reliability project
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/7/2019 Reliability Project
1/11
Adam Brown
DSES 6070 HV6
Reliability Project
Reliability of a Commuter Bicycle
Introduction
As a potential financial solution to todays ever-increasing fuel costs, one can
consider utilizing human powered vehicles for daily commutes. If an alternate means of
transportation is to be considered for the trip to and from work, it must be shown to be
nearly as reliable as the initial vehicle so as to not annoy ones boss or spouse with late
arrivals due to vehicle breakdown. However, depending on the individual, a slight
decrease in reliability between a car and a bicycle may be acceptable as a tradeoff for the
financial savings of fuel, automobile maintenance, and automobile depreciation. After
identifying the possible failure modes and assigning probabilities to each mode,
probabilities of system failure are calculated, as well as a mean time to failure.
Importance calculations are performed for each of the primary components in order to
identify the components with the greatest opportunity to improve the system as a whole.
The probabilities of failure for each component are based on the authors experience with
cycling and the local environmental considerations. The end result will be a probability
of system failure that would lead to a significantly late arrival. The analysis also
highlights particular modifications to the planned maintenance and care of the bicycle
that will reduce the probability of system failure.
-
8/7/2019 Reliability Project
2/11
Methodologies
In the early phases of system development, precise component failure rates are
often not available to the system designers. This does not allow one to forgo all attempts
at maximizing system reliability until solid data is obtained. Rather, designers must
approximate values (at least maintaining an order of magnitude comparison between
related components) and identify the areas that offer the greatest room for improvement
for the system as a whole. The approach taken in this commuter bicycle analysis is
comparable to a system analysis in the early development phases of a program. While
hard data was not available for individual bicycle component failure rates, numbers had
to be approximated using experience and educated guesses.
An FMECA is used to map out all of the failure modes imaginable in the
alternative transportation system and an event tree is used to assign probabilities to
various situations involving different failures. A survivor function and a mean time to
failure is calculated for the system. Measures of component importance are then used to
identify the components with the greatest opportunity to improve the system as a whole.
Results
At first inspection it was surprising that the entire bicycle system is a series
configuration, with no redundancy in design to increase reliability. After studying the
bicycle market further, one can discern the manufacturers reasoning. The high end
bicycle market puts a massive emphasis on the overall weight of the complete system,
even to the point of riders trimming the excess off of their seat post tubes in order to
reduce the system weight by fractions of an ounce. Additional components added to the
system for redundancy will increase the system weight greatly. On the lower end of the
-
8/7/2019 Reliability Project
3/11
quality (and price) spectrum are the Walmart bikes. The manufacturers of these
bicycles do not put nearly the emphasis on weight reductions, but they compete
aggressively for market share with the cheapest configuration possible. The addition of
redundant components to these bicycles would increase the weight of the bicycle (which
they do not generally concern themselves with), but more importantly, additional
components lead to higher material costs. Based on both the weight reduction and cost
reduction arguments presented here, it becomes clear why bicycle manufacturers have
stayed away from parallel component structures. It is also better understood why
competitive cyclists who must maximize the reliability of the system will spend in the
range of $250 for a single rear derailleur just because of an increase in quality, and
therefore, reliability.
The failure modes, effects, and criticality analysis was generated by separating the
bicycle system into individual components and brainstorming on how each component
could fail in a way that would affect the system performance. The resulting FMECA
table is shown in Figures 1 and 2 below.
-
8/7/2019 Reliability Project
4/11
Figure 1 FMECA
-
8/7/2019 Reliability Project
5/11
Figure 2 FMECA continued
-
8/7/2019 Reliability Project
6/11
Following the development of the FMECA, the primary components of interest
were selected and a reliability block diagram was created for the system, as shown below
in Figure 3.
Figure 3 Reliability block diagram of the bicycle system.
An event tree, shown in Figure 4 below, presents the sequences of events that
would result in various outcomes. Probabilities are calculated for each of the outcomes
and presented on the right side of the figure.
Figure 4. Quantitative event tree for the bicycle system.
The survivor function for the system is given below. The mean time to failure
calculation, also shown below, results in a value of approximately 8 days.
Pedal Bottom Chain Hub Wheel Tire
-
8/7/2019 Reliability Project
7/11
( )
days95712580
11MTTF
eetR
n
1i
i
t12580t
S
n
1i
i
..
.
==
=
==
=
=
Based on the assumed component probabilities, the bicycle will provide for an
on time arrival rate of 92.8%. While this may be considered an appropriate reliability,
one should investigate which components to improve in order to result in a greater
reliability. This is accomplished by calculating various importance measures for each of
the components.
Birnbaums measure of importance can be defined as the probability that the
system is in such a state at time tthat component i is critical for the system. For the
series system being analyzed, Birnbaums measure of importance is calculated for a
single component by multiplying the probabilities of each of the other components
together, as shown below for the pedal. A summary of Birnbaums measures of
importance for all components is presented in Table 1. From these values one can see
that the wheel and tire show the most room for improvement, with the chain as a third
contender.
8827095095099909809990pppppI tirewheelhubchainbbBpedal ...... ===
Table 1 Birnbaums measure of importance for each component.
