Chapter 4

Integrating Reliability, Availability,

and Maintainability Issues for Analyzing
Failures in Fuel Injection Pump

Rajiv Kumar Sharma

Abstract The main aim of this chapter is to enable system reliability analysts to
provide a correct and timely diagnosis of reliability, availability, and maintenance
requirements of their systems. Embarking upon the fundamental strength of failure
analysis methods such as failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA), root cause
analysis (RCA), and reliability block diagrams (RBD), the chapter provides Reli-
ability, Availability, and Maintainability (RAM) analysis of pump failures. The
pump system has been decomposed into a number of subsystems based on the
components/parts. Failure and repair statistics of subsystems components have
been used to model the reliability and maintainability of whole system. For
ascertaining the maintenance priorities, FMEA has been used to spot out various
possible failure modes, find out their effect on the operation of the pump, and to
discover actions to alleviate the failures. The results of RAM analysis not only helps
to identify the reliability and availability issues which may limit the production
throughput but also helps to propose improvement in the design or selection of
effective maintenance strategies.

Keywords Pump failures · Reliability · Availability and maintainability · Failure

mode and effects analysis

4.1 Introduction

If the whole thing performs as per designed considerations and meets most wanted
customer requirements, then perhaps there would be possibly no failures, but unluck-
ily breakdown or failure is almost an inevitable experience with mechanical systems/
subsystems/components/parts. One can witness numerous failure instances in the
past such as nuclear explosions, gas plant leakages, Airbus A380 engine failure (Paris

R. K. Sharma (*)
National Institute of Technology, Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh, India
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 41

D. Panchal et al. (eds.), Reliability and Risk Modeling of Engineering Systems,
EAI/Springer Innovations in Communication and Computing,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-70151-2_4
42 R. K. Sharma

to Los Angeles 2017), and power outages, which may be the result of human errors,
neglected maintenance, insufficient repairs. With advancements in technological
know-how and increasing intricacy of technical systems, the job of reliability engi-
neers has turned out to be more demanding as they have to demonstrate and quantify
the performance of system by making use of failure model and analysis techniques.
The behavioral understanding of system helps the managers to select most appropri-
ate maintenance practices. Since the last four decades, reliability, availability, and
maintenance studies conducted by various researchers have been considered as vital
for the success and design of production systems [1–4]. Reliability investigations
have been proved useful in process industry for conducting studies related to
(i) production availability, (ii) safety and risk management, and (iii) maintainability
[5]. In literature studies, enormous effort has been made by researchers to collect and
examine failure data for general applications [6–8].
In the present study, authors performed failure diagnosis of centrifugal pumps. As
they are available in different types, sizes, designs, and materials, they are suscep-
tible to varied nature of functional problems.
To this effect, authors in the present chapter present the following details:
• An introductory part deals with the terminology related to reliability, availability,
and maintainability and root cause analysis system along with a detailed literature
review of studies.
• The second part deals with system information and RAM analysis followed by
root cause analysis and failure mode effects analysis (FMEA) for fuel
injection pump.

4.2 Related Work

Mihalache et al. [6, 7] performed reliability evaluation of mechatronic system and

discussed the application of antilock brake system. Kumar et al. [8] considered semi-
Markov model to simulate a repairable mechanical system with an application of
centrifugal pumping system. Srinivasa and Naikan [9] proposed a hybrid method
which makes use of Markov modeling with system dynamics simulation approach
for reliability analysis. Jin et al. [10] performed reliability analysis of integral hot
deep drawing and cold flow forming process for gas cylinders using FMEA
approach. Sharma and Kumar [11] used RAM analysis approach to model the
system behavior in a process industry using Markovian approach. Silva and
Behbahani [12] emphasized the accountability of equipment designers and manu-
facturers. Antomarioni et al. [13] developed a data-driven maintenance policy with
case study from an oil refinery by using a large dataset. Vallem and Saravannan [14]
performed reliability estimation of cogeneration power plant in textile mill using
FTA. Follmer et al. [15] adopted model-based approach for the reliability calculation
of mechatronic systems and stated the importance of modelling and simulation for
design of mechatronics systems. Mishra et al. [16] studied the effect of various
4 Integrating Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability Issues. . . 43

maintenance policies on the reliability of a dragline. Sharma and Sharma [17]

