Combat System Maintenance Status

David H. Olwell

Introduction and setting

Army forces depend upon combat systems to move and fight. Because Army
forces move in very stressful environments, these combat systems eventually
break and require repair. While a system is awaiting repair, it is considered non-
mission capable or NMC. The percentage of vehicles awaiting repair is one of
the key indicators of a unit’s ability to fight, and is tracked at all levels of
command. The operational readiness rate, or OR Rate, is the percentage of
systems in a given class which are Mission Capable (MC).

In this paper, we will discuss three simple models

which describe the OR rate for the number of tanks in
a tank battalion in the 1st Armored Division. We will
also discuss ways the models could be extended to
improve their usefulness to the commander.

We assume that the reader is familiar with elementary

matrix algebra, linear systems of difference equations,
and optimization using differential calculus.

Markov Chain models

We begin with a simple model where a tank can be in one of two states: mission
capable (MC) or non-mission capable (NMC). Each day, on average a certain
percentage of the mission capable tanks break, and move to the other state.
Each day, a certain percentage of the NMC tanks are repaired and become
operational. Graphically, we have:

169
 Figure 1

We use the notation that p1 is the probability that a tank stays MC ; 1-p1 is the
probability that a tank moves from MC to NMC; p2 is the probability that a tank
moves from NMC to MC, and 1- p2 is the probability that a tank stays NMC.

Let Mi be the number of tanks in the battalion which are mission capable on day
i, and Ni be the number of tanks non-mission capable. Then we can write the
expected transitions from one day to the next:

Mi + 1 = p1 Mi + p2 N i
N i + 1 = (1 − p1 ) Mi + (1 − p2 ) N i

This system of equations can be easily expressed in matrix notation:

LM M OP = LM p
i+ 1 1 p2 OP LM M OP = LM p
i 1 p2 OP LM M OP
i+ 1
0

N N Q N1 − p
i+ 1 1 1 − p Q N N Q N1 − p
2 i 1 1− p Q N N Q
2 0

This assumes that the pi are known and constant, and ignores the randomness
in this problem by just looking at the expected values of tanks operational.
(Recall the expected value of an integer-valued variable is not necessarily an
integer.)

This system will eventually reach a steady state, where the expected values do
not change from day to day. The steady state can be found by eigenvector
analysis. A matrix of probabilities such as we have constructed is called a
probability transition matrix, since every entry is non-negative and every column
170
sums to 1. It is known that every probability transition matrix has at least one
eigenvalue equal to 1, and its associated eigenvector is the steady state for the
system.

We can solve for the steady state eigenvector by solving the equation

LM M OP = LM p 1 p2 OP LM M OP
N N Q N1 − p 1 1− p QN N Q
2

since at the steady state the number of vehicles breaking exactly balances the
number of vehicles being repaired.

We obtain the eigenvector

LM T p OP 2

MM pT (−1 −p p+ )1PP ,
2 1

MN p − p + 1PQ
1

2 1

where T is the total number of tanks in the battalion ( T = Mi + N i ). Regardless

of our starting state, the top component of the eigenvector tells us how many
vehicles, on average, we can expect eventually to have working, the bottom
component tells us how many we expect to be awaiting repair.

The MC/NMC rate steady states can be found similarly to be

LM p OP 2

MM p(1− − pp +) 1PP .
2 1

NM p − p + 1QP
1

2 1

For example, let’s let p1 =.95 and p2 =.8 . This means that only 5% of the
working vehicles break each day, and 80% of the broken vehicles are repaired.

We set T = 58 . Substitution gives us a steady state of

54.5882
, and an
LM OP
3.4118 N Q
eventual steady state OR of 94.1176%. Of course, we can’t have 54.5882
tanks. That is the expected value for the number operational, which is an
average. Just as the average of 1 and 2 is 1.5, which is not an integer, so can
the average number of tanks operational also not be an integer.

We can verify these calculations by constructing a spreadsheet model of the

tank maintenance status. Let’s start with M = 50 and N = 4. Figure 2 is a picture
of how the system on average would behave.

171
 55

54

53

52

51

50
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Figure 2

Let’s look a little closer at the steady state for M, which we said was equal to

T p2
M steady state = .
p2 − p1 + 1

If we want to improve the expected steady state for M, should we try to increase
p1 , p2 , or some combination of the two? One way to gain insights into this
question is to look at the gradient of steady state for M with respect to p1 and p2.

The gradient of M is given by:

∇M steady state =
LM ∂M , ∂M OP = LM T p 2
,
T (1 − p1 ) OP.
N ∂p ∂p Q N ( p − p + 1)
1 2 2 1
2
( p2 − p1 + 1) 2Q
We know from calculus that the direction of greatest increase in M is in the
direction of the gradient. That means to obtain the greatest increase in M for a
fixed size change in the values of p1 and p2, the change in p1 should be
proportional to p2, and the change in p2 should be proportional to 1-p1. Does this
make sense?

