Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
1994-09
Dudenhoeffer, Donald D.
Monterey, California. Naval Postgraduate School
http://hdl.handle.net/10945/42976
NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL
Monterey, California
j*?*. U 1 &%*
USF.'' 't-> *" s
" '"^'7^',?*i
v"k ELECT EL ^
i v^\ APR 1.4 1994 j |
THESIS
FAILURE ANALYSIS OF A REPAIRABLE SYSTEM
THE CASE STUDY OF A CAM-DRIVEN RECIPROCATING
PUMP
by
Donald D. Dudenhoeffer
September, 1994
-TffiT, R
19950412
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instruction, searching existing data
sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other
aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and
Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188)
Washington DC 20503.
1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED
September 1994 Master's Thesis
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE FAILURE ANALYSIS OF A REPAIRABLE SYSTEM: FUNDING NUMBERS
THE CASE STUDY OF A CAM-DRIVEN RECIPROCATING PUMP
6. AUTHOR(S) Donald D. Dudenhoeffer
PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) PERFORMING
Naval Postgraduate School ORGANIZATION
REPORT NUMBER
Monterey CA 93943-5000
9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING
NAVSEA SYSCOM, COMMANDER PMS390, AGENCY REPORT NUMBER
2531 JEFFERSON DAVIS HWY-, ARLINGTON, VA 22242-5160
11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES The views expressed in this thesis are those of the author and do not reflect the
official policy or position of the Department of Defense or the U.S. Government.
12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
13. ABSTRACT (maximum 200 words)
This thesis supplies a statistical and economic tool for analysis of the failure characteristics
of one typical piece of equipment under evaluation: a cam-driven reciprocating pump used in
the submarine's distillation system. Comprehensive statistical techniques and parametric
modeling are employed to identify and quantify pump failure characteristics. Specific areas of
attention include: the derivation of an optimal maximum replacement interval based on costs,
an evaluation of the mission reliability for the pump as a function of pump age, and a
calculation of the expected times between failures. The purpose of this analysis is to evaluate
current maintenance practices of time-based replacement and examine the consequences of
different replacement intervals in terms of costs and mission reliability. Tradeoffs exist between
cost savings and system reliability that must be fully understood prior to making any policy
decisions.
14. SUBJECT TERMS Reliability, Time-Based Replacement, Ship Maintenance, 15. NUMBER OF
PAGES 101
Repariable Systems Failure Analysis
16. PRICE CODE
17. SECURITY CLASSIFICA- 18. SECURITY CLASSIFI- 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICA- 20. LIMITATION OF
TION OF REPORT CATION OF THIS PAGE TION OF ABSTRACT ABSTRACT
Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified UL
NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89)
Prescribed by ANSI Std. 239-18
Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.
by
Donald D. Dudenhoeffer
Lieutenant, United States Navy
B.A., Benedictine College, Atchison, KS, 1987
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN
OPERATIONS RESEARCH
from the
Author:
y^\ ^onald D. Dudenhoeffer
Approved by:
D.P. Gaver, Advisor
Second Reader
11
ABSTRACT
By
Distribution/
111 Availability Codes
Avaj! cv
Dist Spec 3l'
/H |
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
IV
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION 1
A. BACKGROUND 1
B. CURRENT ANALYSIS 2
C. PROBLEM STATEMENT 3
D. FAILURE 4
E. FAILURE MODELS 5
A. DATA 10
B. ASSUMPTIONS 11
D. CHOOSING A MODEL 18
35
a. Case X < T 43
b. Case X > T 44
45
59
IV. MODEL ASSESSMENT
72
VI
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
vu
required pump replacements, and 2020 total months of pump
operation. The primary source of the data is the Navy's 3-M
system. Pump failures are classified as repairable or non-
repairable and thus require replacement. The probability that
a given pump failure is repairable was evaluated to be 0.9.
Additionally, a new pump will experience on average 10
failures cycles prior to being replaced.
Trending analysis indicated an increasing failure rate
with pump age; a sign of system wearout. The increasing
failure rate, likewise, indicated that a time-based
replacement maintenance policy may be warranted. A
Nonhomogeneous Poisson Process (NHPP) was chosen to model the
pump's failure characteristics. Maximum likelihood was then
used to estimate the NHPP's parameters.
The use of a stochastic modelling allowed a comprehensive
evaluation of the current maintenance policy of time-based
replacement of the pump at a periodicity of 3 6 months for
Trident submarines and 60 months for non-Trident submarines.
The pump is the same for both platforms. The optimal
replacement interval based entirely on minimizing the long-run
average system costs was determined to be 111 months for an
average lifecycle cost of $2226 per month. This periodicity,
however, resulted in undesirable mission reliability. The
resulting probability of the pump completing a mission of
three months just prior to replacement was only 0.23 with 1.47
expected pump failures during the mission. A replacement
periodicity of 36 months resulted in a mission reliability of
0.76 with 0.27 expected failures at an average lifecycle cost
of $3674 per month. The 60 month periodicity had a mission
viu
reliability of 0.63 with 0.46 expected failures at an average
cost of $2611 per month.
The results of this analysis indicate that a 60 month
replacement interval may be acceptable based upon reliability
reliability requirements. The periodicity of 36 months,
however, may be excessive and warrant extension to 60 months.
This thesis does not attempt to quantify any minimum
reliability requirements. It is evident, though, that a
replacement schedule based strictly on economic considerations
is unsatisfactory from a reliability standpoint. This
illustrates on of the most powerful uses of stochastic
modelling: the ability to predict and evaluate the
consequences of maintenance policy decisions on system
performance.
The scope of this thesis has implications beyond the
operation of this one pump. This case study of the cam-driven
reciprocating pump illustrates the type of analytical
techniques necessary to perform a comprehensive evaluation of
a shipboard system's performance. The goal is to provide
decision-makers with the in-depth statistical foundation to
make sound decisions on maintenance policy; decisions that
directly affect the readiness and ability of the U.S.
Submarine Force to assume its expanding mission.
IX
INTRODUCTION
A. BACKGROUND
The end of the Cold War and growing concerns over the
B. CURRENT ANALYSIS
C. PROBLEM STATEMENT
and analysis.[Ref.2]
The selection of this particular pump for the study is in
2. Does the failure rate change over the life of the pump?
D. FAILURE
E. FAILURE MODELS
Two basic models often used in evaluating repairable
represents the time from the (i-l)8t to ith failure for item
from scratch.
1. N(t) ;> 0.
. 2. N(t) is an integer.
3. If s < t, then N(s) <: N(t) .
4. For s < t, N(t) - N(s) represents the number of events
occurring in the interval (s,t).
1. Homogenous Poisson Process
1. N(t)=0.
2. The process has independent increments, i.e., the
number of events occurring in disjoint time intervals
are independent.
3. The number of events in any interval of length t=xj-Ti
is Poisson distributed with mean Xt
-A.x,^) tMTj-T,))"
PrlNiT^-Nix.)- n] - e
nl (1.1)
TXT^ n-0,1, . . .
denoted by R(TifTj), is
(1.2)
xt<xf
2. Nonhomogeneous Poisson Process
to the HPP except that the rate function is not constant, but
1. N(t) = 0.
2. N(t) has independent increments.
3. The number of events, i.e. pump failures, in the
interval di,^) is Poisson distributed with
mean tn(ti;Tj) ,
(Ti,T,) iS
y
Pr[N(i 3 )-N(i )- n] = e -J
n\ (1.4)
X(<T^ -0,1,...
occurs. Then the probability that the system will not fail
A. DATA
The data used in this study consist of a sample set of
10
reasonable time frame. Failure and replacement data originate
B. ASSUMPTIONS
11
and undergo roughly the same number of hours of
operation for the same time period.
12
interval times following an exponential distribution with the
failure with the mean interval time between the first and
Here the existing life of the pumps with only one failure is
(STD) for the interval times between failures for pumps with
X2, the interval times for failures one and two, and between
13
TABLE 2.1: COMPARISON OF INTERVAL TIMES BETWEEN FAILURES
FAILURES *i x2 x3 x, x5 x6 SAMPLE
NUMBER
(STD) 7.97 8 . 03
SAMPLE 36 24 15 9 2 -
NUMBER
the Laplace Test. The Laplace Test is based upon the HPP
(0,F).
14
Therefore, the test statistic for the Laplace Test, U,
i-i \ n ~2
u (2.1)
\ 12n
-i l Tt\Tn
E n-\) 2
U = (2.2)
"M 12&.-1)
MO-"'"'
(2.3)
< o, p < ", t 1 0
15
in testing the hypothesis of a constant rate, i.e., Ho:=0,
n
* i , *
E E V^E /,
U - V1 ^5 (2-4)
l 12 >i )
of four or more failures. Table 2.2 gives the sample set used
for the test. The evaluation of two pumps, number 57 and 60,
pumps.
The resulting value of the test statistic, U, was
16
TABLE 2.2: LAPLACE TEST FOR DATA TREND
48 26 C 4 79
49 56 C 4 124
51 50 C 4 120
52 60 C 4 127
53 24 C 5 82
54 29 C 5 89
55 37 C 5 83
56 45 C 5 118
57 44 R 4* 67*
58 53 C 5 187
59 62 C 5 186
60 37 R 5* 127*
61 53 C 6 168
17
result is representative of the entire sample set. The
failure rate.
D. CHOOSING A MODEL
the pump. This approach was chosen based on the fact that
18
The following parametric failure rate, X(t), was used to
k(tye "*pf
(2.5)
-<, p <,/ i o
these parameters.[Ref.8]
19
E. MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATION
following:
20
Appendix B contains the complete derivation of the maximum
derivation.
-t
Z.(6> e>* "flflMjfl
'V' IIlW
Pit )
1
>i
* Zu
..I
(2.6)
k k "i k
1(6 > e
Dy P'U-
nn^> (2.7)
likelihood function.
21
log I,(e>>V +i>g(;) 4og f, -E^ogCe^-l) (2.8)
>i M >i >i >i
^^-ib,.if-i^ (2.9)
is p = 0.02258.
22
MAXIMUM LIKILIHOOD ESTIMATION OF BETA
500 1
400
<
<D
300
n
Sv
-*^ 2UU
(C
a>
-Q
_J
im
TO
O
u r ^< n
_ "b-_ - _
-100
N.
-200
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03
beta
23
(2.10)
da, >i ' >i
expression:
& = h (2.11)
K(tyeJ3-nMma5tt, t i 0. (2.12)
24
The confidence intervals for & and are obtained by
25
other is a formal statistical procedure using Pearson's Chi-
Squared Test.
X(t) =ea+&t. Table 2.4 contains the calculated rates and Figure
the overall trend. Further, one must recall the nature of the
26
TABLE 2.4: COMPARISON OF INTERVAL FAILURE AND THE
MODEL FAILURE RATE
01S
S
m
G oi
m
g
A
005
~1
12 20 28 36 52 60
KOHTBS
27
exhibit indications of wearout. Thus, the system is highly
investigation.
The Pearson Chi-Squared Test is a formal statistical test
28
one cannot reject the possibility that the data follows the
29
III. DEVELOPING A REPLACEMENT POLICY
Such an extensive data base, however, does not exist for the
30
of a time-based replacement policy for the cam-driven
31
This reasoning has led to the frequent and possibly
32
State" is dependent upon the nature and mission of the system in
task is analyzed.
are as follows:
33
MIL-STD-2173 (AS) points out two key elements for time-based
interval.
Several additional factors must also be considered in
34
replacement if an increase in operating and maintenance costs
properties.
35
an increasing occurrence of repairable failures as the pump
36
generic Ln, or R, is denoted by L, or R. Then let R(t) be the
*(')-*,, (3.1)
holds:
t E[L]
states that the long-run average cost equals the average cycle
37
Pump life is a function of the replacement interval and the
ix if o,x<r (33)
v
\r if TuX '
38
constant probability p. The data have 140 failures, of which
failure.[Ref.12]
39
X' 1.13 with 4 degrees of freedom for a p-value of 0.8 < p
significance level. The small data set does not provide for
REPLACEMENTS 5 3 2 2 2 R0 = 14
REPAIRS 49 33 22 13 9 Rx = 126
rii 54 36 24 15 11 140
(3.4)
40
Similarly, the probability that the pump does not fail before
T
E[L] - fx h(x)dx jT h(x)dx. (3.6)
0 T
T
E\Ly fx e** k{x)qdx +T e-*?. (3.7)
0
41
2. Expected Cycle Costs
incurred until the next replacement. Thus the life cycle cost
can be represented as
Then
42
a. Case X < T
This simplifies to
T
E[N(X)\X<T].P{X<T) - qpfA(x)e-^x)qk(x)dx. (3.10)
expression:
L
E[N(x)\x<T]*Ptt<T) - - Mm^ - -'* (3.11)
<i 1
43
b. Case X > T
A
E[N(T)\X*T].P<XzT) - weW (7" (3.12)
life is
E[R]- COST ^
Mw COST rtpetr
(3.15)
q i
44
As with Equation 3.8, the above general formula can be
in terms of Equations 3.7 and 3.15. Let z(T) denote the long-
Then
and X(t) :
45
approximately $111,000, excluding the associated installation
however, that the failure data is not adjusted for the number
6
A
* 5
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
POMP A8I (MONTHS)
46
This leads to a more useful representation of repairs
47
REPAIR ACTION MATERIAL COST
(10 FAILURE MOVING AVERAGE)
6000
4000
for expended manhours for repairs as the pump ages. The graph
48
As stated earlier, no attempt is made to incorporate this data
10 13 15 17 18 21 24 26 32 35 38 42 49
POKE AOE (HOHTBl)
month. Table 3.2 contains the results for the MLE of a and
49
a graph of z(T) for the MLE of a and . Calculations are made
for both the final moving average value of $4900 and the
Chapter II.
a C
^Repair =
c'Repair -
$4900 $3000
-3.189 .033 82 94
-3.50 .033 88 99
-2.87 .033 77 88
111 and 128 months for the average repair costs of $4900 and
50
data, therefore, may not justify the current Trident and non-
2320
2. 2300
u
2280
i
f 2260
I
2240
2220
80 86 104 112 120 128
BXPiAcmnra INTERVAL (MONTHS)
Recall, however, that only material costs are used for the
51
using the MLE parameters. The lowest average repair cost
replacement policy.
reciprocating pump, one must not lose sight that the pump is
mission duration.
Since a NHPP with rate X(t) is used to model the failure
over pump age. Figure 3.5 shows the expected total number of
52
q = 0.10 that the failure is non-repairable. The sequence of
tenth failure.
< 20
15
ft10
88 68 104 112
53
The average times to failure can be calculated using a
Table 3.3 contains the mean pump age at failure using 500
times.
The decision to replace or repair a pump may be guided by
54
TABLE 3.3: SIMULATED PUMP FAILURE TIMES
55
failure at age t will successfully complete a mission of
3.7 shows the expected number of failures that will occur over
ages (t,t+3).
pumps with mission completion ages of 36, 60, and 111 months.
56
RELIABILITY FOR A 90 DAY MISSION
a 0.8
o
a
8
OS
It
M
t 0.4
! .
57
decision makers should understand the possible consequences
reliability concerns.
58
IV. MODEL ASSESSMENT
performance.
The 3-M system itself suffers from many flaws. Part of the
59
The 3-M system is designed to track failure data for
60
regarding failures, repairs and operation of the pump. Some
reasonable assumption.
the same token, the act of affixing repairs has been known to
61
procedures, hopefully, identify and correct such faulty
St. Augustine may not have been talking about modelling the
in this light. This does not imply that any such model has no
62
incorporation of such information with the modelling results,
exist.
63
as the pump ages. This information, while not being totally
maintenance policy.
64
V. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
65
function, to model failure characteristics. Other
in the failure rate over time and may improve the model's fit.
66
The evaluation of the cam-driven reciprocating pump should
cost and labor estimates will more clearly define the changing
67
The concept of failure prediction and prevention through
planned monitoring.
for both. This thesis only addressed one system, but multiple
68
decisions on maintenance policy in the wake of a shrinking
readiness.
69
APPENDIX A. PUMP FAILURE DATA
70
FINAL EXCESS TOTAL
PUMP Ti T2 T3 T, T5 T6 STATUS LIFE LIFE
34 14 34 C 16 50
35 16 38 R 0 38
36 18 41 C 18 59
37 26 61 C 4 65
38 11 12 15 C 11 26
39 4 6 21 C 15 36
40 5 20 23 C 30 53
41 10 17 26 R 0 26
42 17 32 33 C 3 36
43 36 37 41 c 3 44
44 16 23 43 R 0 43
45 17 25 43 c 1 44
46 18 24 56 c 7 63
47 2 8 9 10 R 0 10
48 15 17 22 25 C 1 26
49 15 32 38 39 C 17 56
50 27 32 37 42 R 0 42
51 3 27 42 48 C 2 50
52 4 19 52 52 C 8 60
53 6 15 17 20 24 C 0 24
54 9 12 16 26 26 C 3 29
55 4 6 14 25 34 C 3 37
56 5 16 18 36 43 C 2 45
57 4 10 25 28 44 R 0 44
58 19 31 42 46 49 C 4 53
59 12 36 43 44 51 C 11 62
60 11 22 25 34 35 37 R 0 37
61 13 17 30 32 36 40 C 13 53
LEGEND:
T = FAILURE TIME, IN MONTHS, FOR FAILURE NUMBER i
C INDICATES PUMP LAST OBSERVED OPERATING
R INDICATES PUMP WAS REPLACED AT LAST OBSERVATION
NOTES:
ALL TIMES ARE ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST MONTH
TOTAL FAILURES: 140, TOTAL REPLACEMENTS: 14
TOTAL EXPOSURE: 2020
71
APPENDIX B. DERIVATION OF THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATOR
Let
k = index for the number of pumps in the sample set
j = index for the individual pumps, j = l,2,..k
i = index for the failure number for pump j, i = 1,2,..^
nj = the number of failures for pump j
fj = time of the last observation for pump j
*Note: time is equivalent to pump age in this analysis*
ti,j = time of failure i for pump j
pf'ti.j) = probability that the failure occurring at time
tj,j is repairable.
q(ti,j) = probability that the failure occurring at time
tli3 is not repairable and therefore requires
pump replacement. q(tiij)= l-p(tiij).
F = indicator variable indicating status of the last
observation
F, = 1 for non-repairable failure
F. = 0 for pump last observed operating
X(tij) = rate of occurrence of pump failures for pump age
t, . . The failure may or may not be repairable.
A(tij) = the integrated value of the failure rate from
purr.p installation to age titi; the expected number
of failures (repairable) up to age tii1t
6 = vector of parameters, 6 = (a, )
L(6) = Combined Likelihood Function for pump failures
Lc(0) = Conditional Likelihood Function for pump failures
72
Consider the likelihood function for one pump, i.e., the jth:
6 is suppressed.
reduces to :
(B2)
\r.
*-tv
ttu.W'P
((v (B3)
p<t.j)
73
Combining the observations from all pumps
.>->fift*jft^'lMW
>i l j-\ p(t )
<)
(B4)
divide L(6) by
V p >l
flftMufl
.7-1 M >1 rfr .) niW
>i
74
SPECIAL CASE: MODEL FOR INCREASING HAZARD
1(6) -e nfW
j* *i
(B6)
k "L
sfVll k
e-TIf'II'jl
LiQ>
>i >i (B7)
n
k k k k
log Ly $V .$>g(.!) ,log p". -T,n}o^-\) (B8)
75
To find the Maximum Likelihood Estimator for , take the
derivative is
^^EEvjivE^i (>
76
and setting the equation equal to zero results in the
following expression:
expression:
E,
& = In (Bll)
>>
77
for a and produces an estimate of the variance/covariance
d2WM6)
logL(Q)= ^2l!
