Weibull Parameters Sequence Behavior of

Failure Modes to Improve Maintenance

Strategies

Carlos Recalde

2
 Maintenance Strategies

Maintenance
Strategies
CBM, RCM
Equipment
Flowcharts
Prevent
Failure
Mode

Action plan - Keep

maintenance
Function
activities

3
 Action Plan - Strategy

Strategy Equipment
Game Prevent
Failure
Equipment
Mode
Evaluation
Maintenance Failure Keep
Function
Behavior
Action plan -
maintenance
activities
Selection Random
Application Failure

4
 Failure Evaluation

Asset classes
Equipment, etc.
Prevent
Failure Human life
Evaluation
Mode Human
Failure development
Keep
Function

5
 Failure Evaluation

Evaluation
Failure
Characteristics: Reliability
Failure cause Analysis

Failure
interval

6
 Selection

• May relate to failure cause.

• Cause of failure is important to understand to

implement actions.

• Failure cause may relate to failure periods of

bathtub curve.

• Bathtub curve represents whole life of a

population of products.
7
 Selection

Bathtub curve comprises three failure periods:

early, degradation and random.

8
 Selection - Bathtub Curve

Early Failure

• Errors at some equipment life cycle stage like:

design, manufacture, installation, operation or
maintenance.
• Inadequate burn in, misassembly, overhaul
problems.
• Mayor latent defects as material flaws, customer
misuse.

9
 Selection - Bathtub Curve

Degradation failure

• Wear-out factors.

• Low cycle fatigue, corrosion, erosion, stress

corrosion, material properties.

• Scheduled replacement or Preventive

Maintenance (PM) is required.

10
 Selection - Bathtub Curve

Random failure

• External shocks.

• Human errors, abusive events, failure due to

nature and foreign object damage.

11
 Random Failure Premise

Function Obtained =
50%

Function Not Obtained=

50%

12
 Random Failure Premise

• Most failures do not relate to operating

age.

• Premise based on the results of a study

published on 1978 at the aircraft industry by
Nowlan and Heap.

• Failure density distribution of components.

13
 Random Failure Premise

• Reliability Patterns

4% 7%

2% 14%

5% 68%

14
 Random Failure Premise

• F + E = 82 %

• Lack of relation refers to a steady or constant

failure rate period where failure happens
randomly.

• Development of some reliability handbooks like:

MIL-HDBK-217 and OREDA (2002).

• Unexpected change, the strength and the load

of technical item are evaluated as random
15 variables.
 Application

• May relate to the failure interval.

• Difficult job.
• Fix interval is commonly used.

16
 Application

• Basic reliability terms.

• Lack of statistical data gives experience the

chance to guess the task frequency.

• Fix interval is not the best approach.

17
 Reliability Analysis - Evaluation of Failure

No Probability
Reliability values
Approaches
Evaluation Qualitative Classify failure
Failure FMEA
Failures
Quantitative
Characteristics:
Failure cause Probability
or period - values
What?
Failure interval
- When? Non parametric analysis

Parametric or Distribution
based method
18
 Parametric or Distribution Based Method

• Best results.
• More insightful for prediction.
• More information and important contribution to
performance improvement.
• Based on knowledge of the reliability
distribution.
• Common probability distributions: normal,
exponential, Binomial, Poisson, Rayleigh and
Weibull.

19
 Weibull Distribution

• Common probability distributions are included.

• Best modeling bathtub curve.
• Defining parameters are: beta (β) and eta (η).
• Eta relates to the interval of failure. Age at
which 63% of equipments or components will
fail.
• Beta relates to failure cause or failure
period.

20
 Weibull Distribution

• β<1. Early Failure.

• Β>1. Degrading Failure.
• Β=1. Random Failure. Weibull changes to
Exponential. Eta relates to MTTF or MTBF.

21
 Weibull Parameters

Weibull Maintenance activities

Parameters Failure cause or period-
Beta What?-
Eta Failure interval-
When?

22
 Random Failure Influence

Maintenance
activities
Failure cause or
Random period - What?
Failure
Failure interval
- When?
MTTF and
MTBF
23
 Weibull Parameters Sequence

Iterative evaluation
Maintenance
activities Failure Mode
Failure cause or Weibull parameters
period behavior sequence
Beta behavior
Failure interval
behavior
Eta behavior

24
 METHODS

25
 Failure Definition

• Inability of equipment to perform a required

function.
• Binary state: Function obtained (FO) and
function not obtained (FNO).

