Failure Rate - Failure Rate in The Discrete Sense

Failure Rate in The Discrete Sense

The failure rate can be defined as the following:

The total number of failures within an item population, divided by the total time expended by that population, during a particular measurement interval under stated conditions. (MacDiarmid, et al.)

Although the failure rate, is often thought of as the probability that a failure occurs in a specified interval given no failure before time, it is not actually a probability because it can exceed 1. Erroneous expression of the failure rate in % could result in incorrect perception of the measure, especially if it would be measured from repairable systems and multiple systems with non-constant failure rates or different operation times. It can be defined with the aid of the reliability function, also called the survival function, the probability of no failure before time .

, where is the time to (first) failure distribution (i.e. the failure density function) and .
\lambda(t) = \frac{R(t_1)-R(t_2)}{(t_2-t_1) \cdot R(t_1)} = \frac{R(t)-R(t+\triangle t)}{\triangle t \cdot R(t)} \!

over a time interval from (or ) to and is defined as . Note that this is a conditional probability, hence the in the denominator.

The function is a CONDITIONAL probability of the failure DENSITY function. The condition is that the failure has not occurred at time .

Hazard rate and ROCOF (rate of occurrence of failures) is often incorrectly seen as the same and equal to the failure rate. And literature is even contaminated with inconsistent definitions. The hazard rate is in contrast to the ROCOF the same a failure rate. ROCOF is used for repairable systems only. In practice not many serious errors are made due to this confusion (although this statement is hard to validate...).

Read more about this topic:  Failure Rate

Famous quotes containing the words failure, rate, discrete and/or sense:

    “I am dead against art’s being self-expression. I see an inherent failure in any story which fails to detach itself from the author—detach itself in the sense that a well-blown soap-bubble detaches itself from the bowl of the blower’s pipe and spherically takes off into the air as a new, whole, pure, iridescent world. Whereas the ill-blown bubble, as children know, timidly adheres to the bowl’s lip, then either bursts or sinks flatly back again.”
    —Elizabeth Bowen (1899–1973)

    “I don’t know but a book in a man’s brain is better off than a book bound in calf—at any rate it is safer from criticism. And taking a book off the brain, is akin to the ticklish & dangerous business of taking an old painting off a panel—you have to scrape off the whole brain in order to get at it with due safety—& even then, the painting may not be worth the trouble.”
    —Herman Melville (1819–1891)

    “We have good reason to believe that memories of early childhood do not persist in consciousness because of the absence or fragmentary character of language covering this period. Words serve as fixatives for mental images. . . . Even at the end of the second year of life when word tags exist for a number of objects in the child’s life, these words are discrete and do not yet bind together the parts of an experience or organize them in a way that can produce a coherent memory.”
    —Selma H. Fraiberg (20th century)

    “Bonnie Lee: Oh, it’s the most wonderful thing I’ve ever seen.
    Geoff Carter [sarcastically]: Yes, it reminded you of a great big, beautiful bird, didn’t it?
    Bonnie: No, it didn’t at all. That’s why it’s so wonderful. It’s really a flying human being.
    Geoff: Well, you’re right about one thing. A bird’d have too much sense to fly in that kind of muck.”
    —Jules Furthman (1888–1960)