If we are repairing vehicles quickly already, then it makes sense to work on not
breaking them instead of working on improving our repair time. That is why the
change in p1 is proportional to p2. As p2 increases, we work more on p1.

172
If we are breaking vehicles frequently, it makes sense to improve our repair
capability. (1-p1 ) is the fraction of vehicles expected to “break” each time
period. As that increases, so should p2, according to the gradient.

Notice that unless p2 is zero, or p1 is one, we should work on improving both

percentages. The gradient tells us how to allocate our effort between them.

There are at least two shortcomings of this model. First, it is deterministic: we

only work with the expected number of vehicles in each category, and this
ignores the randomness of the true behavior, as well as the integer nature of the
objects. We can’t have 54.5882 tanks mission capable: we can only have 54 or
55. We don’t know from this model how much variation to expect around the
average.

The second shortcoming is that it is very simple. It doesn’t recognize that

vehicles break at different rates depending upon whether one is driving them in
the field or not. Vehicles are repaired at different rates depending upon the
availability of spare parts and mechanics, and upon how many other vehicles are
waiting to be repaired. The availability of parts depends on the priority code of
the unit. If the unit level maintenance can not repair the vehicle, it is sent to
higher level maintenance, which has different repair rates. A better model
would incorporate these additional features.

However, this simple model is useful. It allows us to gain understanding about

our system, which is the hallmark of an effective model.

Binomial Equation

It is possible to improve the model in the previous section by considering a

stochastic model. This will allow us to not only understand the average behavior
of our model, but also how much the number of MC tanks varies around that
average. There is a significant difference between 54.5882 (plus or minus .1),
and 54.5882 (plus or minus 10). We will use the binomial distribution for our
models.

Let’s consider the number of tanks that are mission capable each day. That
number will be the sum of those tanks that were mission capable the previous
day and stayed in that state, plus the number of tanks that were repaired the
previous day. This can be modeled as the sum of two binomially distributed
random variables. Let Mi be the number of mission capable tanks the preceding
period, and T be the total number of tanks. Then

Mi + 1 = Bin( p1 , Mi ) + Bin( p2 , T − Mi ) .

173
Mi+1 is the sum of two binomial random variables, but it itself is not binomially
distributed unless p1 = p2.

How does Mi+1 behave? Let’s imagine 20 battalions all starting at with the same
number of MC and NMC tanks (54 and 4), each with p1 = 0.95 and p2 = 0.80, and
each following our model. We can graph their number of MC tanks using a
spreadsheet, and obtain Figure 3:

Number of operational vehicles

57

54

51

48

45
0 20 40 60 80 100
Day

Figure 3

This image of 20 different histories (one for each of the battalions) gives us a
feel for the variability we can expect in the number of operational tanks. We can
expect to have between 51 and 58 tanks MC usually, and only about 1 in every
2000 days would we have as few as 47 tanks operational.

We can also use the spreadsheet to do some simple “what--if” analysis. We can
put p1 and p2 in cells, and have all the calculations refer to those cells. Then as
we vary the values of those cells, we can dynamically see the effect in
operational readiness rate. At Figure 4, we see an example, with p1 =.85, p2 =.5. :

174
 Figure 4

Notice that this data is serially correlated. If the previous day was low, the next
day tends to be low, as well. If the previous day was high, the next day tends to
be high. It is obvious from the graph that the day to day levels of Mi are not
independent. Of course, we knew that since in our model the distribution of Mi+1
was a function of Mi.

This type of pictorial representation of a stochastic discrete system is very useful

to demonstrate the properties of a maintenance system to a commander.
Pictures tell stories that mere numbers often fail to convey. The picture of the
Markov chain model shows only the long-term trend of the average number of
tanks. These pictures from the simulation show both the long-term average and
the variability. While the average number of tanks MC may reach an equilibrium
value, the variability of the actual number of tanks up at any given time does not
go to zero! The randomness remains.

Estimating the parameters

How do we determine p1 and p2? We may never know them exactly. The best
we can hope to do is to estimate them from historical data. We have assumed in
our earlier models that p1 and p2 are constant. This is a very strong assumption.
If it holds, we can estimate p1 and p2 from prior records. In the section after this,
we discuss an approach for relaxing the assumption of constant transition
probabilities.

For now, we continue to assume that the transition probabilities are constant.
How may we estimate them?

175
Our answer will depend on what type of data we have available. If we have data
that tells us for each day the number of vehicles that stayed MC, that went from
MC to NMC, that went from NMC to MC, and stayed NMC, we can estimate the
transition probabilities directly. Unfortunately, the data we have from the 1st
Armored Division only has the number of MC vehicles for each reporting period.