Component pi Birnbaum
Pedal 0.999 0.8827
BB 0.999 0.8827
Chain 0.98 0.8998Hub 0.999 0.8827
Wheel 0.95 0.9282
Tire 0.95 0.9282
The improvement potential of component i is the difference between the system
reliability with a perfectcomponent i, and the system reliability with the actual
-
8/7/2019 Reliability Project
8/11
component i. For the series system being analyzed, the improvement potential for a
single component is calculated by multiplying the probabilities of all other components
together and then subtracting the product of all probabilities including the component
under question, as shown below. The improvement potential values agree with
Birnbaums measures of importance in classifying the tire and wheel as showing the
greatest potential for improved reliability.
Table 2 Improvement potential for each component.
Component pi Improvement PotentialPedal 0.999 0.0008827
BB 0.999 0.0008827
Chain 0.98 0.0180000
Hub 0.999 0.0008827
Wheel 0.95 0.0464100
Tire 0.95 0.0464100
The risk achievement worth is the ratio of the . . . system unreliability if
component i is not present . . . with the actual system unreliability. For the series system
being analyzed, the risk achievement worth is calculated as shown below. The values for
each component are summarized in Table 3. Based on the values in Table 3, the risk
achievement worth does not find any component more important than the others. This is
due to the bicycle being a system of series components.
46089509509990980999099901
950950999098099901
pppppp1
ppppp1I
tirewheelhubchainbbpedal
tirewheelhubchainbbRAWpedal
.......
..... =
=
=
Table 3 Risk achievement worth for each component.
Component pi Risk Achievement Worth
Pedal 0.999 8.460
BB 0.999 8.460
Chain 0.98 8.460
0008827095095099909809990999095095099909809990
pppppppppppI tirewheelhubchainbbpedaltirewheelhubchainbbIPpedal
............ ==
=
-
8/7/2019 Reliability Project
9/11
Hub 0.999 8.460
Wheel 0.95 8.460
Tire 0.95 8.460
The risk reduction worth is the ratio of the actual system unreliability with the . . .
system unreliability if component i is replaced by a perfect component. For the series
system being analyzed, the risk reduction worth is calculated as shown below. The
values for each component are summarized in Table 4. Based on the values in Table 4,
the risk reduction worth has similar findings of Birnbaums measure of importance in
finding the wheel and tire to have the greatest potential for improvement.
0081950950999098099901
9509509990980999099901ppppp1
pppppp1Itirewheelhubchainbb
tirewheelhubchainbbpedalRRWpedal .
........... =
=
=
Table 4 Risk reduction worth for each component.
Component pi Risk Reduction Worth
Pedal 0.999 1.008
BB 0.999 1.008
Chain 0.98 1.180
Hub 0.999 1.008
Wheel 0.95 1.646
Tire 0.95 1.646
The criticality importance is the probability that component i is critical for the
system and is failed at time t, when we know that the system is failed at time t. For the
series system being analyzed, the criticality importance is calculated as shown below.
The values for each component are summarized in Table 5. Based on the values in Table
5, the criticality importance has similar findings of Birnbaums measure of importance in
finding the wheel and tire to have the greatest potential for improvement.
( )( )
( )( )( )
0074709509509990980999099901
9990188270
pppppp1
p1II
tirewheelhubchainbbpedal
pedalBpedalCR
pedal
.......
..=
=
=
Table 5 Criticality importance for each component.
-
8/7/2019 Reliability Project
10/11
Component pi Criticality Importance
Pedal 0.999 0.00747
BB 0.999 0.00747
Chain 0.98 0.15220
Hub 0.999 0.00747
Wheel 0.95 0.39260Tire 0.95 0.39260
The Fussell-Veselys measure is the probability that at least one minimal cut set
that contains component i is failed at time t, given that the system is failed at time t. For
the series system being analyzed, the Fussell-Veselys measure is calculated as shown
below. The values for each component are summarized in Table 6. Based on the values
in Table 6, the Fussell-Veselys measure has similar findings of Birnbaums measure of
importance in finding the wheel and tire to have the greatest potential for improvement.
( )( )
( )( )
0084609509509990980999099901
99901
pppppp1
p1I
tirewheelhubchainbbpedal
pedalFVpedal
.......
.=
=
=
Table 6 Fussell-Veselys measure for each component
Component pi Fussell-Veselys
Pedal 0.999 0.00846BB 0.999 0.00846
Chain 0.98 0.16920
Hub 0.999 0.00846
Wheel 0.95 0.42300
Tire 0.95 0.42300
Conclusion
The analysis of the bicycle system resulted in a system reliability of 92.8% on
time arrival, with a mean time to failure of about 8 days. The components with the
greatest opportunity for improvement to the overall system were the wheels and tires, as
shown in the component importance calculations. Recommendations for improvement of
the system reliability would be to invest in high quality wheels and tire protection (such
-
8/7/2019 Reliability Project
11/11
as Kevlar tube inserts) in order to improve these component reliabilities. A different
route with less debris on the roads could also be chosen in an effort to reduce the
frequency of flat tires.
Expanded analysis would include applying techniques to account for repairable
components and reduced functional capabilities (between new and failed). However,
additional research would need to be conducted to refine the component reliability
numbers before the results of the expanded analysis could be trusted.