In reliability engineering, the term availability has the following meanings:
Normally high availability systems might be specified as 99.98%, 99.999% or 99.9996%. The converse, unavailability, is 1 minus the availability.
Another equation for availability ( A) is a ratio of the Mean Time To Failure (MTTF) and Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF), or
If we define the status function as
\begin{cases} 1, & \text{sys functions at time } t\\ 0, & \text{maintenance} \end{cases}
therefore, the availability A( t) at time t > 0 is represented by
Average availability must be defined on an interval of the real line. If we consider an arbitrary constant , then average availability is represented as
Limiting (or steady-state) availability is represented byElsayed, E., Reliability Engineering, Addison Wesley, Reading, MA,1996
Limiting average availability is also defined on an interval as,
Availability is the probability that an item will be in an operable and committable state at the start of a mission when the mission is called for at a random time, and is generally defined as uptime divided by total time (uptime plus downtime).
Availability of series component = (availability of component A) x (availability of component B) x (availability of component C)
Therefore, combined availability of multiple components in a series is always lower than the availability of individual components.
On the other hand, following formula applies to parallel components:
Availability of parallel components = 1 - (1 - availability of component A) X (1 - availability of component B) X (1 - availability of component C) In corollary, if you have N parallel components each having X availability, then:
Availability of parallel components = 1 - (1 - X)^ N
Using parallel components can exponentially increase the availability of overall system. For example if each of your hosts has only 50% availability, by using 10 of hosts in parallel, you can achieve 99.9023% availability.
Note that redundancy doesn’t always lead to higher availability. In fact, redundancy increases complexity which in turn reduces availability. According to Marc Brooker, to take advantage of redundancy, ensure that:
Furthermore, these methods are capable to identify the most critical items and failure modes or events that impact availability.
It is based on quantities under control of the designer.
Availability, achieved (Aa) The probability that an item will operate satisfactorily at a given point in time when used under stated conditions in an ideal support environment (i.e., that personnel, tools, spares, etc. are instantaneously available). It excludes logistics time and waiting or administrative downtime. It includes active preventive and corrective maintenance downtime.
Availability, operational (Ao) The probability that an item will operate satisfactorily at a given point in time when used in an actual or realistic operating and support environment. It includes logistics time, ready time, and waiting or administrative downtime, and both preventive and corrective maintenance downtime. This value is equal to the mean time between failure (MTBF) divided by the mean time between failure plus the mean downtime (MDT). This measure extends the definition of availability to elements controlled by the logisticians and mission planners such as quantity and proximity of spares, tools and manpower to the hardware item.
Refer to Systems engineering for more details
Outage due to equipment in hours per year = 1/rate = 1/MTTF = 0.01235 hours per year.
Availability measures are classified by either the time interval of interest or the mechanisms for the system downtime. If the time interval of interest is the primary concern, we consider instantaneous, limiting, average, and limiting average availability. The aforementioned definitions are developed in Barlow and Proschan 1975, Lie, Hwang, and Tillman 1977, and Nachlas 1998. The second primary classification for availability is contingent on the various mechanisms for downtime such as the inherent availability, achieved availability, and operational availability. (Blanchard 1998, Lie, Hwang, and Tillman 1977). Mi 1998 gives some comparison results of availability considering inherent availability.
Availability considered in maintenance modeling can be found in Barlow and Proschan 1975 for replacement models, Fawzi and Hawkes 1991 for an R-out-of-N system with spare part and repairs, Fawzi and Hawkes 1990 for a series system with replacement and repair, Iyer 1992 for imperfect repair models, Murdock 1995 for age replacement preventive maintenance models, Nachlas 1998, for preventive maintenance models, and Wang and Pham 1996 for imperfect maintenance models. A very comprehensive recent book is by Trivedi and Bobbio 2017.
|
|