-WX, W,
E (. }.!> +
2e
_?_
ak
(f. % -- Off. P/>). (B14)
2 3 2
sp p >1 p >l P >
78
APPENDIX C. MATHCAD 3.1 PROGRAMS
79
*********************************************************************************************************
MATHCAD 3.1 PROGRAM TO COMPUTE MLE OF BETA
*********************************************************************************************************
fl n n, f. 2 -e-
Pf
j
100
so ~\
fl() 0 \
~\_.
so
"" \
inn
0.018 0.02 0.022 0.024 0.026 0.028 0.03
NEWTON'S METHOD
N =60 i :=0..N
err =10
yn =.023 fl(yn) =-7.88315
0.023
0.0225818402
fiy; 0.0225823081
v , = until y.-*.* f2y
0.0225823081
0
n2 last(y)- 1
n2 = 3
fl
yn2 =
y
J = 0.02258
n2
80
****************************************************************************************************
MATHCAD 3.1 PROGRAM TO DERIVE THE 95% Cl FOR MLES ALPHA AND BETA
****************************************************************************************************
j -0..60
n. .= READ(NU) tt. =READ(TTU) f. =READ(TFU)
J
beta =.02258
81
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA*AAAAAAAAAAAA*AAAA*AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
i=1..200 T.1 =i
126
a =3.189 b =0.02258 p = q=l p
140
A(t)=^(ebt-l) dA(t):=e'+,>1
b
T.1
ttf. qx-eA(x)'qdA(x)dx ttT,-T,/^'" f(x) = qxeA(x)qdA(x)
i
JO
Expected reward/cost:
CReplace =111000
82
Reward / Renewal Process: Long Run Average Reward (z):
ECost
z.
ELife.
z0:=1000000000000
2798 j =1..300
min. : = until|~(z, z. V
j L\ J J +v
2596
n2 =last(min)
z =2.22645726-10"
n2- 1
2394
z =2.22641167-103
n2
z, = 2.2264619- 10J
n2+l
2192 n2 = lll
1990
20 116 148 180
83
**,**,***************************************************************************************
uj;j -md(r)
t
Pij:=,P(i-l)d-h(Uid)
-!_.tp. .+ 1
'J b '1\ P'-J +
<13> <14>
fail 13: = ^ fail H: = W
S6illlj
*i X>il2j Zfei,3j VfaillO.
vg2 v avg10 avgu
avg. 3
avg avg 13 rj
av
84 avg5 avg6 12
Vfeill4.
Zfeil?j u&i'8J 2>19J
avgg. vgg avg]4
avg7
T
avg = (0 16.668 29.288 39.841 48.154 55.474 61.885 67.59 72.539 76.899 81.285 84.829
(88.276) (91.262) (94.209)
84
CALCULATION OF THE STANDARD ERROR FOR THE SAMPLE MEAN TIME TO FAILURE i
j: = l..n
.5 .5
(ML-avg,)
Z(Mvav82)
samplestd samplestd.
n-1 n-1
1-5
][](&il3ravB,) ^(feiMj-avg^
samplestd, - samplestd.
n-1 n-1
Y.(m5ravg5)
fai!6. - avg^
samplestd. samplestd.
n-1 n-1
samplestd.. samplestd
n-1 n-1
fai!9; - avgg)
samplestdg samplestd.
n- 1
^(fiinij-wB,;
samplestd, samplestd. 2
n-1
stderror
1 samplestd
(V3
stderT=(0 0.602 0.672 0.691 0.681 0.659 0.634 0.624 0.589 0.555 0.539 0.517 0.501
(0.489) (0.479)
85
LIST OF REFERENCES
86
11. Ross, S. M., Introduction to Probability Models,
ACADEMIC PRESS, INC., San Diego, 1985, pp. 310-313.
87
BIBLIOGRAPHY
88
Nelson, W., Applied Life Data Analysis, JOHN WILEY & SONS,
New York, 1982.
89
INITIAL DISTRIBUTION LIST
2. Library, Code 52
Naval Postgraduate School
Monterey CA 93943-5002
90