7243_C003.

fm Page 23 Friday, February 3, 2006 11:41 AM

3 Introduction to
Engineering Reliability
3.1 NEED FOR RELIABILITY
The reliability of engineering systems has become an important issue during their
design because of the increasing dependence of our daily lives and schedules on the
satisfactory functioning of these systems. Some examples of these systems are
aircraft, trains, computers, automobiles, space satellites, and nuclear power–generating
reactors. Many of these systems have become highly complex and sophisticated.
For example, today a typical Boeing 747 jumbo airplane is made of approximately
4.5 million parts, including fasteners [1]. Most of these parts must function normally
for the aircraft to fly successfully.
Normally, the required reliability of engineering systems is specified in the design
specification, and during the design phase every effort is made to fulfill this requirement
effectively. Some of the factors that play a key role in increasing the importance of
reliability in designed systems are the increasing number of reliability- and quality-
related lawsuits, competition, public pressures, high acquisition cost, past well-
publicized system failures, loss of prestige, and complex and sophisticated systems.
This chapter presents various introductory aspects of engineering reliability.

3.2 BATHTUB HAZARD RATE CONCEPT

This is a well-known concept used to represent failure behavior of various engi-
neering items because the failure rate of such items is a function of time (i.e., it
changes with time). A bathtub hazard rate curve is shown in Figure 3.1. It is divided
into three regions (i.e., Region I, Region II, and Region III). Region I is known as
the burn-in region, debugging region, infant mortality region, or break-in region.
During this period or region the item hazard rate (i.e., time-dependent failure rate)
decreases because of failures occurring for reasons such as listed in Table 3.1 [2].
Region II is referred to as the “useful life period,” during which the item hazard
rate remains constant. Some of the reasons for the occurrence failure in this region
are presented in Table 3.1. Region III is known as the “wear-out period,” during
which the hazard rate increases because of failures occurring for reasons such as
presented in Table 3.1.
Mathematically, the bathtub hazard rate curve shown in Figure 3.1 can be
represented by using the following function [3]:

λ (t ) = θ λ β t β−1 + (1 − θ) b t b − 1 α eα t b (3.1)

23

© 2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

7243_C003.fm Page 24 Wednesday, January 18, 2006 3:27 PM

24 Maintainability, Maintenance, and Reliability for Engineers

Hazard
rate (time
dependent
failure
rate)

Region I Region II Region III

0 time t

FIGURE 3.1 Bathtub hazard rate curve.

TABLE 3.1
Reasons for the Occurrence of Failures in the Three Regions of the
Bathtub Hazard Rate Curve
Region Reason

I: Burn-in period Poor manufacturing methods

Poor processes
Poor quality control
Poor debugging
Human error
Substandard materials and workmanship
II: Useful life period Low safety factors
Undetectable defects
Human errors
Abuse
Higher random stress than expected
Natural failures
III: Wear-out period Wear caused by friction
Poor maintenance
Incorrect overhaul practices
Corrosion and creep
Short designed-in life of the item
Wear caused by aging

© 2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

7243_C003.fm Page 25 Wednesday, January 18, 2006 3:27 PM

Introduction to Engineering Reliability 25

for β, b, λ, and α > 0; 0 ≤ θ ≤ 1; β = 0.5, b = 1, and t ≥ 0 and where t is time, λ(t)

is the hazard rate or time t–dependent failure rate, α and λ are the scale parameters,
and β and b are the shape parameters.

3.3 GENERAL RELIABILITY ANALYSIS FORMULAS

A number of formulas, based on the reliability function, frequently are used to perform
various types of reliability analysis. This section presents four of these formulas.

3.3.1 FAILURE DENSITY FUNCTION

This is expressed by

dR(t )
f (t ) = − (3.2)
dt

where t is time, f(t) is the failure (or probability) density function, and R(t) is the
item reliability at time t.
Example 3.1
Assume that the reliability of an item is defined by the following function:

R (t ) = e − λ t (3.3)

where λ is the item’s constant failure rate.

Obtain an expression for the item’s failure density function.
Substituting Equation 3.3 into Equation 3.2 yields

d e− λ t
f (t ) = −
dt (3.4)
= λ e− λ t

3.3.2 HAZARD RATE FUNCTION

This is defined by

f (t )
λ (t ) = (3.5)
R (t )

where λ (t) is the item hazard rate or time-dependent failure rate.

By inserting Equation 3.2 into Equation 3.5 we get

1 dR(t )
λ (t ) = − ⋅ (3.6)
R (t ) dt

© 2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

7243_C003.fm Page 26 Wednesday, January 18, 2006 3:27 PM

26 Maintainability, Maintenance, and Reliability for Engineers

Example 3.2
Using Equation 3.3, obtain an expression for the item’s hazard rate and comment
on the resulting expression.
Substituting Equation 3.3 into Equation 3.6 yields

1 d e− λ t
λ (t ) = − −λt
e dt (3.7)
=λ

Thus, the item’s hazard rate is given by Equation 3.7.

As the right side of Equation 3.7 is not the function of time t, λ is known as the
constant failure rate because it does not depend on time.

3.3.3 GENERAL RELIABILITY FUNCTION

This can be obtained by using Equation 3.6. Thus, rearranging Equation 3.6, we get

1
− λ (t ) dt = ⋅ dR(t ) (3.8)
R (t )

Integrating both sides of Equation 3.8 over the time interval [0, t], we get

t R (t )

∫ ∫ R (t) ⋅ dR(t)
1
− λ (t ) dt = (3.9)
0 1

because at t = 0, R(t) = 1.
Evaluating the right-hand side of Equation 3.9 yields

∫
ln R(t ) = − λ (t ) dt
0
(3.10)

Thus, from Equation 3.10, we get the following general expression for reliability
function:

t
∫
− λ ( t ) dt
R (t ) = e 0 (3.11)

Equation 3.11 can be used to obtain the reliability of an item when its times to
failure follow any time-continuous probability distribution.

© 2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

7243_C003.fm Page 27 Wednesday, January 18, 2006 3:27 PM

Introduction to Engineering Reliability 27

Example 3.3
Assume that the time to failures of an automobile is exponentially distributed and
its failure rate is 0.003 failures per hour. Calculate the automobile’s reliability for a
10-hour mission.
Using the data values in Equation 3.11 yields

10
∫ ( 0.003) dt
−
R (10) = e 0
= e − ( 0.003) (10 )
= 0.9704

This means there is an approximately 97% chance that the automobile will not
fail during the 10-hour mission. More specifically, its reliability will be 0.9704.

3.3.4 MEAN TIME TO FAILURE

This is an important reliability measure and it can be obtained by using any of the
following three formulas [4,5]:

∫
MTTF = R (t ) dt
0
(3.12)

or

∫
MTTF = t f (t ) dt
0
(3.13)

or

MTTF = s →lim0 R (s) (3.14)

where s is the Laplace transform variable, MTTF is the mean time to failure, and
R(s) is the Laplace transform of the reliability function R(t).
Example 3.4
Prove by using Equation 3.3 that Equation 3.12 to Equation 3.14 yield the same
result for MTTF.
Thus, by inserting Equation 3.3 into Equation 3.12, we get

∫
MTTF = e − λ t dt
0 (3.15)
1
=
λ

© 2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

7243_C003.fm Page 28 Wednesday, January 18, 2006 3:27 PM

28 Maintainability, Maintenance, and Reliability for Engineers

Substituting Equation 3.3 into Equation 3.2 yields

de − λ t
f (t ) =−
dt (3.16)
= λ e − λt

Thus, substituting Equation 3.16 into Equation 3.13 yields

∫
MTTF = t λ e − λ t dt
0
∞
∞  e − λt 
=  − t e − λ t  −  −  (3.17)
0
 λ  0
1
=
λ

Taking the Laplace transform of Equation 3.3, we get

R (s ) = ∫e
0
−st ⋅ e − λ t dt
(3.18)
1
=
s+ λ

Substituting Equation 3.18 into Equation 3.14 yields

1
MTTF = s→0
lim
(s + λ )
(3.19)
1
=
λ

Equation 3.15, Equation 3.17, and Equation 3.19 are identical, proving that
Equation 3.12 to Equation 3.14 give the same result.

3.4 RELIABILITY NETWORKS

A system can form various configurations in performing reliability analysis. This
section is concerned with the reliability evaluation of such commonly occurring
configurations or networks.

© 2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

7243_C003.fm Page 29 Wednesday, January 18, 2006 3:27 PM

Introduction to Engineering Reliability 29

1 2 3 k

FIGURE 3.2 A k-unit series system.

3.4.1 SERIES NETWORK

This is probably the most commonly occurring configuration in engineering systems,
and its block diagram is shown in Figure 3.2. The diagram represents a k-unit system,
and each block in the diagram denotes a unit. All units must work normally for the
successful operation of the series system.
The series system (shown in Figure 3.2) reliability is expressed by

Rs = P ( E1 E2 E3 ......Ek ) (3.20)

where Ej denotes the successful operation (i.e., success event) of unit j for j = 1, 2,
3, …., k; Rs is the series system reliability; and P ( E1 E2 E3 ...... Ek ) is the occurrence
probability of events E1, E2, E3, …, and Ek.
For independently failing units, Equation 3.20 becomes

Rs = P ( E1 ) P ( E2 ) P ( E3 )...... P ( Ek ) (3.21)

where P(Ej) is the probability of occurrence of event Ej for j = 1, 2, 3, …, k.

If we let Rj = P(Ej) for j = 1, 2, 3,…, k in Equation 3.21 becomes

Rs = R1 R2 R3 ...... Rk (3.22)

where Rj is the unit j reliability for j = 1, 2, 3, …, k.

For the constant failure rate λj of unit j from Equation 3.11 (i.e., for λj(t) = λj),
we get

R j (t ) = e − λ j t (3.23)

where Rj (t) is the reliability of unit j at time t.

Substituting Equation 3.23 into Equation 3.22 yields

k
− ∑ λj t
Rs (t ) = e j=1
(3.24)

where Rs (t) is the series system reliability at time t.

© 2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

7243_C003.fm Page 30 Wednesday, January 18, 2006 3:27 PM

30 Maintainability, Maintenance, and Reliability for Engineers

Substituting Equation 3.24 into Equation 3.12 yields

k
∞
− ∑ λj t
MTTFs = e ∫
0
j=1
dt
(3.25)
1
= k
∑ λj
j =1

where MTTFs is the series system mean time to failure.

Example 3.5
Assume that a system is composed of five independent and identical subsystems in
series. The constant failure rate of each subsystem is 0.0025 failures per hour.
Calculate the reliability of the system for a 50-hour mission and the system mean
time to failure.
By substituting the given data into Equation 3.24 we get

Rs (100) = e − ( 0.0125) (50 )

= 0.5353

Using the specified data values in Equation 3.25 yields

1
MTTFs =
5 (0.0025)
= 80 hours

Thus, the system reliability and mean time to failure are 0.5353 and 80 hours,
respectively.

3.4.2 PARALLEL NETWORK

In this case, the system is composed of k simultaneously operating units, and at least
one of these units must operate normally for system success. The block diagram of
a k-unit parallel system is shown in Figure 3.3, and each block in the diagram
represents a unit.
The parallel system (shown in Figure 3.3) failure probability is given by

(
Fps = P E1 E2 .... Ek ) (3.26)

where Fps is the parallel system failure probability, E j denotes the failure (i.e., failure
(
event) of unit j, for j = 1, 2, …, k, and P E1 E2 E3 .... Ek is the occurrence proba-)
bility of events E1 , E2 , ......,and Ek .

© 2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

7243_C003.fm Page 31 Wednesday, January 18, 2006 3:27 PM

Introduction to Engineering Reliability 31

FIGURE 3.3 Block diagram of a k-unit parallel system.

For independently failing parallel units, Equation 3.26 becomes

Fps = P ( E1 ) P ( E2 ) ....P ( Ek ) (3.27)

where P ( E j ) is the probability of occurrence of event E j for j = 1, 2, …., k.

If we let Fj = P ( E j ) for j = 1, 2, …., k, Equation 3.27 becomes

Fps = F1F2 .... Fk (3.28)

where Fj is the unit j failure probability for j = 1, 2, …, k.

By subtracting Equation 3.28 from unity we get

Rps = 1 − Fps
(3.29)
= 1 − F1 F2 .....Fk

where Rps is the parallel system reliability.

For constant failure rate λj of unit j, subtracting Equation 3.23 from unity and
then substituting it into Equation 3.29 yields

(
Rps (t ) = 1 − 1 − e − λ 1 t ) (1− e ) ...... (1− e )
−λ 2 t −λ k t
(3.30)

where Rps (t) is the parallel system reliability at time t.

For identical units, substituting Equation 3.30 into Equation 3.12 yields

∫ ( )  dt
 k
MTTFps = 1 − 1 − e − λ t

0
(3.31)
k

∑
1 1
=
λ j =1
j

© 2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

7243_C003.fm Page 32 Friday, February 3, 2006 10:31 AM

32 Maintainability, Maintenance, and Reliability for Engineers

FIGURE 3.4 Block diagram of the m-out-of-n unit system.

where MTTFps is the parallel system mean time to failure and λ is the unit constant
failure rate.
Example 3.6
A system is composed of three independent and identical subsystems. At least one
of the subsystems must operate normally for the system to work successfully.
Calculate the system’s reliability if each subsystem’s probability of failure is 0.1.
By substituting the given data into Equation 3.29 we get

Rps = 1 − (0.1) (0.1) (0.1)

= 0.999

Thus, the system’s reliability is 0.999.

3.4.3 M-OUT-OF-N NETWORK

In this case, the system is composed of a total of n active units, and least m units
must operate normally for system success. The block diagram of an m-out-of-n unit
system is shown in Figure 3.4, and each block in the diagram denotes a unit. The
series and parallel networks are special cases of the m-out-of-n networks for m = n
and m = 1, respectively.
For independent and identical units, and using the binomial distribution, we
write down the following reliability expression for the Figure 3.4 diagram:

∑ ( ) R (1− R)
n
n− j
Rm = n
j
j (3.32)
n
j=m

© 2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

7243_C003.fm Page 33 Wednesday, January 18, 2006 3:27 PM

Introduction to Engineering Reliability 33

where

( ) = ( n −nj!)! j !
n
j (3.33)

where R is the unit reliability and Rm/n is the m-out-of-n network reliability.
For constant failure rates of the identical units, substituting Equation 3.3 into
Equation 3.32 yields

∑ ( ) e (1− e )
n
n− j
Rm (t ) = n
j
−jλt − λt (3.34)
n
j=m

where Rm/n(t) is the m-out-of-n network reliability at time t and λ is the unit failure rate.
Substituting Equation 3.34 in Equation 3.12 yields

∞  n 
∫ ∑( ) ( ) n− j
MTTFm =  n e − j λ t 1 − e − λt  dt
 j 
n
0 j=m  (3.35)
n

∑
1 1
=
λ j=m
j

where MTTFm/n is the m-out-of-n network mean time to failure.

Example 3.7
Assume that an engineering system is composed of four independent and identical
units in parallel. At least three units must operate normally for system success.
Calculate the system mean time to failure if the unit failure rate is 0.0035 failures
per hour.
By substituting the specified data values into Equation 3.35 we get

)∑j
1 1
MTTFm =
n ( 0.0035 j=3

1 1 1 
=  + 
( )
0.0035  3 4 
=166.67 hours

Thus, the system mean time to failure is 166.67 hours.

3.4.4 STANDBY SYSTEM

This is another important reliability configuration in which only one unit operates
and k units are kept in their standby mode. More specifically, the system contains
a total of k + 1 units, and as soon as the operating unit fails, the switching mechanisms

© 2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

7243_C003.fm Page 34 Wednesday, January 18, 2006 3:27 PM

34 Maintainability, Maintenance, and Reliability for Engineers

FIGURE 3.5 Block diagram of a standby system with one operating and k standby units.

or other means detect the failure and then replace the failed unit with one of the
standby units. Figure 3.5 shows the block diagram of a standby system with one
operating and k standby units. Each block in the diagram denotes a unit.
Using the Figure 3.5 diagram for independent and identical units, perfect detec-
tion, switching mechanisms and standby units, and time-dependent unit failure rate,
we write down the following expression for system reliability [6]:

K  t  − ∫ λ (t ) dt 
j t


Rsb (t ) = ∑ ∫
j = 0  0

  λ (t ) dt  e 0

 / j!