presented the relevance of FTA and FMEA as safety techniques to study the risk
and reliability needs of modular production system. Kuo and Chang [18] developed
production scheduling and preventive maintenance planning model for a single
machine. Maheshwari and Sharma [19] investigated unreliable FMC. Gaula and
Sharma [20] presented a framework which includes quantitative and qualitative
approaches for analysis and modeling the failures of typical manufacturing cell.
Philip and Sharma [21] used Petri net approach to analyze the reliability of various
machine and robot configurations in FMC. Sharma and Sharma [22] presented RAM
analysis of textile manufacturing system by computing reliability, availability, and
maintainability values. Sun et al. [23] developed an effective approach for deter-
mining the optimal reliability-based preventive maintenance strategy within the
identified multiple constraints, that is, mission time, customer satisfaction, human
resources, and acceptable risk levels.

4.3 Basic Concepts and Definitions [24–26]

4.3.1 Reliability

It refers to the ability of a product to function effectively over a certain period of time
under the stated conditions [26]. An exact definition shall take account of exhaustive
interpretation about the function, the working surroundings, and the time period.
Reliability Estimation
Z t  
Rðt Þ ¼ 1  λeλs ds ¼ 1  1  eλt ¼ eλt
0

where
R ¼ reliability
t ¼ time for which reliability to be estimated
λ ¼ failure rate (1/hour)

4.3.2 Maintainability

It is defined as the probability or ease with which a product is maintained or restored

back to its original working condition. It depends upon the adequacy of repair or
replacements of faulty or worn-out components.
44 R. K. Sharma

Maintainability Estimation
Maintainability ¼ 1–eμt., where μ ¼ repair rate (1/hour), t ¼ time for which
maintainability is to be calculated.

4.3.3 Availability

It is defined as the probability that a system is operating satisfactorily at any point in

time when used under stated conditions, where the time considered includes the
operating time and the active repair time.

MTBF
A¼
MTBF þ MTTR

where MTBF ¼ mean time between failure and MTTR ¼ mean time to repair.

4.3.4 Root Cause Analysis (RCA)

It is a systematic approach to identify the “root causes” of problems in order to

develop appropriate solutions. It makes use of the cause mapping method to uncover
causes of problems. If a failure mode demonstrates a high-risk priority number, one
can go for RCA to enhance the understanding of the failure modes and consequently
devise feasible solutions to minimize the severity of the potential failure or the
likelihood of occurrence, or raise the ability of detection. Similarly, the outcome of
root cause analysis should be included while conducting the FMEA process. In
certain situations, use of root cause analysis clarifies failure modes and their causes
which have been already identified by the teams.

4.3.5 Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) [27]

FMEA is one of the highly structured and systematic techniques for failure analysis.
It aims to identify and eliminate/mitigate known and/or possible failure modes of
system or subsystem components. The tool is widely used by design teams.
“Failure modes” signifies the ways in which a component or part may fail.
Failures are errors or defects, particularly those which have considerable effect on
the consumer.
“Effects analysis” (EA) refers to deciphering the consequences of those failures or
breakdowns by ensuring that no failures remain nondetected, how repeatedly a
failure occurs, and identifying which possible failures be prioritized for initiating
maintenance actions.
4 Integrating Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability Issues. . . 45

4.4 Illustrative Case

The company considered in the case study is a lead plant across the world engaged in
the manufacture of distributor pumps (VE Mechanical and Electronic Diesel Control
Pumps) with latest technology and part tolerances of order of few microns. But since
last year, the company is facing rejection of fuel pump which needs to be investi-
gated. In this chapter, we determine the reliability and maintainability issues related
with this pump. The details of pump are as given below. Figure shows the schematic
diagram of pump.
Type: VE (distributor injection pump), Size: 1.2 l per hour
Speed range: up to 5000 rpm, Maximum pressure: 950 bar
The constructional features of a VE pump consists of four major units as:
• Vane-type fuel supply pump: Its main function is to draw fuel and generate
adequate pressure in the pump.
• High-pressure pump with distributor: It produces injection pressure, distributes
and delivers fuel.
• Governor: It is used to controls the pump speed and vary the quantity delivered.
• Timing device: It makes adjustments at the start of delivery as a function of the
pump speed and load.