We can use that data to estimate p1 and p2 in our binomial model by constructing
a discrete dynamical system of expected values under our binomial model where
we allow the transition probabilities to be variables. We have that

b g
E Mi + 1 = p1 Mi + p2 N i ,

where E(M) means the expected value of M. We then calculate residuals, which
are the difference between the expected value and the observed values. We
square the residuals, and choose the two values of p1 and p2 that minimize the
sum of the squared errors. Using the Solve macro from Excel, we find the
values of p1 and p2 that minimize the squared residuals. The output is shown in
Figure 5.

The spreadsheet is searching through all possible values of p1 and p2 to find the
values that minimize the sum of squared residuals. These values are all listed
on the first line of the output. We see that the best estimate from this data is that
p1 = 96.66% and p2 = 32.11%.

176
 p1 p2 sum
0.966653 0.321071 113.5452
Day M N EM r2
36 55 3
35 54 4 54.12913 0.016674
34 54 4 53.48355 0.266725
33 52 6 53.48355 2.200907
32 52 6 52.19238 0.03701
31 52 6 52.19238 0.03701
30 52 6 52.19238 0.03701
29 53 5 52.19238 0.652249
28 53 5 52.83796 0.026256
27 53 5 52.83796 0.026256
26 53 5 52.83796 0.026256
25 53 5 52.83796 0.026256
24 53 5 52.83796 0.026256
23 53 5 52.83796 0.026256
22 50 8 52.83796 8.054035
21 53 5 50.90122 4.404893
20 53 5 52.83796 0.026256
19 48 10 52.83796 23.40589
18 52 6 49.61005 5.711853
17 53 5 52.19238 0.652249
16 53 5 52.83796 0.026256
15 53 5 52.83796 0.026256
14 48 10 52.83796 23.40589
13 49 9 49.61005 0.372163
12 49 9 50.25563 1.576617
11 49 9 50.25563 1.576617
10 48 10 50.25563 5.087885
9 53 5 49.61005 11.49175
8 53 5 52.83796 0.026256
7 53 5 52.83796 0.026256
6 54 4 52.83796 1.350329
5 55 3 53.48355 2.299634
4 58 0 54.12913 14.98365
3 58 0 56.06587 3.74084
2 55 3 56.06587 1.136089
1 55 3 54.12913 0.758418

Figure 5

177
Modeling the transition probabilities as functions of other variables

Let’s look at a plot of the residuals from the previous section, given at Figure 6:

Residuals

4
3
2
1
0 10
Residuals
13

16

19

22

25

28

31

34
1

-1
-2

-3
-4
-5

Figure 6

We see that there are some days where the residuals are much bigger than the
others are, indicating that our estimated model does not fit too well on those
days. Can we find information to explain why the model does poorly on those
days?

One approach is to allow p1 and p2 to be functions of some other variables. For

example, p1 might very well be affected by whether or not the battalion tanks
were driven that day. p2 might be affected by the number of mechanics
available, the number of spare parts available, and even the number of NMC
vehicles: the more broken, the less likely any one of them might be fixed.

We were not able to collect data on these predictors, but we can find the days
the battalion was in the field using its vehicles. To illustrate the method, we add
a predictor to our data set with value 1 if the battalion drove the vehicles in the
field that day, and value 0 if not. It is still possible to have a vehicle become
NMC if it is not driven because of the preventive maintenance checks and
services (PMCS), but it is much less likely.

We define p3 as the amount that p1 changes when the battalion is in the field.
We then have EMi + 1 = ( p1 + p3 Ii ) Mi + p2 N i , where Ii is an indicator variable equal
to 1 if the battalion is in the field that day. Just as before, we use Excel to solve
for all three p values, and obtain the spreadsheet output at Figure 7, below:

