Start-Up Demonstration Tests With the Intent of Equipment Classification for Balanced Systems | IEEE Journals & Magazine | IEEE Xplore

Start-Up Demonstration Tests With the Intent of Equipment Classification for Balanced Systems


Abstract:

A start-up demonstration test is a mechanism that is often applied to determine the acceptability of equipment. Two new start-up demonstration tests are derived and demon...Show More

Abstract:

A start-up demonstration test is a mechanism that is often applied to determine the acceptability of equipment. Two new start-up demonstration tests are derived and demonstrated with the intent of equipment classification based on the testing results. The two new tests are called the CSTSCFTF_AMGC and CS(1)CS(1)(2)TF(1)(2)TF(2)_AMGC start-up demonstration tests. By using the finite Markov chain imbedding approach, several probabilistic indexes are presented for the new start-up demonstration tests based on the assumption that the tests are independent and identically distributed cases. Two types of optimization models are formulated and solved for the new start-up demonstration tests. Numerical examples are then presented to demonstrate the new start-up demonstration tests. This basic idea of equipment classification can be easily extended to other traditional start-up demonstration tests.
Published in: IEEE Transactions on Reliability ( Volume: 68, Issue: 1, March 2019)
Page(s): 161 - 174
Date of Publication: 25 June 2018

ISSN Information:

Funding Agency:

References is not available for this document.

Nomenclature

Abbreviations CS

Consecutive successes. Note: Test is ended and unit is accepted if a number of CS are observed.

CSTF

CS total failures. Note: Test is ended and unit is accepted if CS are observed prior to total failures; test is ended and unit is rejected otherwise.

TSCF

Total successes consecutive failures. Note: Test is ended and unit is accepted if total successes are observed prior to consecutive failures; test is ended and unit is rejected otherwise.

CSCF

CS consecutive failures. Note: Test is ended and unit is accepted if CS are observed prior to consecutive failures; test is ended and unit is rejected otherwise.

TSTF

Total successes total failures. Note: Test is ended and unit is accepted if total successes are observed prior to total failures; test is ended and unit is rejected otherwise.

CSDF

CS distant failures. Note: Test is ended and unit is accepted if CS are the first to be observed, while the equipment is rejected if two failures separated by at most successes are observed prior to CS.

TSCSTF

Total successes CSTF. Note: Test is ended and unit is accepted if total successes or CS are observed prior to total failures; test is ended and unit is rejected otherwise.

TSCSTFCF

TSCSTF consecutive failures. Note: Test is ended and unit is accepted if total successes or CS are observed prior to total failures and consecutive failures; test is ended and unit is rejected otherwise.

TSCSTFDF

TSCSTF distant failures. Note: Test is ended and unit is accepted if total successes or CS are observed prior to total failures and the occurrence of two failures that have less than successes between them; test is ended and unit is rejected otherwise.

CS(1)CS(1,2)TF

CS 1, CS 1 or 2, total failures. Note: Test is ended and unit is accepted if a consecutive run of length of type S(1) successes or consecutive run of length of type S(1) or S(2) successes occur prior to total failures; test is ended and unit is rejected otherwise.

CS(1)CS(1,2)CF

CS 1, CS 1 or 2, consecutive failures. Note: Test is ended and unit is accepted if a consecutive run of length of type S(1) successes or consecutive run of length of type S(1) or S(2) successes occur prior to consecutive failures; test is ended and unit is rejected otherwise.

TS(1)TS(1,2)TF

Total successes 1, total successes 1 or 2, total failures. Note: Test is ended and unit is accepted if a total of successes of type S(1) or total of successes of type S(1) or S(2) occur prior to total failures; test is ended and unit is rejected otherwise.

TS(1)TS(1,2)CS(1)

Total full successes, total full or degrad-

CS(1,2)TFCF

ed successes, consecutive full successes, consecutive full or degraded successes, total failures, consecutive failures. Note: Test is ended and unit is accepted if a consecutive run of length of full successes (S(1)), or a consecutive run of length of either full and/or degraded successes (S(1), S(2)), or a total number of full successes , or a total number of full and/or degraded successes , occur prior to a total number of failures and a consecutive run of length of failures; test is ended and unit is rejected otherwise.

CSTSCFTF_AMGC

CSTSCFTF start-up demonstration test aiming at multigrade classification. Note: Detailed model is shown in Section II-A.

CS(1)CS(1)(2)TF(1)(2)

CS(1)CS(1)(2)TF(1)(2)TF(2) start-up demo-

TF(2)_AMGC

nstration test aiming at multi-grade classification. Note: Detailed model is shown in Section II-B.