4.4.1 Subsystem’s Reliability, Availability,

and Maintainability (RAM) Analysis

Assumptions [22]
The following assumptions have been taken into account for modeling the system:
(i) Failure rates and repair rates for all the units of mechanical VE fuel injection
pump subsystems are constant over time and statistically independent.
(ii) The MTBF and MTTR data follows exponential distribution. Hence, it is
assumed that there are no concurrent failures of subsystem units or among
the pump subsystems.
(iii) The units which are repaired as new.
(iv) A separate repair facility for each subsystem exists.
(v) Any subsystem of the mechanical VE fuel injection pump remains simply in
operating and nonoperating states. The subsystem moves from operating state
to nonoperating state of unit failure and similarly the unit as well as the
subsystem moves at the same time from nonoperating to operating state as a
result of repair actions being carried out (Fig. 4.1).
46 R. K. Sharma

Flyweight

Sliding Governor
Sleeve
Cross
Disc Control
Drive Spool
shaft Distributor
Head

Inlet
Passages Cam
Vane type Plate Main
Delivery
Feed Pump Plunger
Timer Valve
Roller Roller
Ring Piston

Fig. 4.1 Schematic diagram of fuel injection pump

4.4.2 Failure Rate and Repair Rate for Different Components

The following Table 4.1 shows the time in hours at which a failure in any subsystem
component occurs and corresponding failure rates. Also, the time (in hours) to repair
any subsystem component with corresponding repair rates are presented.

4.4.3 Reliability Block Diagram

Reliability, availability, and maintainability analysis of all the subsystems has been
carried out. For instance, this section presents RAM analysis of subsystem 1. Fig-
ure 4.2 presents reliability block diagram for Vane-type fuel supply pump.

4.5 RAM Analysis

4.5.1 Reliability Estimation

The reliability of the subsystem is estimated using equation below:

R ¼ eλt
4 Integrating Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability Issues. . . 47

Table 4.1 Failure and repair statistics for various subsystems

Subsystems Time (hour) Failure rate (λ) Time (hour) Repair rate (μ)
Vane-type fuel supply pump
Drive shaft 2400 0.0004166 1.25 0.8
Support ring 5688 0.0001758 1.50 0.66
Eccentric ring 4320 0.0002314 1.20 0.83
Vanes 3840 0.0002604 1.00 1
Teethed ring 2904 0.0003443 1.25 0.8
Timing device
Roller ring 3000 0.000333 1.75 0.5714
TD piston 2520 0.000397 1.75 0.5714
Cam plate 2160 0.000463 1.5 0.666
Timer plate 03663 2520 0.000397 0.5 0.672
Distributor head assembly
Distributor plunger 3600 0.000277 1.50 0.66
Control spool 6600 0.000151 1.75 0.571
Distributor head flange 7200 0.000138 1.25 0.8
Delivery valve 2400 0.000416 1.00 1
Governor
Flyweight 3360 0.000297 2.00 0.5
Sliding sleeve 3840 0.000260 1.75 0.571
Lever 1920 0.000520 1.50 0.66
Spring 2280 0.000438 1.50 0.66

Drive Shaft Support Ring Eccentric Ring Vanes Teethed Ring

Fig. 4.2 Reliability block diagram for Vane-type fuel supply pump

RSS1 ¼ RDS  RSR  RER  RV  RTR

The following Table 4.2 shows reliability calculation of different components of

subsystems in Vane-type fuel supply pump.

4.5.2 Availability Estimation

For determining the availability of the subsystem, the transition diagram has been
drawn and resulting differential equations has been formulated. Figure 4.3 presents
transition diagram of subsystem 1 for Vane-type fuel supply pump. The capital
letters shows the subsystem in working condition and lower case letters shows
subsystem in failed state, where D ¼ drive shaft; S ¼ support ring; E ¼ eccentric
ring; V ¼ Vanes and T ¼ teethed ring
48 R. K. Sharma

Table 4.2 Reliability estimation of Vane-type fuel supply pump

Time Drive Support Eccentric Teethed Vane-type fuel supply
(hour) shaft ring ring Vanes ring pump
0 1 1 1 1 1 1
100 0.959157 0.982554 0.977165 0.974335 0.966185 0.866927
200 0.919983 0.965412 0.954851 0.949329 0.933513 0.751563
300 0.882409 0.94857 0.933047 0.924964 0.901947 0.651551
400 0.846369 0.932021 0.91174 0.901225 0.871447 0.564847
500 0.811801 0.915761 0.890921 0.878095 0.841979 0.489682
600 0.778645 0.899784 0.870576 0.855559 0.813508 0.424518
700 0.746843 0.884087 0.850696 0.833601 0.785999 0.368027
800 0.71634 0.868663 0.831271 0.812207 0.75942 0.319052
900 0.687083 0.853508 0.812288 0.791362 0.73374 0.276595
1000 0.659021 0.838618 0.793739 0.771052 0.708929 0.239788

