Abstract
The performance of a repairable bridge network system is improved by using the availability equivalence factors. All components for the bridge system have constant failure and repair rates. The system is improved through the use of five methods: reduction, increase, hot duplication, warm duplication, and cold duplication methods. The availability of the original and improved systems is derived. Two types of availability equivalence factors of the system are obtained to compare different system designs. Numerical example to interpret how to utilize the obtained results is provided.
Highlights
There are two main methods to improve a nonrepairable system design. ese two methods are (i) the reduction method which assumes that the system can be improved by reducing the failure rates of a set of components by a factor ρ, 0 < ρ < 1, and (ii) the redundancy method which in actuality is divided into more than one redundancy method such as hot, warm, cold, and cold with imperfect switch redundancy [1]. e redundancy and reduction methods can be used to improve the repairable systems as well
The design of the improved system according to the reduction or increase method must be equivalent to the design of the improved system in accordance with one of the redundancy methods specified. at is, using this concept, one can say that system performance can be improved through an alternative design [4]
For a specific set R of the system components, we present the different forms of the reducing availability equivalence factor (RAEF) of the bridge system that can be derived from equation (34) as follows: (1) When R ∈ S1: ρDR,B
Summary
There are two main methods to improve a nonrepairable system design. ese two methods are (i) the reduction method which assumes that the system can be improved by reducing the failure rates of a set of components by a factor ρ, 0 < ρ < 1, and (ii) the redundancy method which in actuality is divided into more than one redundancy method such as hot, warm, cold, and cold with imperfect switch redundancy [1]. e redundancy and reduction methods can be used to improve the repairable systems as well. Erefore, the concept of reliability/ availability equivalence takes place In such a concept, the design of the improved system according to the reduction or increase method must be equivalent to the design of the improved system in accordance with one of the redundancy methods specified. At is, using this concept, one can say that system performance can be improved through an alternative design [4] In this case, different system designs must be compared based on performance characteristics such as (i) the reliability function or mean time to failure for nonrepairable systems [5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21] or (ii) the availability in the case of repairable systems [2, 22,23,24]. Sarhan [14], Mustafa et al [17], and Mustafa
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