Select All
1.
G. J. Hahn and J. B. Gage, "Evaluation of a start-up demonstration test", J. Qual. Technol., vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 103-106, 1983.
2.
N. Balakrishnan and P. S. Chan, " Start-up demonstration tests with rejection of units upon observing d failures ", Ann. I. Statist. Math., vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 184-196, Mar. 2000.
3.
L. C. Vance and G. McDonald, "A class of multiple run sampling plans", Technometrics, vol. 21, pp. 141-146, 1979.
4.
K. Govindaraju and C. D. Lai, "Design of multiple run sampling plan", Commun. Statist. Simul. Comput., vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 1-11, 1999.
5.
M. L. D. Smith and W. S. Griffith, "Start-up demonstration tests based on consecutive successes and total failures", J. Qual. Technol., vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 186-198, Jul. 2005.
6.
M. L. D. Smith and W. S. Griffith, "The analysis and comparison of start-up demonstration tests", Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 186, no. 3, pp. 1029-1045, May 1, 2008.
7.
S. Eryilmaz and S. Chakraborti, "On start-up demonstration tests under exchangeability", IEEE Trans. Rel., vol. 57, no. 4, pp. 627-632, Dec. 2008.
8.
D. L. Antzoulakos, M. V. Koutras and A. C. Rakitzis, "Start-up demonstration tests based on run and scan statistics", J. Qual. Technol., vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 48-59, Jan. 2009.
9.
A. E. Gera, "Different weights of tests within a start-up demonstration procedure", Appl. Stoch. Models Bus., vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 48-56, Jan./Feb. 2016.
10.
D. E. K. Martin, " Markovian start-up demonstration tests with rejection of units upon observing d failures ", Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 155, no. 2, pp. 474-486, Jun. 1, 2004.
11.
D. E. K. Martin, "Application of auxiliary Markov chains to start-up demonstration tests", Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 184, no. 2, pp. 574-583, Jan. 16, 2008.
12.
S. Eryilmaz, "Start-up demonstration tests under Markov dependence", Pakistan J. Statist., vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 637-647, Oct. 2010.
13.
F. Yalcin and S. Eryilmaz, "Start-up demonstration test based on total successes and total failures with dependent start-ups", IEEE Trans. Rel., vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 227-230, Mar. 2012.
14.
A. E. Gera, "A new start-up demonstration test", IEEE Trans. Rel., vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 128-131, Mar. 2010.
15.
A. E. Gera, "A general model for start-up demonstration tests", IEEE Trans. Rel., vol. 60, no. 1, pp. 295-304, Mar. 2011.
16.
A. E. Gera, "A start-up demonstration procedure involving distant failures", J. Qual. Rel. Eng., vol. 1, pp. 1-6, 2013.
17.
X. Zhao, "On generalized start-up demonstration tests", Ann. Oper. Res., vol. 212, no. 1, pp. 225-239, Jan. 2014.
18.
X. Zhao, X. Y. Wang and G. Sun, "Start-up demonstration tests with sparse connection", Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 243, no. 3, pp. 865-873, Jun. 16, 2015.
19.
M. L. D. Smith and W. S. Griffith, "Multi-state start-up demonstration tests", Int. J. Rel. Qual. Saf. Eng., vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 99-117, 2011.
20.
A. C. Rakitzis and D. L. Antzoulakos, "Start-up demonstration tests with three-level classification", Statist. Paper, vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 1-21, Feb. 2015.
21.
X. Zhao, "Start-up demonstration tests for products with start-up delay", Qual. Technol. Quant. Manage., vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 329-338, Sep. 2013.
22.
A. E. Gera, "A general multi-state start-up demonstration", Int. J. Rel. Qual. Saf. Eng., vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 1-14, 2013.
23.
X. Zhao, G. Sun, W. J. Xie and C. Lin, "On generalized multi-state start-up demonstration tests", Appl. Stoch. Models Bus., vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 325-338, May/Jun. 2015.
24.
D. G. Hua, E. A. Elsayed, K. N. AI-Khalifa and A. S. Hamouda, " Reliability estimation of load sharing capacity- c -out-of- n pairs: G balanced system ", Proc. Prognostics Syst. Health Manage. Conf., 2015.
25.
D. G. Hua and E. A. Elsayed, " Reliability estimation of k -out-of- n Pairs: G balanced systems with spatially distributed units ", IEEE Trans. Rel., vol. 65, no. 2, pp. 886-900, Jun. 2016.
26.
D. G. Hua and E. A. Elsayed, " Degradation analysis of k -out-of- n pairs: G balanced system with spatially distributed units ", IEEE Trans. Rel., vol. 65, no. 2, pp. 941-956, Jun. 2016.
27.
H. Sarper and W. J. Sauer, "New reliability configuration for large planetary descent vehicles", J. Spacecraft Rockets, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 639-642, Jul./Aug. 2002.
28.
H. Sarper, "Reliability analysis of descent systems of planetary vehicles using bivariate exponential distribution", Proc. Rel. Maintainability Symp., pp. 165-169, 2005,.
29.
X. Y. Zhu and M. Boushaba, "A linear weighted (n f k) system for non-homogeneous Markov-dependent components", IISE Trans, vol. 49, no. 7, pp. 722-736, 2017.
30.
X. Y. Zhu, M. Boushaba and M. Reghioua, " Reliability and joint reliability importance in a consecutive- k -within- m -out-of- n : F system with Markov-dependent components ", IEEE Trans. Rel., vol. 65, no. 2, pp. 802-815, Jun. 2016.
Contact IEEE to Subscribe

References

References is not available for this document.