o n
method used i n t h e d e t a i l e d d e s i g n s t a g e when t h e r e are few o r no assumptions
n e c e s s a r a b o u t t h e p a r t s used, t h e i r stress d e r a t i n g , t h e i r q u a l i t y
f a c t o r s , t h e i r o p e r a t i n g stresses o r t h e i r environment i n o r d e r t o
determine p a r t f a i l u r e rates. These should be a l l known f a c t o r s o r
c a p a b l e of being determined based upon t h e s t a t e of hardware d e f i n i t i o n
f o r which t h e p a r t s stress a n a l y s i s method i s a p p l i c a b l e . Where unique
p a r t s are used, any assumptions r e g a r d i n g t h e i r f a i l u r e r a t e f a c t o r s
should be i d e n t i f i e d and j u s t i f i e d . The p a r t s stress a n a l y s i s method i s
t h e most a c c u r a t e method of r e l i a b i l i t y p r e d i c t i o n p r i o r t o measurement
of r e l i a b i l i t y under a c t u a l o r simulated u s e c o n d i t i o n s . The p a r t s
stress a n a l y s i s method assumes t h e t i m e t o f a i l u r e of t h e p a r t s i s
exponentially d i s t r i b u t e d (i.e., a constant f a i l u r e rate).
DOCUMENTS REFERENCED I N METHOD 2005.

2.

HANDBOOKS
Military
MIL-HDBK-217

R e l i a b i l i t y P r e d i c t i o n of E l e c t r o n i c Equipment

OTHER PUBLICATIONS

RADC-TR-7 3- 248

Dormancy and Power On-Off Cycling E f f e c t s on

E l e c t r o n i c Equipment and P a r t R e l i a b i l i t y

RADC-TR-74-269

E f f e c t s of Dormancy on Nonelectronic Components

and Materials

LC-78- 1

S t o r a g e R e l i a b i l i t y of Missile Material Program,

Missile Material R e l i a b i l i t y Handbook P a r t s
Count P r e d i c t i o n .

G I DEP

Government I n d u s t r y Data Exchange Program,

Summaries of F a i l u r e Rates

NJ?RD-1

Nonelectronic P a r t s R e l i a b i l i t y Data, 1978

2005-1

METHOD 2005

18 November 1981

MIL-STD-756B
3.

PROCEDURE

3.1
The i t e m f a i l u r e rate can be determined d i r e c t l y by t h e summation
of p a r t f a i l u r e r a t e s i f a l l elements of t h e i t e m r e l i a b i l i t y model are
i n series o r c a n be assumed i n series f o r purposes of an approximation.
I n t h e event t h e i t e m r e l i a b i l i t y model c o n s i s t s of non- series elements
(e.g., redundancies, a l t e r n a t e modes of o p e r a t i o n ) , i t e m r e l i a b i l i t y can
be determined e i t h e r by c o n s i d e r i n g o n l y t h e series elements of t h e
model a s a n approximation o r by summing p a r t f a i l u r e rates f o r t h e
i n d i v i d u a l elements and c a l c u l a t i n g an e q u i v a l e n t series f a i l u r e rate
f o r t h e non- series elements of t h e model.
3.2
The i n f o r m a t i o n needed t o s u p p o r t t h e p a r t s stress a n a l y s i s
method included :

3.3

a.

S p e c i f i c p a r t t y p e s ( i n c l u d i n g complexity f o r m i c r o e l e c t r o n i c s ) ,

b.

part quantity,

c.

p a r t q u a l i t y levels,

d.

i t e m environment, and

e.

p a r t o p e r a t i n g stresses.
The g e n e r a l e x p r e s s i o n f o r i t e m f a i l u r e r a t e w i t h t h i s method is:
i=n

f o r a g i v e n i t e m environment where:
t o t a l f a i l u r e rate
s p e c i f i c f a i l u r e rate f o r t h e ith s p e c i f i c p a r t
quality factor for the i t h specific part
q u a n t i t y of i t h s p e c i f i c p a r t
number of d i f f e r e n t s p e c i f i c p a r t c a t e g o r i e s

MIL-STD-756B

Equation (1) a p p l i e s t o an e n t i r e i t e m being used i n one environment.

I f t h e i t e m comprises several u n i t s o p e r a t i n g i n d i f f e r e n t environments
(_such a s a v i o n i c s w i t h u n i t s i n a i r b o r n e , i n h a b i t e d , f i g h t e r (AIF) and
u n i n h a b i t e d , f i g h t e r (AVF) environment), t h e n e q u a t i o n (1) should be
a p p l i e d t o t h e p o r t i o n s of t h e i t e m i n each environment. These "environmenti t e m " f a i l u r e r a t e s should be added t o determine t o t a l i t e m f a i l u r e
rate.
3.4
Q u a l i t y f a c t o r s are t o be a p p l i e d t o each p a r t t y p e where
q u a l i t y l e v e l d a t a e x i s t s o r c a n be r e a s o n a b l y assumed. M u l t i - q u a l i t y
l e v e l s and d a t a exist f o r p a r t s , such as m i c r o e l e c t r o n i c s , d i s c r e t e
semiconductors, and f o r e s t a b l i s h e d r e l i a b i l i t y (ER) r e s i s t o r s and
c a p a c i t o r s . For o t h e r p a r t s such as n o n e l e c t r o n i c s , nQ = 1 p r o v i d i n g
t h a t p a r t s are procured i n accordance w i t h a p p l i c a b l e p a r t s s p e c i f i c a t i o n s .
3.5
F a i l u r e rate d a t a s o u r c e s such as MIL-HDBK-217, NRPD-1, GIDEP,
RADC-TR-73-248, RADC-TR-74-269 and LC-78-1 should be used w i t h t h i s
method. However, GIDEP should o n l y be used i f t h e p a r t of i n t e r e s t i s
n o t included i n t h e o t h e r s t a t e d f a i l u r e rate s o u r c e s . Other f a i l u r e
r a t e d a t a s o u r c e s , i n c l u d i n g c o n t r a c t o r in- house d a t a , s h a l l r e q u i r e
p r o c u r i n g a c t i v i t y approval.

2005-3

METHOD 2005

18 November

1981

MIL-STD-756B
APPENDIX A
A p p l i c a t i o n and T a i l o r i n g Guide
10.

GENERAL

10.1
Scope. T h i s appendix p r o v i d e s n o t e s f o r t h e guidance of t h e
p r o c u r i n g a c t i v i t y i n g e n e r a t i n g t h e c o n t r a c t u a l requirements f o r r e l i a b i l i t y
modeling and a r e l i a b i l i t y p r e d i c t i o n .
10.2
T a i l o r i n g r e q u i r e m e n t s . Each p r o v i s i o n of t h i s s t a n d a r d
should be reviewed t o determine t h e e x t e n t of a p p l i c a b i l i t y . T a i l o r i n g
of requirements may t a k e t h e form of d e l e t i o n , a d d i t i o n , o r a l t e r a t i o n
t o t h e s t a t e m e n t s i n s e c t i o n s 3 , 4 , and 5 and any s p e c i f i e d t a s k s o r
methods t o a d a p t t h e requirements t o s p e c i f i c i t e m c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ,
p r o c u r i n g a c t i v i t y o p t i o n s , c o n t r a c t u a l s t r u c t u r e , o r a c q u i s i t i o n phase.
Due t o t h e number of p o s s i b l e r e l i a b i l i t y modeling and r e l i a b i l i t y
p r e d i c t i o n methods, methods o t h e r t h a n t h o s e i d e n t i f i e d i n t h i s s t a n d a r d
may and should be used i f a n o t h e r method i s more s u i t a b l e f o r t h e e v a l u a t i o n
of t h e s p e c i f i c item and i s c o s t e f f e c t i v e i n i t s implementation. The
t a i l o r e d r e l i a b i l i t y modeling and p r e d i c t i o n requirements are s p e c i f i e d
i n t h e c o n t r a c t u a l p r o v i s i o n s t o i n c l u d e i n p u t t o t h e s t a t e m e n t of work,
c o n t r a c t d a t a requirements l i s t (CDRL), and o t h e r c o n t r a c t u a l means.
The d e p t h and d e t a i l of t h e r e l i a b i l i t y modeling and p r e d i c t i o n e f f o r t
w i l l be d e f i n e d i n a p p r o p r i a t e c o n t r a c t u a l and o t h e r program documentation.

10.3
D u p l i c a t i o n of e f f o r t . A review of t h e c o n t r a c t u a l requirements
i s n e c e s s a r y t o avoid d u p l i c a t i o n of e f f o r t between t h e r e l i a b i l i t y
program and o t h e r program e f f o r t s such as m a i n t a i n a b i l i t y , human e n g i n e e r i n g ,
s a f e t y , s u r v i v a b i l i t y , v u l n e r a b i l i t y , and i n t e g r a t e d l o g i s t i c s s u p p o r t .
I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of t h e c o i n c i d e n t g e n e r a t i o n of r e l i a b i l i t y modeling and
p r e d i c t i o n t a s k s o r u s e of such t a s k s by t h e r e l i a b i l i t y program and
o t h e r d i s c i p l i n a r y areas i s r e q u i r e d i n t h e r e l i a b i l i t y p l a n o r o t h e r
a p p r o p r i a t e program documentation t o avoid d u p l i c a t i o n of e f f o r t by t h e
p r o c u r i n g a c t i v i t y and t h e c o n t r a c t o r .
10.4
L i m i t a t i o n s . R e l i a b i l i t y modeling and p r e d i c t i o n i s only as
a c c u r a t e as t h e assumptions and d a t a s o u r c e s used i n i t s p r e p a r a t i o n ,
and t o t h e e x t e n t a l l p e r t i n e n t i n f l u e n c e s are c o n s i d e r e d . The primary
v a l u e of t h e r e l i a b i l i t y p r e d i c t i o n i s as a d e s i g n t o o l f o r comparison
of a l t e r n a t i v e approaches. Although t h e a b s o l u t e v a l u e of i t e m r e l i a b i l i t y
d e r i v e d by t h e p r e d i c t i o n may be used i n t h e d e v i a t i o n of expected f i e l d
u s e r e l i a b i l i t y , i t must be used w i t h g r e a t c a u t i o n and w i t h f u l l d i s c l o s u r e
of t h e d a t a s o u r c e s and assumptions used. A s a n example, when f i e l d
e x p e r i e n c e d a t a f o r s i m i l a r i t e m s i n a l i k e environment are u t i l i z e d ,
t h e p r e d i c t i o n r e f l e c t s a n t i c i p a t e d f i e l d performance a f t e r d e s i g n
m a t u r i t y has been achieved. Conversely, when l a b o r a t o r y d a t a are u t i l i z e d ,
t h e p r e d i c t i o n r e f l e c t s expected performance under l a b o r a t o r y c o n d i t i o n s .
20.

REFERENCED DOCUMENTS (not a p p l i c a b l e )

30.

DEFINITIONS ( n o t a p p l i c a b l e )

A- 1

40.

GENERAL

40.1
Ordering data. The procuring activity shall specify information
as indicated in the "Details to be specified" following each Task Section.
40.2
Data item descriptions. Data items generated in accordance
with this standard are not deliverable unless specified on the Contract
Data Requirements List (DD.Form 1423) or the contract schedule. Format
and content requirements shall be as specified by the procuring activity
and in accordance with one of the following data requirements.
Source

Data Requirements

Paragraph 4.9
and Task Section 100

Reliability Block Diagrams and

Mathematical Models Report

D I-R-7094

Paragraph 4.9
and Task Section 200

Reliability Prediction and

Documentation of Supporting
Data

D I-R-7095

Paragraph 4.9

Reliability Report for

Exploratory Advanced
Development Model

DI- R-71 00

50.

APPLICATION CRITERIA

50.1
General considerations. This standard has been structured to
facilitate the tailoring of reliability modeling and prediction requirements
based upon individual program needs. Program variables such as item
complexity, funding, and schedule influence the level of detail and
timing of the reliability modeling and prediction effort and must be
considered when tailoring the requirements. Not all programs require
the same level of detail and the level of detail will also vary depending
on the acquisition phase.
50.1.1
Level of detail. The level of detail applies to the level of
indenture for which failure rate data can be applied. The reliability
modeling and prediction effort can be accomplished at various levels of
indenture from system to part level depending upon the information
available and the needs o f the program. The lower the indenture level,
the greater the level of detail since more elements o f the item will be
considered. The choice of the level of indenture must be compatible
with the program cost, schedule constraints and the item reliability
requirements. A less detailed model and prediction which is available
in time to contribute to item reliability is more valuable than a more
detailed effort which is late and makes changes costly or unfeasible.

50.1.2
Timing. The objective of the reliability modeling and prediction
effort is to support the decision making process in establishing numerical
reliability requirements, assessing the adequacy of a design in meeting
numerical requirements, and as a basis for selection among design alternatives.
If the effort fails to provide usable information at or before a project
decision point, then it has made no contribution and is untimely. The
A- 2

MIL-STD-756B
time-phasing of the reliability.modeling and prediction effort is of
paramount importance and should be identified in appropriate contractual
and program documentation. Since program cost and schedule constraints
require that available resources be used where they are most cost effective,
the earliest possible availability of reliability modeling and prediction
results is important so that the impact on cost and schedule be minimized.

50.1.3
Intended use. Reliability modeling and prediction is a beneficial
and productive task in a well structured reliability program. Reliability
modeling and prediction serves to help verify design integrity, identify
and quantify sources of undesirable failure frequency, and document the
reliability risks. Reliability modeling and prediction results can be
used to provide the rationale for design changes to either improve item
reliability or decrease item cost with little or no effect on item
reliability. The reliability modeling and prediction results are not
only used to provide design guidance, but they are used advantageously
in and for maintenance planning analysis, logistics support analysis,
survivability and vulnerability assessments, safety and hazards analyses,
and for fault detection and isolation design. This coincident use of
reliability modeling and prediction must be considered in program planning and every endeavor made to prevent duplication of effort by the
program elements which utilize reliability modeling and prediction
results.

U . S . GOVBRNMZNT PRINTING OFFICE: 1982-505-022:3428

A- 3

I STANDARDIZATION DOCUMENT IMPROVEMENT PROPOSAL I

INSTRUCTIONS: This form is provided to solicit beneficial comments which may improve this document and
enhance i t s use. DoD contractors, government activities, manufacturers, vendors, or other prospective users of
the document are invited to submit comments to the government. Fold on lines on reverse side, staple in corner,
and send to preparing activity. Attach any pertinent data which may be of use in improving this document. If
there are additional papers, attach to form and place both in an envelope addressed to preparing activity. A
response will be provided to the submitter, when name and address is provided, within 30 days indicating that
the 1426 was received and when any appropriate action on it will be completed.
NOTE: This form shall not be used to submit requests for waivers, deviations or clarification of specification
requirements on current contracts. Comments submitted on this form do not constitute or imply authorization
to waive any portion of the referenced document(s) or to amend contractual requirements.
D O C U M E N T I D E N T I F I E R (Number) A N D T I T L E

MIL-STD-756B Reliability Modeling and Prediction

N A M E OF O R G A N I Z A T I O N A N D ADDRESS O F SUBMITTER

0VENDOR
1.

U-SE 7

0USER

0M A N U F A C T U R E R

HAS A N Y P A R T O F T H E D O C U M E N T C R E A T E D PROBLEMS OR R E Q U I R E D I N T E R P R E T A T I O N IN PROCUREMENT

0 I S A N Y P A R T O F I T T O O R I G I D , RESTRICTIVE, LOOSE OR AMBIGUOUS?

PLEASE E X P L A I N BELOW.

A. G I V E PARAGRAPH NUMBER A N D W O R D I N G

SUBMITTED BY (J'rinted or typed name and addreu

- Optional)

TELEPHONE NO.

DATt

I1I 1I I

DEPARTMENT OF T H E N A V Y

Naval Air Engineering Center

Lakehurst, New Jersey 08733
OFFICIAL BUSINESS
PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE $300

NO POSTAGE
NECESSARY
IF MAILED
IN THE
UNITED STATES

BUSINESS REPLY MAIL

FIRST CLASS

PERMIT

NO. 11503

WASHINGTON D. C.

POSTAGE WILL BE PAID BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE N A V Y

Commanding Officer
Engineering Specifications and Standards
Department (Code 93)
Naval Air Engineering Center
Lakehurst, NJ 08733