Fig. 4.3 Transition diagram of subsystem 1

Using the Markov Method and writing the differential equations for above
system:
X  X
d
Po þ λi  P o  μi Pi ¼ 0
dt

For steady state,

4 Integrating Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability Issues. . . 49

d d d d d d
P ¼ P ¼ P ¼ P ¼ P ¼ P
dt o dt d dt s dt e dt v dt t

Solving above equation,

Pd μd ¼ Po λd
Ps μs ¼ Po λs
P e μ e ¼ P o λe
Pv μv ¼ Po λv
Pt μt ¼ Po λt

Since the sum of the probability will be unity, then

Po þ Pd þ Ps þ Pe þ Pv þ Pt ¼ 1

Putting the values of Po, Pd, Ps, Pe, Pv, and Pt,

Po þ Po ðλd =μd Þ þ Po ðλs =μs Þ þ Po ðλe =μe Þ þ Po ðλv =μv Þ þ Po ðλt =μt Þ ¼ 1
 X 
Po ¼ 1= 1 þ ðλi =μi Þ

Substituting the values of λi and μi, the steady state availability of the timing
device

Po ¼ 0:998246

4.5.3 Maintainability Estimation

For determining the maintainability of the subsystem, the following equations have
been used.

Maintainability ¼ 1  eμt M SS1 ¼ M DS  M SR  M ER  M V  M TR

Table 4.3 shows maintainability calculation of different components of a

subsystem.
50 R. K. Sharma

Table 4.3 Maintainability calculations

Time Drive Support Eccentric Teethed Vane-type fuel supply
(hour) shaft ring ring Vanes ring pump
1 0.5506 0.4831 0.563 0.6321 0.5506 0.052
2 0.7981 0.7328 0.809 0.8646 0.7981 0.326
3 0.9092 0.8619 0.917 0.9502 0.9092 0.621
4 0.9592 0.9286 0.963 0.9816 0.9592 0.808
5 0.9816 0.9631 0.984 0.9932 0.9816 0.907
6 0.9917 0.9809 0.993 0.9975 0.9917 0.955
7 0.9963 0.9901 0.997 0.9990 0.9963 0.978
8 0.9983 0.9949 0.998 0.9996 0.9983 0.989
9 0.9992 0.9973 0.999 0.9998 0.9992 0.995
10 0.9996 0.9986 0.999 0.9999 0.9996 0.997

4.5.4 Root Cause Analysis (RCA)

To understand the dynamics of failure mode and determine the probable responses to
reduce the severity of the likely failure or the likelihood of occurrence, root cause
analysis of vane-type fuel supply pump with all its subsystems has been conducted
as shown in Fig. 4.4.

4.5.5 Failure Mode and Effects Analysis

Further, to discover possible failure modes and to perceive their effect on the
operation of the pump, FMEA analysis is done. This assists in identification of
actions to alleviate the failures. It consists of the following:
Occurrence It denotes the likelihood that a process, product, or service may fail
during its lifespan. In the study, the likelihood of pump failures is computed based
on MTBF statistics.
Detection How likely a problem is detected before its occurrence? The detection is
done by means of inspection either through naked eye or using special aids/
instruments.
Severity It decides and ranks what is most severe for an operation. The severity of
the outcome may be considered as low, moderate, or high depending upon the
consequences. Table 4.4 presents the scale for measuring the inputs in FMEA.
Tables 4.5 presents FMEA worksheet of failure for components of subsystem
1 (Vane-type fuel supply pump) to determine the RPN number. RPN of teethed
ring is highest which is 140 and lowest for driveshaft, that is, 30 respectively. On
similar lines, the FMEA for components of all the subsystems has been carried out.
4 Integrating Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability Issues. . . 51

Fig. 4.4 RCA for pump

Table 4.4 Scale for measuring the inputs in FMEA

Score/ Likelihood of
Linguistic rank Occurrence nondetection
terms no. MTBF Severity effect rate % (Of) % (Od)
Remote 1 >105 hour Not noticed <0.01 0–5
Low 2–3 8  104 – 105 hour Slight annoyance 0.01–0.1 6–15
to moderator 16–25
Moderate 4–5-6 4  104 – 8  104 Slight deteriora- 0.1–0.5 26–35
hour tion in system 36–45
performance 46–55
High 7–8 2  104 – 4  104 Significant deteri- 0.5–1 56–65
hour oration in system 66–75
performance
Very high 9–10 <2  104 hour Production loss >1 76–85
86–100

