# Reliability Analysis for Unrepairable Automotive Components

^{1}

^{2}

^{3}

^{4}

^{5}

^{6}

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

## 2. Subject of Research

## 3. Failure Data and Probability Distribution Fitting

- -
- H
_{0}: the distribution represents the data, - -
- H
_{1}: the distribution does not represent the data.

_{1},T

_{2},...,T

_{n}, m—number of suspended data points at S

_{1},S

_{2},...,S

_{m}, $k$—the number of estimated parameters, ${T}_{i}$—failure time of the i-th component, S

_{j}—suspension of the j-th component, ${\theta}_{1},{\theta}_{2},\dots ,{\theta}_{k}$—k unknown parameters which need to be estimated, $f\left({T}_{i};{\theta}_{1},{\theta}_{2},\dots ,{\theta}_{k}\right)$—probability density function pdf and $F\left({S}_{j};{\theta}_{1},{\theta}_{2},\dots ,{\theta}_{k}\right)$—cumulative density function cdf.

## 4. Results Analysis

#### 4.1. Data Interpretation

#### 4.2. Optimal Maintenance Strategy

#### 4.3. The Method of Solving the Problem

## 5. Conclusions

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Institutional Review Board Statement

## Informed Consent Statement

## Data Availability Statement

## Conflicts of Interest

## References

- Lewis, M. Designing reliability-durability testing for automotive electronics—A commonsense approach. In Proceedings of the 46th Annual Technical Meeting-Institute of Environmental Sciences and Technology, Providence, RI, USA, 30 April–4 May 2000; Volume 46, pp. 175–179. [Google Scholar]
- Krolo, A.; Bertsche, B. An approach for the advanced planning of a reliability demonstration test based on a Bayes procedure. In Proceedings of the Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium Conference, Tampa, FL, USA, 27–30 January 2003; pp. 288–294. [Google Scholar]
- Kleyner, A. Reliability demonstration in product validation testing. In Handbook of Performability Engineering; Misra, K.B., Ed.; Springer: London, UK, 2008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ascher, H.; Feingold, H. Repairable Systems Reliability—Modeling, Inference, Misconceptions, and Their Causes; Marcel. Dekker: New York, NY, USA, 1984. [Google Scholar]
- Elmahdy, E.E. Modelling reliability data with finite weibull or lognormal mixture distributions. Appl. Math. Inf. Sci.
**2017**, 11, 1081–1089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Patra, A.P.; Söderholm, P.; Kumar, U. Uncertainty estimation in railway track lifecycle cost: A case study from Swedish national Rail Administration. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part F J. Rail Rapid Transit
**2009**, 223, 285–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Lewis, E.E. Introduction to Reliability Engineering, 2nd ed.; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Przystupa, K. Reliability assessment method of device under incomplete observation of failure. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Mechatronics-Mechatronika (ME), Brno, Czech Republic, 5–7 December 2018; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
- Power Law Model-Goodness of Fit Tests and Estimation Methods; IEC 61710; IEC Standards: Geneva, Switzerland, 2013.
- Kozieł, J.; Przystupa, K. Using the FTA method to analyse the quality of an uninterruptible power supply unitreparation UPS. Przegląd Elektrotechniczny
**2019**, 95, 77–80. [Google Scholar] - Lawless, J.F. Statistical Models and Methods for Lifetime Data; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 1982. [Google Scholar]
- Fuc, P.; Rymaniak, L.; Ziolkowski, A. The correlation of distribution of PM number emitted under actual conditions of operation by PC and HDV vehicles. In WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment; WIT Press: Billerica, MA, USA, 2013; Volume 174, pp. 207–2019. ISBN 978-1-84564-718-6. [Google Scholar]
- Gill, A. Optimisation of the technical object maintenance system taking account of risk analysis results. Maint. Reliab.
**2017**, 19, 420–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Hajkowski, J.; Popielarski, P.; Sika, R. Prediction of HPDC casting properties made of AlSi9Cu3 alloy. In Advances in Manufacturing; Springer: Cham, Germany, 2017; pp. 621–631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dolce, J.E. Analytical Fleet Maintenance Management; SAE International: Warrendale, PA, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Młyńczak, M. Analiza Danych Eksploatacyjnych w Badaniach Niezawodności Obiektów Technicznych. Zesz. Nauk. Wyższej Szkoły Oficer. Wojsk Lądowych Im. Gen. T. Kościuszki
**2011**, 1, 159, 177–184. Available online: http://yadda.icm.edu.pl/baztech/element/bwmeta1.element.baztech-article-BATA-0010-0015 (accessed on 1 September 2021). - Trojanowska, J.; Dostatni, E. Application of the theory of constraints for project management. Manag. Prod. Eng. Rev.
**2017**, 8, 87–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Żurek, J.; Ziółkowski, J. Method of formulating the required number of vehicles for delivery aircrafts in aviation fuel. J. KONBiN
**2017**, 44, 347–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Rogalewicz, M.; Sika, R.; Popielarski, P.; Wytyk, G. Forecasting of steel consumption with use of nearest neighbours method. In Proceedings of the MATEC Web of Conferences, Malacca, Malaysia, 25–27 February 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andrzejczak, K.; Młyńczak, M.; Selech, J. Computerization of operation process in municipal transport. In Contemporary Complex Systems and Their Dependability; Zamojski, W., Mazurkiewicz, J., Sugier, J., Walkowiak, T., Kacprzyk, J., Eds.; Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing; Springer: Cham, Germany, 2018; pp. 13–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andrzejczak, K.; Selech, J. Quantile analysis of the operating costs of the public transport fleet. Transp. Probl.
**2017**, 12, 103–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Żurek, J.; Ziółkowski, J.; Borucka, A. Application of Markov processes to the method for analysis of combat vehicle operation in the aspect of their availability and readiness, safety and reliability. In Theory and Applications; Cepin, M., Briš, R., Eds.; