Docstoc

Cost Considerations Based on Reliability of Inertial Navigation System

Document Sample
Cost Considerations Based on Reliability of Inertial Navigation System Powered By Docstoc
					HRA INCOSE CONFERENCE, NEWPORT NEWS, VIRGINIA




Impact of Decisions Made to
   Systems Engineering:
 Cost vs. Reliability System
                 David A. Ekker
                 Stella B. Bondi
                 and Resit Unal

              November 4-5, 2008
                                                1
Presentation Outline

   Introduction
   Problem Statement
   Methodology
   Analysis
   Operational Impacts
   Strategies
   Conclusions


                          2
Introduction

   Impact on decisions made in terms of cost
    and reliability
   Selection of strategy for maintaining an
    operational system
   Decisions made are faced with trade-off
    between cost and operational reliability.



                                                3
Problem Statement

   Background

   Basic System

   System requirements




                          4
Background
       Mission Critical Systems must assure:
        Operation
        Safety
       Critical operable subsystem in process of being
        replaced
       Obvious reduction in its MTBF of ~80%
       Continuous increasing repair costs
       Scarcity of parts
       Technical repair knowledge declines
       Concerns that the subsystem will fail at critical
        times where safety would be impacted.

                                                            5
Basic System




               6
    System Requirements

    Dual, independently operation systems
     providing data for operations
    Operating 24/7 with output verified and
     compared to each other
    A third system checks periodically the dual
     system
    When System–3 is not available, Systems 1
     & 2 become critical which means abort of
     operations for safety assurance.

                                                   7
Solution’s Goals

   Investigate Various Strategies
   Optimize Reliability
   Evaluate Related Cost
   Minimize decision maker’s intuition
   Use a more precise cost vs. reliability
    mechanism



                                              8
    Methodology

    Data collection
    Determine data distribution and equation
     parameters
    Select strategies for analysis
    Calculate system reliability using distribution
     equations
    Compare costs of the various strategies

                                                       9
    Estimate Distribution Parameters

    Little data available
    Weibull probability distribution was the best
     option of approximation for reliability
    The basic form of the Weibull equation is
                        x m
                            
      F ( x)  1  exp                       0 x
                          
                             
        Where θ is the scale and m is the shape parameter


                                                            10
Reliability vs. Time
Operational Constraints

   Both SYSTEM-1 and SYSTEM-2 fail and no
    spares are available, then all operations are
    aborted until both systems are replaced
   Failure of either SYSTEM-1 or SYSTEM-2 will
    result in aborting operations. It is assumed that
    these situations are predictable in advance.
   The overall system is expected to operate on a
    long term schedule and this schedule is available
    for planning purposes.
   In certain situations, aborting operations can result
    in long transit times to a location where spare
    parts are available.

                                                        12
Operational Constraints (Cont’d)

   Not carrying spares adds additional expense of
    storage at a central facility and/or shipping costs.
   Carrying spares incurs a penalty for storage and
    weight.
   Aborting certain operations require another system
    to be immediately dispatched to cover operations
    and can result in costs on the order of 100 times
    the cost of a spare module – predictable
    situations.
   The life cycle cost only involved purchase and
    refurbishment cost, it did not include costs of lost
    operations.

                                                       13
Strategies
   Carry no spare
   Carry one spare
   Carry two spares
   Refurbish equipment at a pre-determined time
    equivalent to carrying one spare
   Refurbish equipment at a pre-scheduled time
    coordinated with manufacturer and set at time
    between missions


                                             14
    Analysis of Strategies

    The life cycle cost versus reliability normalized
     to the least expensive strategy




    Key contributing factor to the overall system
     reliability is infant mortality for the carrying
     spares

                                                        15
Discussion Of Strategies: Option 1

    Repair When Fails (Baseline)
         Lowest reliability for both situations -
          unacceptable
         Least repair cost
         Greatest adverse operational results




                                                     16
Discussion Of Strategies: Option 2
    Carry One Spare
        Significant improvement in reliability
            42% higher cost
            Reliability still low when two operating
             systems are required (0.45)




                                                        17
Discussion Of Strategies: Option 3
    Carry Two Spares
         Further reliability improvement over
          carrying one spare, approx. 2x reliability
          when 2 systems are required
         Greatest cost (84.5% higher)
         Acceptable reliability (0.99, 0.97)




                                                       18
Discussion Of Strategies: Option 4
   Refurbish at 62.5% MTBF
       Compared to carrying one spare:
           Same cost
           Same reliability as for carrying one spare
           Nearly 2x reliability for 2 Units operating
           Predictability of repairs




                                                          19
Discussion Of Strategies: Option 5
   Refurbish at 58.3% MTBF
        10% increase in cost than option 4
        Best reliability
        Lines up with repair cycle
        Least operational impact




                                              20
 Planned vs. Corrective Maintenance

                                   Worst Case Reliability Experienced
                 Normalized
  Strategy                      SYSTEM-1 OR        SYSTEM-1 AND SYSTEM-
                    Cost
                              SYSTEM-2 operating        2 operating

Carry no spare      1.00            0.4500                  0.0710


Carry 1 spare       1.42            0.9890                  0.4530


Carry 2 spares      1.85            0.9996                  0.9710

Refurbish at
                    1.42            0.9900                  0.8200
62.5% MTBF

Refurbish at
                    1.56            0.9958                  0.8752
58.3% MTBF
                                                                        21
 Reliability vs. Age with Spares
                                                         Both core modules
                                                         Operating - 2 Spares
               1

              0.8
Reliability




                                                          At least one core module
              0.6
                                                          Operating - 1 Spare
              0.4
                         Both core modules                   At least one core
              0.2
                         operating                           module operating
               0
                    0   0.2    0.4      0.6   0.8    1        1.2     1.4

                                     Normalized Age, % MTBF


                                                                            22
Conclusions

   Variation in key parameters can be used to check
    for the sensitivity of operating guidelines provided
   If strategy coincides with normally scheduled
    maintenance periods, less operational impact will
    result
   Selecting the proper strategy can be critical for
    maintaining system reliability and subsequent
    mission success, yet, not necessarily resulting in
    significant cost increases
   Our analysis indicates that a reliability versus cost
    trade-off may be achievable

                                                            23
Future Work
   There are many cost vs performance studies,
    yet few cost vs reliability.

   Develop a metric that provides a cost per
    reliability so as to compare strategies
THANK YOU!




             25

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:8
posted:4/28/2012
language:Latin
pages:25