4.6 Results and Discussion

Figure 4.5(a) shows reliability vs time graph and Fig. 4.5(b) shows maintainability
vs time graph for the overall system. It shows that the timing device subsystem in the
fuel injection pump is least reliable and should be taken care of first. Figure 4.5(b)
shows that the support ring component in the Vane-type fuel supply pump is least
maintainable and should be taken care of first. After performing reliability analysis
for pump subsystems, reliability of subsystem 2 timing device is least which is
0.203926. Timing device is one of the most critical subsystem of the pump which
52 R. K. Sharma

Table 4.5 FMEA of subsystem 1(Vane-type fuel supply pump)

Potential Potential
Potential effect of cause of
Components Function failure mode failure failure S O D RPN
Drive shaft Power Bending Vibration Continuous 5 1 6 30
transfer load
Support ring To support Unlocking Roller ring High 3 7 2 42
the roller damage vibration
ring
Eccentric Pass the Grease Less Excessive 8 3 5 120
ring pressurized surface increase in speed
fuel pressure
Vanes Pressure Dirt Less Dirt 8 3 5 120
increase contamination increase in
pressure
Teethed ring Operate Slipping Inaccurate Wear 7 4 5 140
governor operation

assembles and disassembles (engagement and disengagement) in pump 4–5 times at

different stations which are assembly station, leakage testing station, calibration
station, and post-calibration station before reaching the final packing of pump in
plant. Many operations perform on timing device subsystem at many stations with
improper material handling techniques. So, timing device is least reliable in pump in
comparison to other systems. After performing maintainability analysis for pump
subsystems, maintainability of subsystem 4 governor is least which is 0.98728.
Governor has complicated and compact structure in pump. It takes more time in
assembly in pump as compared to other parts. Therefore, maintainability of governor
is less compared to other subsystems. After performing availability analysis for
pump subsystems, availability of subsystem 4 governor is least which is 0.997516.
In governor subsystem divided in many subsystem or part such as spring, fulcrum
lever, flyweight, and teeth gear. All are mechanical parts which will fail due to load
variation, friction, and wear. So availability and maintainability is least for governor.
After conducting RCA, the FMEA analysis of pump subsystems is also carried out.
Risk Priority Number (RPN) of subsystem 2 timing device is highest which is
420 for the timer plate component. Timer plate will fail early as compared to other
part of timing device. From the above-mentioned data we can conclude that the
subsystem which is most likely to fail first is the one which has the highest RPN, that
is, the timing device needs to be taken care of in the earliest time possible. Further,
we can say from the RAM analysis that subsystem 4, that is, governor is least
maintainable and available and likely to fail next.
4 Integrating Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability Issues. . . 53

(a) Reliability vs Time

1.2
1
Reliability

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Time (hrs.)
Vane type fuel supply pump Timing device
Distributor Head Assembly Governor
Reliability of Fuel Injecon Pump

(b) Maintainability vs Time

1.2
Drive sha
1
Support Ring
Maintainability

0.8
Eccentric Ring
0.6
Vanes
0.4
Teethed Ring
0.2
Vane type fuel
0 supply pump

0 5 10 15
Time (in hours)
Fig. 4.5 (a) Reliability vs time graph. (b) Maintainability vs time graph for Vane-type fuel
supply pump

References

1. Cochran, J. K., Murugan, A., & Krishnamurthy, V. (2000). Generic Markov models for
availability estimation and failure characterization in petroleum refineries. Computers and
Operations Research, 28(1), 1–12.
54 R. K. Sharma