178
 p1 p2 p3 sum
0.950452 0.597506 -0.07669 57.00474 day in field?
Day M N EM r2 r
36 55 3 53.71445 1.652645 1.285552 0
35 54 4 53.71445 0.08154 0.285552 0
34 54 4 53.00855 0.982964 0.991445 0
33 52 6 53.00855 1.017182 -1.00855 0
32 52 6 53.00855 1.017182 -1.00855 0
31 52 6 53.00855 1.017182 -1.00855 0
30 52 6 53.3615 1.853685 -1.3615 0
29 53 5 53.3615 0.130683 -0.3615 0
28 53 5 53.3615 0.130683 -0.3615 0
27 53 5 53.3615 0.130683 -0.3615 0
26 53 5 53.3615 0.130683 -0.3615 0
25 53 5 53.3615 0.130683 -0.3615 0
24 53 5 53.3615 0.130683 -0.3615 0
23 53 5 52.30266 0.486281 0.697339 0
22 50 8 53.3615 11.29969 -3.3615 0
21 53 5 53.3615 0.130683 -0.3615 0
20 53 5 51.59677 1.969059 1.403232 0
19 48 10 49.02076 1.041956 -1.02076 1
18 52 6 53.3615 1.853685 -1.3615 0
17 53 5 53.3615 0.130683 -0.3615 0
16 53 5 53.3615 0.130683 -0.3615 0
15 53 5 51.59677 1.969059 1.403232 0
14 48 10 48.19199 0.036859 -0.19199 1
13 49 9 48.19199 0.652884 0.808012 1
12 49 9 48.19199 0.652884 0.808012 1
11 49 9 47.91573 1.175642 1.08427 1
10 48 10 49.29702 1.682263 -1.29702 1
9 53 5 53.3615 0.130683 -0.3615 0
8 53 5 53.3615 0.130683 -0.3615 0
7 53 5 53.71445 0.510436 -0.71445 0
6 54 4 54.06739 0.004542 -0.06739 0
5 55 3 55.12623 0.015935 -0.12623 0
4 58 0 55.12623 8.258531 2.873766 0
3 58 0 54.06739 15.46539 3.932606 0
2 55 3 54.06739 0.869753 0.932606 0
1 55 3 0

Figure 7

179
Notice how much our estimates change with the addition of the new information,
and how much our squared error is reduced. The plot of the residuals at Figure
8 indicates a much better fit, although there still are some days which are not
well explained by the model.

Residuals

1
Residuals
0
10

13

16

19

22

25

28

31

34
1

-1

-2

-3

-4

Figure 8

With more information, we might model p1 and p2 as functions of the other

predictors, and fit them using least squares. We could then not only have better
estimates of the parameters, but also an understanding of how different factors
affect the readiness of the battalion’s vehicles.

Conclusion

These simple models are very useful to leaders trying to understand the usual
variation of their systems. We have been able to provide this battalion
commander with much useful information about the OR of his unit. The estimate
of p3, in particular, helps the commander quantify the readiness cost of field
training.

It is very satisfying to see in this problem that the discrete dynamical systems,
calculus, and statistics topics of the USMA core curriculum are so directly useful
to the Army in the field. We have seen that the expected number of operational
vehicles can be modeled with a first order difference equation. We have used
the binomial distribution from the probability and statistics course to understand
the variability of the readiness rate. Minimizing the sum of squared errors to
obtain estimates is a topic from both the calculus and statistics. Finally, our use
of the gradient to see the relationship between changes in the parameters and
changes in the OR rate is a straightforward application of the multivariable
differential calculus.
Exercises

180
1. Your battalion values for p1 and p2 are given by .95 and .7, respectively.
Assume you initially have 58 vehicles, 45 which are MC.

a) Formulate the transition matrix for MC and NMC tanks for your
battalion.
b) Find the steady state readiness posture of your battalion. How long
does it take to achieve this?
c) Use simulation to estimate the variability of the MC and NMC rates.
d) Do these values of p1 and p2 produce pronounced serial correlation?
Why or why not, and why would a commander care?

2. You obtain the data in Figure 9 on your tank battalion’s MC and NMC counts.
Estimate p1 and p2. Interpret them in a short paragraph to your commander.
Include a simulation that demonstrates how variable the MC and NMC daily
totals can be.

Day MC NMC
0 40 18
1 43 15
2 44 14
3 46 12
4 50 8
5 51 7
6 50 8
7 53 5
8 55 3
9 56 2
10 52 6
11 52 6
12 50 8
13 53 5
14 54 4
15 56 2
16 54 4
17 53 5
18 52 6
19 52 6
20 49 9

Figure 9

181
3. You have the data at Figure 10 from a sister battalion, which also includes
whether or not they were in the field. Estimate p1, p2, and p3. Summarize your
findings to your commander in a short report. Include appropriate graphical
evidence.
In field? MC NMC
0 40 18
0 51 7
0 54 4
0 51 7
0 48 10
0 50 8
0 51 7
1 34 24
1 38 20
1 33 25
1 39 19
1 42 16
1 40 18
1 36 22
1 38 20
0 51 7
0 49 9
0 50 8
0 55 3
0 55 3
0 54 4
Figure 10

4. Your commander is uncertain about this model. Write a short essay

explaining the assumptions of this Markov chain maintenance model. Based on
your experiences, discuss which assumptions might be reasonable and which
might be unreasonable. Cite examples to support your discussion. Give enough
information so an informed decision can be made about using the model in your
unit. Write in language your commander can understand.

References

1. Army Regulation 750-1, Preventive Maintenance Checks and Services

2. Field Manual 43-5, Unit Maintenance Operations

3. Department of the Army Pamphlet 738-750, Army Maintenance Management

System

4. Department of the Army Pamphlet 750-35, Guide for Motor Pool Operations

182