26
 Weibull Parameters Evaluation

• Graphical methods and analytical methods:

Maximum Likelihood Estimator (MLE) and Least
Square.

• MLE: samples size over 500.

• Standard Method: best practice for sample

size 2-100.

27
 Standard Method

• Applies Least Square as correlation method of

median ranks and time to failure.

• Correlation coefficient (r⌃2) shows goodness of

fit.

28
 Failure Mode

• Important for failure classification.

• May be categorized according to its definition.

Failure Mode
Event that causes
FMEA Component
functional failure
EN ISO
14224, Effect of failure Equipment
2016

29
 Failure Mode

• Both approaches may work good for failure

classification.

• If classification is good, then r⌃2 shows a good

fit.

• For this work it was used the ISO 14224

approach.

30
 Life Data

Censored life data

• Suspensions or censored life data relate to

different failure mode.

• Suspensions increase eta and have little effect

on beta.

• This work evaluates all failure data in sequence

according to equipment and failure mode.

31
 Life Data

Aging units

• Miles, cycles, hours, etc., sometimes are not

available.

• r⌃2 shows if Weibull evaluation is useful .

32
 Time to Failure

• Instant of requested work (t) and lasting time of work

(x). Then TTF1=t2-t1-x1 and TTFn=tn-tn-1-xn-1
• TTF is evaluated in days as life unit

33
 Median Ranks

• Adjusted Rank and Benard’s Median Rank apply total

number of failures (N).

• When total number of failure increases adjusted and

median ranks need re-evaluation

34
 Iterative Evaluation

Correlation Method
Equipment
Adjusted Weibull Save
Failure Mode parameters
Ranks
t1- x1 TTF1 Beta
t2- x2 TTF2 Benard´s Eta
Median
. . r⌃2
. . Ranks
tn- xn TTFn

35
 Weibull Parameter Sequence

36
 RESULTS

37
38
Eta

50.00

0.00
100.00
150.00
200.00
250.00
300.00
350.00
9/14/2017 7:15
9/19/2017 16:30
9/22/2017 10:40
9/27/2017 15:00
9/27/2017 19:45
10/2/2017 14:30
10/3/2017 8:30
Early Failure

10/5/2017 8:00
10/18/2017 18:30
10/23/2017 17:10
10/23/2017 18:00
10/24/2017 7:30
10/25/2017 7:00
11/6/2017 16:00
11/7/2017 13:30
11/7/2017 16:00
11/7/2017 18:30
11/10/2017 18:00
11/14/2017 8:00
11/15/2017 5:30
11/15/2017 14:15
11/16/2017 19:00
11/21/2017 10:00
11/22/2017 20:15
11/23/2017 14:00
11/27/2017 17:45
11/30/2017 17:00
Failure Mode F3 - Equipment C

12/4/2017 14:00
12/12/2017 14:00
12/14/2017 15:10
12/21/2017 8:00
1/9/2018 5:00
1/10/2018 14:15
1/16/2018 6:45
1/18/2018 9:10
β<1. Task frequency may be according to eta.

0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70

Beta
Eta
Beta
• Average r⌃2 = 97%. Steady behavior of beta, always
39
Eta

0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
9/26/2017 8:30
10/3/2017 11:00
10/4/2017 7:00
10/20/2017
10/20/2017 15:00
10/24/2017 11:00
10/24/2017 14:00
10/29/2017 14:00
11/10/2017 9:00
Degrading Failure

11/16/2017 15:15
11/20/2017 13:30
11/24/2017 11:00
11/27/2017 11:00
12/1/2017 9:00
12/5/2017 8:02
12/7/2017 10:00
12/12/2017 13:00
12/20/2017 12:00
1/16/2018 7:30
1/22/2018 15:00
Failure Mode F1 - Equipment A

1/29/2018 15:30
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00

Beta
β>1. Task frequency may be according to eta.

Eta
Beta
• Mean r⌃2 = 89%. Changing behavior of beta, always
40
Eta

0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
10/23/2017 9:00
10/25/2017 10:30
11/6/2017 18:30
11/7/2017 5:00
11/7/2017 16:00
11/8/2017 5:00
11/10/2017 7:30
11/15/2017 10:40
11/16/2017 9:00
11/20/2017 9:10
11/20/2017 18:00
11/22/2017 16:00
11/23/2017 8:40
Random Failure

11/30/2017 9:10
11/30/2017 14:00
12/6/2017 10:40
12/11/2017 16:10
12/12/2017 6:00
12/18/2017 9:00
12/19/2017 14:20
12/20/2017 19:20
12/21/2017 12:30
12/26/2017 6:53
1/2/2018 13:30
1/8/2018 6:20
1/10/2018 14:00
1/11/2018 9:45
1/11/2018 11:40
Failure Mode F2 - Equipment B

1/12/2018 16:00
1/16/2018 5:30
1/22/2018 13:30
1/26/2018 20:00
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20

Beta
Eta
Beta
tends to 1 . Task frequency may be according to eta.
• Mean r⌃2 = 94%. Increasing behavior of beta, which
 CONCLUSIONS

41
 Weibull Parameter Sequence

• Changing behavior of beta and eta.

• Beta does not show a tendency to 1.
• 260 beta data histogram:
120

100

80
Frequency

60

40

20

0
0.3 0.5 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.5 2 3 4 5
Beta

42
 Beta Data Histogram

• 17% 0.9<=beta<=1.1

• 65% beta <=0.8

• 18% beta >=1.2

43
 Weibull Parameter Sequence

• Random failure avoids the evaluation of a

different failure cause or period and influences
the application of fix intervals.
• Weibull parameters sequence may help to
understand failure behavior according to failure
cause and failure interval behavior which may help
to improve selection and application of maintenance
activities
• More information which may help to improve decision
making and focus all maintenance efforts.

44
 QUESTIONS?

45
 Contact Information

Carlos Recalde

Isla Floreana E7-09 and Isla Fernandina

Quito-Ecuador, 170501

Cell: (593) 990853144

carloandrers@gmail.com

46
 Page 1 of 10

Weibull Parameters Sequence Behavior of Failure Modes to Improve Maintenance

Strategies.

Carlos Recalde, CMRP.

Isla Floreana E7-09 and Isla Fernandina, Quito-Ecuador, 170501
carloandrers@gmail.com

Abstract
This work evaluates the behavior of Weibull parameter sequences of failure modes, in order to give some
insights to improve selection and application of maintenance activities. These activities are developed by
most of the maintenance strategies, which sometimes assume random failures. This premise is inferred
because of the easy applying of basic reliability terms like Mean Time Between Failures (MTBF) and
Mean Time to Failure (MTTF), and because of the difficult evaluation of failure causes. To avoid this
issue, it is proposed the application of a distribution-based method like the two-parameter Weibull
distribution, which is the best for modeling each period of the bathtub curve. These periods are related to
failure causes like early, degradation and random failure. The Weibull parameter sequence was
developed with an iterative evaluation automated in a spreadsheet application. Understanding failure
behavior according to the sequence of Weibull parameters may help to improve decision making and
focus all maintenance efforts.
 Page 2 of 10

INTRODUCTION

Maintenance Strategies
Most maintenance strategies develop action plans or maintenance activities, which work to keep on
demand the function of equipment and prevent failure modes. Maintenance strategies like Reliability
Centered Maintenance (RCM) and Condition Based Maintenance (CBM) evaluate failure mode applying
process flowcharts or logic trees, which help to define the best action plan. This action plan relates to
strategy in the context of the interaction of two non-cooperative entities. These entities can be described
1
as the equipment and the maintenance organization. According to Maschler et al , strategy is a plan of
action for an interdependence situation of two entities, which is also known as a game, where the first
entity profits by breaking any rule and the second monitors the behavior of the first. Given this, the
equipment may win by “failing” and the maintenance organization may monitor the equipment behavior.
Then, maintenance organization may develop maintenance activities according to some evaluation of the
equipment failure behavior. However, sometimes the selection and the application of the action plans or
maintenance activities are influenced by random failures.

Failure Evaluation
Failure evaluation has become a focus of attention because of the failure effect in human life. Since
human development is directly depended on the function of systems, equipments and components, which
may relate to assets classes like: real estate and facilities, plant and production, mobile assets,
2
infrastructure and information technology . Then, when failure happens, it may affect the customer needs
and the operation requirements. And sometimes catastrophic failures may affect safety and the
environment causing human and financial loss.
Failure evaluation requires some reliability analysis. In addition, it may be developed according to some
characteristics of failure like the failure cause and the failure interval. Respecting to failure cause, bathtub
curve may give some ideas.

Selection
The selection of maintenance activities or the insights of “what” to do may relate to the failure cause,
3
which is important to understand to implement action plans . The cause of failure may relate to the
4
periods of bathtub curve, which represents the whole life of a population of products . It comprises three
failure periods: early, degradation, and random. First, early failure period refers to errors at some
5
equipment life cycle stages like: design, manufacture, installation, operation or maintenance. Abernethy
states that it leads to suspect of inadequate burn in, production problems, mis assembly, quality control
4
problems, and overhaul problems. Then, Yang suggests it is caused by mayor latent defects as
manufacturing process variations, material flaws or customer misuse. Second, degradation failure period
 Page 3 of 10

refers to wear-out factors. It leads to suspect of low cycle fatigue, corrosion, erosion, stress corrosion or
5
material properties . To minimize this failure effect, scheduled replacement or Preventive Maintenance
4
(PM) is often required . And third, random failure period refers to external shocks, which leads to suspect
5
of human errors, abusive events, failure due to nature or foreign object damage . Therefore, maintenance
activities selection or the insights of “what” to do may require the evaluation of failure cause according to
bathtub curve periods.

Random Failure Premise

Random failure is frequently used because random means the same chance for the function to be
obtained or not obtained. The best example of random is the tossing of a coin; it is the same chance for
7
head or tail. Moubray points out that most failures do not have relation with operating age. This premise
was inferred based on the results of a study published on 1978 at the aircraft industry by Nowlan and
8 9
Heap , which according to Smith and Hinchcliffe consisted of developing failure density distribution of
components history files, and then deriving the hazard rate. The study refers to six reliability patterns, see
Figure #1, where 4% of failures relate to pattern A, 2% to pattern B, 5% to pattern C, 7% to pattern D,
14% to pattern E, and 68% to pattern F. Pattern F suggests that after an initial lapse then equipment gets
to a steady operation period. The sum of patterns F and E suggests an 82 % of failures, which after an
initial lapse of decreasing failure rates then failures do not relate to age. This lack of relation refers to a
steady or constant failure rate period, where failures happen randomly. Random failure has influenced
4
the development of some reliability handbooks like MIL-HDBK-217 , which suggests that all models in the
10
handbook are based upon constant failure rate . It has also influenced the development of OREDA
(2002), which suggests that after an initial lapse of a few years where data is not collected, then
11
equipment gets to a useful life state where data is collected . Failures at this period are usually caused
5
by external shocks or unexpected changes in load . This unexpected change is evaluated as a random
6
variable like the strength and the load of technical components . In addition, sometimes failure is
evaluated the same way. Given this, the random failure premise may remain even nowadays and it is
widely used and sometimes misused.

Figure #1
9
Reliability Patterns
 Page 4 of 10

Application
The application of maintenance activities or the task frequency may relate to the failure interval. Defining
“when” to develop the action plan may be a difficult job. However, sometimes random failure also
influences this decision. Given this, the common used failure interval is the fixed interval of age, which
12
works best to avoid fixed or constant failure rate. Benbow and Broome point out that when the
underlying failure causes are constant failure rates then the easy approach to evaluate these failures are
9
basic reliability terms like MTTF or MTBF. However, Smith and Hinchcliffe suggest that this approach is
9
not really a valued and useful technique for selecting the failure interval. Moreover, Smith and Hinchcliffe
suggest that the lack of statistical data may give operation and maintenance experience the chance to
9
guess the task frequency . Given this, a fix interval is not the best approach because it only leads to
avoid random failure.

Reliability Analysis
The evaluation of failure requires some reliability analysis. Reliability analysis has a quantitative and a
5
qualitative approach . Qualitative analysis like Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA) is important and
5
recommended . It works to classify failures. It does not require the assignment of probability values and it
13
is the first step for quantitative analysis, which does require probability values . Then, according to
14
Regattieri , quantitative approach is categorized in nonparametric analysis and parametric or
distribution-based method. The first requires methods like Product Limit Estimator or Kaplan-Meier and
the second requires methods like Maximum Likelihood Estimator (MLE) or Least Square. Given this,
failure evaluation may apply both reliability approaches.

Distribution-based Method
Regarding to parametric or distribution-based method, it may give best results. Parametric approach is
4
more insightful when it refers to prediction . It gives more information and can provide important
14
contribution to performance improvement of industrial and non-industrial complex systems . Moreover, it
is based on the knowledge of the reliability or probability distribution, which refers to some of the common
distributions like: Normal, Exponential, Poisson, Binomial, Rayleigh and Weibull. Respect to Weibull
5
distribution, it includes exactly or approximately all the reliability distributions stated before . In addition, it
4
best models each period of the bathtub curve . Its defining parameters are beta (β) and eta (η). Eta
relates to the interval of failure and to the age at which 63% of equipment or components will fail. Beta
relates to the failure cause or the failure period. When β<1, it describes early failures; when β>1, it
describes degradation failures; and when β=1, it describes random failures and Weibull changes to
Exponential distribution, moreover, then eta relates to MTTF or MTBF. Therefore, Weibull parameters
beta may relate to the failure period or the failure cause and eta to the task frequency or the failure
interval.
 Page 5 of 10

Finally, random failure sometimes influences some decision like the selection and the application of
maintenance activities. This influence provides a bias selection of maintenance activities because it
rejects the evaluation of a different failure period like early or degradation. Random failure provides some
insights to the question of “what” to do, because it is usually caused by external shocks. Moreover, the
easy approach to evaluate these failures are basic reliability terms like MTBF or MTTF, which provide
some answers to the question of “when” to do. According to this, the improvement of the selection and
the application of maintenance activities require an understanding of the failure cause and the failure
14
interval behavior. Regattieri states that failure modeling must be an iterative procedure applied at
different instants of the system service. Therefore, it is proposed an iterative evaluation automated in a
spreadsheet application to develop the Weibull parameter sequences of failure modes.

METHODS

Failure Definition
Failure evaluation requires a clear definition of failure. Then, failure is the inability of equipment to
3 6
perform a required function . Moreover, failure is described as a state variable . Therefore, for this work it
is used a binary state like: function obtained (FO) and function not obtained (FNO).

Weibull Parameters Evaluation

There are some graphical and analytical methods like Maximum Likelihood Estimator or the Least
Square, which are used to evaluate the two parameters of Weibull distribution. MLE is good for very large
5
samples over 500; however the standard method is the best for sample size 2-100 . The standard
method is the best practice and applies least square as a correlation method of median ranks as
5
independent variable and time to failure as dependent variable . This method provides a correlation
coefficient (r⌃2), which shows how good data fit to the Weibull distribution. Then, some methods provide
less accurate results like the graphical method. However, the purpose of this work is regarded only on
developing the Weibull parameter sequences and it is used the standard method.

Failure Mode
Failure Mode is important for failure classification. According to its definition it may be categorized in the
FMEA and the ISO 14224 approach. Given this, FMEA approach suggests failure mode is an event that
7
causes a functional failure, which may apply at component level . However, ISO 14224 approach
suggests that failure mode is an effect of failure, which applies at equipment level and as alternative at
3
component level . Both approaches may work good for failure classification. But when failure mode
5
classification is good the correlation coefficient r⌃2 shows a good fit . In addition, Weibull should evaluate
 Page 6 of 10

5
a single failure mode at a time . Therefore, the more possible likely failure modes should be described
and applied. For this work it was used the ISO 14224 approach.

Life Data
Censored life data or suspensions may relate to failures of different failure modes. If the evaluation does
14
not have concern about censor data, then a significant error is introduced . Moreover, suspensions
cannot be ignored and must be included in the evaluation because suspensions increase eta and have
5
little effect on beta . For this work, all failure data is evaluated in sequence according to the equipment
and the failure mode.
Life data also may relate to aging units like hours, miles, cycles, etc., which sometimes are not available.
When the best aging parameter is not available and only calendar time data is available then a measure
5
of goodness of fit r⌃2 will determine if the Weibull evaluation is useful .

Time to Failure Evaluation

The available data to evaluate Time to Failure (TTF) is calendar data. For this work, it was used some of
the work order information like the instant of the requested work (t) in date and time format and the
lasting time of the work (x) in hours. TTF is evaluated in “days” as life unit. Then according to Figure #2,
to evaluate TTF1 and TTFn, it is used t1, t2, tn-1 and tn as instant of requested work and x1, x2, xn-1 and xn
as lasting time of the work. Given this, TTF1=t2-t1-x1 and TTFn=tn-tn-1-xn-1.

Figure #2
TTF Evaluation

Median Ranks
5
Adjusted Rank and Benard’s Median Rank are evaluated according to Abernethy . In Table #1, both
formulas require the total number of failures (N). When a new failure joins to the evaluation then the total
number of failure increases and adjusted and median ranks need to be re-evaluated.
 Page 7 of 10

Table #1
5
Median Ranks Formulas

Weibull Parameter Sequence

The development of the sequence of Weibull parameters requires an iterative evaluation, which was
automated in a spreadsheet application. This iterative evaluation applies TTF1 as a starting point and
then each new TTF is added in sequence until TTF n. During this, when a new TTF joins the evaluation,
the total number of failure increases and adjusted and median ranks are re-evaluated. This allows the
correlation method to update the values of Weibull parameters and r⌃2. These values are saved
according to the instant of requested work (t). Finally, a new TTF joins the evaluation and the process
repeats until TTFn. See Table #2, it is the general results of the evaluation of one failure mode of one
equipment.

Table #2
Sequence of Weibull Parameters

RESULTS

Early Failure
According to Graphic #1, the evaluation of failure mode F3 of equipment C shows a steady behavior of
beta, which is always less to 1. Therefore, maintenance activities should aim to avoid errors at some
equipment stage like design, manufacture, installation, operation or maintenance, and these activities
should apply according to failure interval eta. The average of r⌃2 = 97%.
 Eta Eta

10.00
12.00

0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
50.00
100.00
150.00
200.00
250.00
300.00
350.00

0.00
9/26/2017 8:30 9/14/2017 7:15

Degrading Failure
9/19/2017 16:30
10/3/2017 11:00 9/22/2017 10:40
10/4/2017 7:00 9/27/2017 15:00
9/27/2017 19:45
10/20/2017 10/2/2017 14:30
10/3/2017 8:30
10/20/2017 15:00 10/5/2017 8:00
10/18/2017 18:30
10/24/2017 11:00 10/23/2017 17:10
10/24/2017 14:00 10/23/2017 18:00
10/24/2017 7:30
10/29/2017 14:00 10/25/2017 7:00
11/6/2017 16:00

failure interval eta. The average of r⌃2 = 89%.

11/10/2017 9:00 11/7/2017 13:30
11/16/2017 15:15 11/7/2017 16:00
11/7/2017 18:30
11/20/2017 13:30 11/10/2017 18:00
11/14/2017 8:00
11/24/2017 11:00 11/15/2017 5:30
11/15/2017 14:15

Graphic #2
Graphic #1

11/27/2017 11:00 11/16/2017 19:00

12/1/2017 9:00 11/21/2017 10:00
11/22/2017 20:15
12/5/2017 8:02 11/23/2017 14:00
11/27/2017 17:45
12/7/2017 10:00

Failure Mode F1 - Equipment A

Failure Mode F3 - Equipment C

Weibull Parameters Sequence

Weibull Parameters Sequence

11/30/2017 17:00
12/4/2017 14:00
12/12/2017 13:00 12/12/2017 14:00
12/20/2017 12:00 12/14/2017 15:10
12/21/2017 8:00
1/16/2018 7:30 Eta 1/9/2018 5:00

Beta
Eta

1/10/2018 14:15
Beta

1/22/2018 15:00 1/16/2018 6:45

1/18/2018 9:10
1/29/2018 15:30
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70

0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00

Beta
Beta
factors. A further analysis should identify the degrading part and the replace interval should be related to
According to Graphic #2, the evaluation of failure mode F1 of equipment A shows a changeable behavior
of beta, which is always greater to 1. Therefore, maintenance activities should aim to avoid wear-out
Page 8 of 10
 Page 9 of 10

Random Failure
According to Graphic #3, the evaluation of failure mode F2 of equipment B shows an increasing behavior
of beta, which tends to 1. Therefore, maintenance activities should aim to avoid external shocks and
these activities should apply according to failure interval eta. The average of r⌃2 = 94%.

Eta
Failure Mode F2 - Equipment B
Beta
6.00 1.20
5.00 1.00
4.00 0.80

Beta
Eta

3.00 0.60
2.00 0.40
1.00 0.20
0.00 0.00
11/7/2017 5:00

11/8/2017 5:00

1/2/2018 13:30
1/8/2018 6:20

1/11/2018 9:45

1/16/2018 5:30
10/23/2017 9:00
10/25/2017 10:30
11/6/2017 18:30

11/7/2017 16:00

11/10/2017 7:30
11/15/2017 10:40
11/16/2017 9:00
11/20/2017 9:10
11/20/2017 18:00
11/22/2017 16:00
11/23/2017 8:40
11/30/2017 9:10
11/30/2017 14:00
12/6/2017 10:40
12/11/2017 16:10
12/12/2017 6:00
12/18/2017 9:00
12/19/2017 14:20
12/20/2017 19:20
12/21/2017 12:30
12/26/2017 6:53

1/10/2018 14:00

1/11/2018 11:40
1/12/2018 16:00

1/22/2018 13:30
1/26/2018 20:00
Graphic #3
Weibull Parameters Sequence

CONCLUSIONS

The evaluation of failure according to the Weibull parameter sequences of different equipment and failure
modes shows a changing behavior of the failure cause beta and the failure interval eta. In the case of
beta, it does not show a steady behavior with tendency to 1 for all events. By contrast, according to a
histogram of 260 beta data results, see Graphic #4, It suggests that only a 17% of failures are close to 1
or 0.9<=beta<=1.1, and 65% of failures with beta <=0.8 and 18% of failures with beta >=1.2. The first is
close to pattern E, and de second is close to pattern F. Both are the same than the sum of patterns E and
F, 82% of failures. Given this, the influence of random failure or exponential distribution avoids the
evaluation of a different failure cause or period like early or degradation and influences the application of
fix intervals. Therefore, an iterative evaluation of failure to develop the sequence of Weibull parameters of
failure modes allows understanding failure behavior according to the behavior of failure cause and failure
interval providing insights to the selection and application of maintenance activities. Finally, the Weibull
parameter sequences may provide more information, which may help to improve decision making and
focus all maintenance efforts.
 Page 10 of 10

150

Frequency
100

50

0
0.3 0.5 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.5 2 3 4 5
Beta

Graphic #4
Beta Data Histogram

REFERENCES
1. Maschler M, Solan E, Zamir S. Game Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2013.
2. Campbell J, Jardine A, McGlynn J. Assets Management Excellence: Optimizing Equipment Life-
Cycle Decisions. Boca Raton, Florida: Taylor & Francis Group. 2011.
3. ISO 14224. Petroleum, Petrochemical and Gas Industries. Collection and Exchange of Reliability
and Maintenance Data for Equipment. BSI Standard Limited. 2016.
4. Yang G. Life Cycle Reliability Engineering. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. 2007
5. Abernethy R. The New Weibull Handbook. Fifth edition. Florida: Robert Abernethy. 2006.
6. Rausand M, Høyland A. System Reliability Theory: Models, Statistical Methods, and Applications.
New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. 2004.
7. Moubray J. RCM II-Reliability Centered Maintenance. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. 1997.
8. Nowlan FS, Heap HF. Reliability-Centered Maintenance. Washington, DC: National Technical
Information Service, Report No. AD/A066-579. December 29, 1978.
9. Smith AM, Hinchcliffe GR. RCM-Gateway to World Class Maintenance. Burlington, MA: Elsevier
Butterworth-Heinemann. 2004.
10. MIL-HDBK-217. Military Handbook. Reliability Prediction of Electronic Equipment. 1991.
11. OREDA. Offshore Reliability Data. Norway: OREDA Participants. 2002.
12. Benbow DW, Broome HW. The Certified Reliability Engineering Handbook. Milwaukee: ASQ
Quality Press. 2009.
13. Karimi R, Rasmussen N, Wolf L. Qualitative and Quantitative Reliability Analysis of Safety
Systems. PhD diss. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Massachusetts, US. 1980.
14. Regattieri A. Reliability Evaluation of Manufacturing Systems: Methods and Applications,
Manufacturing System, Dr. Fayez Abdul Aziz (Ed.), ISBN: 978-953-51-0530-5. 2012. InTech,
Available from: http://www.intechopen.com/books/manufacturing-system/reliability-evaluation-of-
manufacturing-systems-methods-and-applications

Keywords: Maintenance strategy, failure evaluation, bathtub curve, random failure, reliability analysis,
Distribution-based method, Weibull distribution, life data, failure mode, Weibull parameter sequences.