2. Liberopoulos, G., & Tsarouhas, P. (2005). Reliability analysis of an automated pizza production
line. Journal of Food Engineering, 69(1), 79–96.
3. Hauptmanns, U. (2004). Semi-quantitative fault tree analysis for process plant safety using
frequency and probability ranges. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 17(5),
339–345.
4. Azadeh, A., Ebrahimipour, V., & Bavar, P. (2010). A fuzzy inference system for pump failure
diagnosis to improve maintenance process: The case of a petrochemical industry. Expert
Systems with Applications: An International Journal. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2009.06.
018.
5. Oystein, M. (1998). Use of reliability technology in the process industry. Reliability Engineer-
ing and System Safety, 60, 179–181.
6. Mihalache, A., Guerin, F., Barreau, M., Todoskoff, A., & Dumon, B. (2004). Reliability
assessment of mechatronic systems: operating field data analysis. In IEEE international con-
ference on industrial technology (ICIT).
7. Mihalache, A., Guerin, F., Barreau, M., Todoskoff, A., & Dumon, B. (2006). Reliability
analysis of mechatronic systems using censored data and petri nets: Application on an antilock
brake system (ABS). In IEEE international conference.
8. Kumar, G., Jain, V., & Soni, U. (2019). Modelling and simulation of repairable mechanical
systems reliability and availability. International Journal of Systems Assurance Engineering
and Management, 10, 1221–1233.
9. Srinivasa Rao, M., & Naikan, V. N. A. (2014). Reliability analysis of repairable systems using
system dynamics modeling and simulation. Journal of Industrial Engineering International, 10,
69.
10. Jin, W., Li, Y., Gao, Z., et al. (2018). Reliability analysis of integral hot deep drawing and cold
flow forming process for large-diameter seamless steel gas cylinders. International Journal of
Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 97, 189–197.
11. Sharma, R. K., & Kumar, S. (2008). Performance modeling in critical engineering systems
using RAM analysis. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 93(6), 913–923.
12. Silva, C. W., & Behbahani, S. (2012). A design paradigm for mechatronic systems.
Mechatronics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mechatronics.2012.08.004.
13. Antomarioni, S., Bevilacqua, M., Potena, D., & Diamantini, C. (2019). Defining a data-driven
maintenance policy: An application to an oil refinery plant. International Journal of Quality &
Reliability Management, 36(1), 77–97.
14. Vallem, R., & Saravannan, R. (2011). Reliability assessment of cogeneration power plant in
textile mill using fault tree analysis. Journal of Failure Analysis and Loss Prevention, 24,
56–70.
15. Follmer, M., Hehenberger, P., & Zeman, K. (2012). Model-based approach for the reliability
prediction of mechatronic systems, EUROCAST 2011, part II, LNCS 6928 (pp. 105–112).
Berlin: Springer.
16. Mishra, A., Palei, S. K., & Gupta, S. (2020). Reliability analysis of dragline using equivalent
aging model. Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering.
17. Sharma, R. K., & Sharma, P. (2015). Qualitative and quantitative approaches to analyse
reliability of a mechatronic system: A case. J Ind Eng Int, 11, 253–268.
18. Kuo, Y., & Chang, Z. A. (2007). Integrated production scheduling and preventive maintenance
planning for a single machine under a cumulative damage failure process. Naval Research
Logistics, 54, 602–614.
19. Maheshwari, S., & Sharma, P. (2010). Unreliable flexible manufacturing cell with common
cause failure. International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology, 9, 4701–4716.
20. Gaula, A. K., & Sharma, R. K. (2015). Analyzing the effect of maintenance strategies on
throughput of a flexible manufacturing cell. International Journal on System Assurance and
Engineering Management, 6, 183–190.
4 Integrating Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability Issues. . . 55

21. Philip, A., & Sharma, R. K. (2013). A stochastic reward net approach for reliability analysis of a
flexible manufacturing module. International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and
Management, 4, 293–302.
22. Sharma, R. K., & Sharma, P. (2012). Computing ram indices for reliable operation of produc-
tion systems. Advances in Production Engineering & Management, 7, 245–254.
23. Sun, Y., Ma, L., Purser, M., & Fidge, C. (2010). Optimisation of the reliability based preventive
maintenance strategy. In D. Kiritsis, C. Emmanouilidis, A. Koronios, & J. Mathew (Eds.),
Engineering asset lifecycle management. London: Springer.
24. O’Connor, P. D. T. (2001). Practical reliability engineering. London: Heyden.
25. Modarres, M., & Kaminski, M. (1999). Reliability engineering and risk analysis. Marcel
Dekker.
26. American Society for Quality (ASQ). 2011. Glossary: reliability. Accessed on 11 June 2020.
Available at http://asq.org/glossary/r.htm.
27. Sharma, R., Kumar, D., & Kumar, P. (2005). Systematic failure mode and effect analysis using
fuzzy linguistic modeling. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 22(9),
886–1004.