(3.36)
 
where Rsb (t) is the standby system reliability at time t and λ (t) is the unit time-
dependent failure rate.
For constant unit failure rate, (i.e., λ (t) = λ), Equation 3.36 becomes

Rsb (t ) = ∑ (λ t ) e
j=0
j −λ t / j! (3.37)

Inserting Equation 3.37 into Equation 3.12 yields

∞  K 
MTTFsb = 
 ∫∑
0 j=0
(λ t ) j e − λ t / j ! dt

 (3.38)
K +1
=
λ

where MTTFsb is the standby system mean time to failure.

Example 3.8
A standby system is composed of two independent and identical units: one operating
and the other on standby. The unit constant failure rate is 0.0045 failures per hour.

© 2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

7243_C003.fm Page 35 Wednesday, January 18, 2006 3:27 PM

Introduction to Engineering Reliability 35

Calculate the system reliability for a 100-hour mission and mean time to failure if
the standby unit remains as good as new in its standby mode and failure detection
and unit replacement mechanisms are 100% reliable.
By substituting the given data into Equation 3.37 we get

∑ ( 0.0045)(100) e ( ) ( ) / j!
j
− 0.0045 100
Rsb (100) =
j=0

= 0.9246

Using the specified data values in Equation 3.38 yields

1+ 1
MTTFsb = = 444.44 hours
( 0.0045 )
Thus, the standby system reliability and mean time to failure are 0.9246 and
444.44 hours, respectively.

3.4.5 BRIDGE NETWORK

Sometimes units of an engineering system may form a bridge configuration as shown
in Figure 3.6. The diagram is composed of five blocks, each of which denotes a
unit. All blocks are labelled with numerals.
For independently failing units, the Figure 3.6 diagram reliability is expressed by

Rb = 2 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 + R2 R3 R4 + R1 R3 R5 + R1 R4 + R2 R5
(3.39)
− R2 R3 R4 R5 − R1 R2 R3 R4 − R1 R2 R3 R5 − R3 R4 R5 R1 − R1 R2 R4 R5

where Ri is the reliability of unit i for i = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and Rb is the bridge network

reliability.

1 2

4 5

FIGURE 3.6 A bridge network made up of five nonidentical units.

© 2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

7243_C003.fm Page 36 Wednesday, January 18, 2006 3:27 PM

36 Maintainability, Maintenance, and Reliability for Engineers

For identical units, Equation 3.39 becomes

Rb = 2 R5 − 5 R 4 + 2 R3 + 2 R 2 (3.40)

For constant unit failure rate, substituting Equation 3.3 into Equation 3.40 yields

Rb (t ) = 2 e −5λ t − 5 e −4 λ t + 2 e −3λ t + 2 e −2 λ t (3.41)

where Rb (t) is the bridge network reliability at time t and λ is the unit constant
failure rate.
By substituting Equation 3.41 into Equation 3.12, we get

49
MTTFb = (3.42)
60 λ

where MTTFb is the bridge network mean time to failure.

Example 3.9
A system has five independent and identical units forming a bridge configuration.
The unit failure rate is 0.0075 failures per hour. Calculate the network reliability for
a 100-hour mission and mean time to failure.
Using the given data values in Equation 3.41 yields

Rb (100) = 2 e −5 ( 0.0075) (100 ) − 5 e −4 ( 0.0075) (100 ) + 2 e −3 ( 0.0075)(100 ) + 2 e −2( 0.0075)(100 )

= 0.4552

By substituting the specified data value into Equation 3.42, we get

49
MTTFb =
60(00.0075)
= 108.89 hours

Thus, the bridge network’s reliability and mean time to failure are 0.4552 and
108.89 hours, respectively.

3.5 RELIABILITY ALLOCATION

This is the process of assigning reliability requirements to individual components
for achieving the specified system reliability. Although there are many benefits of
the reliability allocation, two of the important ones are as follows [1,7]:

• It forces people involved in design and development to understand and

establish the appropriate relationships between reliabilities of components
and parts, subsystems, and systems.
• It forces design engineers to consider reliability equally with other design
parameters such as cost, performance, and weight.

© 2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

7243_C003.fm Page 37 Wednesday, January 18, 2006 3:27 PM

Introduction to Engineering Reliability 37

Over the year, many reliability allocation methods have been developed [8–12].
One of the commonly used methods in the industrial sector is described below [1].

3.5.1 HYBRID METHOD

This method is the result of combining two reliability allocation approaches known
as the similar familiar systems method and the factors of influence method. The
resulting approach incorporates benefits of these two methods; thus, it is more
attractive to use.
The basis for the similar familiar systems method is the designer’s familiarity
with similar systems or subsystems. More specifically, during the allocation process
the method uses the failure data collected on similar systems, subsystems, and items
from various sources. The main disadvantage of this approach is to assume that life
cycle cost and reliability of past similar designs were satisfactory.
The factors of influence method is based on the assumption that the factors
shown in Figure 3.7 effect the system reliability. These are failure criticality, envi-
ronment, complexity and time, and the state of the art. The failure criticality factor
considers the criticality of the failure of the item in question on the system. For
example, the failure of some auxiliary instrument in an aircraft may not be as critical
as the engine failure.
The environment factor takes into account the exposure or susceptibility of the
item or items in question to environmental conditions such as vibration, temperature,
and humidity. The complexity and time factor relates to the number of subsystem
parts and the relative operating time of the item during the functional period of the
complete system.
The state-of-the-art factor takes into account the advancement made in the state-
of-the-art for a certain item.
In using the above four factors, every item under consideration is rated with
respect to each of these factors by being assigned a number from 1 to 10. The

Failure
criticality Complexity/
time

Factors

Environment State-of-the-
art

FIGURE 3.7 Factors affecting system reliability.

© 2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

7243_C003.fm Page 38 Wednesday, January 18, 2006 3:27 PM

38 Maintainability, Maintenance, and Reliability for Engineers

assignment of 10 means the item under consideration is most affected by the influ-
ence factor in question, and 1 means the item is least affected by the same factor.
Subsequently, the reliability is allocated on the basis of the weight of these assigned
numbers for all influence factors considered.
Finally, reliability of an item is allocated by giving certain weights to both
similar familiar systems and factors of influence methods. The hybrid method is
more effective than both these methods used alone because it uses data from both
of them.

3.6 PROBLEMS

1. Write an essay on the need for reliability.

2. Describe the bathtub hazard rate concept.
3. Write down a hazard rate function that can be used to represent a bathtub
hazard rate curve.
4. Define hazard rate.
5. What is the difference between hazard rate and constant failure rate?
6. Define failure density function.
7. What are the three mathematical approaches for obtaining an item’s mean
time to failure?
8. Discuss reliability allocation and its benefits.
9. Using Equation 3.24, obtain an expression for hazard rate and comment
on the resulting expression.
10. A system is composed of three independent and identical units in parallel.
At least two units must operate normally for system success. Calculate
the system mean time to failure if the unit failure rate is 0.0025 failures
per hour.

REFERENCES
1. Dhillon, B.S., Design Reliability: Fundamentals and Applications, CRC Press, Boca
Raton, FL, 1999.
2. Kapur, K.C., Reliability and maintainability, in Handbook of Industrial Engineering,
Salvendy, G., Ed., John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1982, pp. 8.5.1–8.5.34.
3. Dhillon, B.S., A hazard rate model, IEEE Transactions on Reliability, 28, 150, 1979.
4. Shooman, M.L., Probabilistic Reliability: An Engineering Approach, McGraw-Hill,
New York, 1968.
5. Dhillon, B.S., Reliability, Quality, and Safety for Engineers, CRC Press, Boca Raton,
FL, 2005.
6. Sandler, G.H., System Reliability Engineering, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ,
1963.
7. Grant Ireson, W., Coombs, C.F., and Moss, R.Y., Eds., Handbook of Reliability
Engineering and Management, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1996.
8. Frederick, H.E., A reliability prediction technique, Proceedings of the Fourth National
Symposium on Reliability and Quality Control, 314–317, 1958.

© 2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

7243_C003.fm Page 39 Wednesday, January 18, 2006 3:27 PM

Introduction to Engineering Reliability 39

9. Chipchak, J.S., A practical method of maintainability allocation, IEEE Transactions

on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, 7, 585–589, 1971.
10. Dhillon, B.S., Systems Reliability, Maintainability, and Management, Petrocelli
Books, New York, 1983.
11. Balaban, H.S., Jeffers, H.R., and Baechler, D.O., The Allocation of System Reliability,
Publication No. 152-2-274, ARINC Research Corporation, Chicago, 1961.
12. Von Alven, W.H., Ed., Reliability Engineering, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ,
1964.

© 2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC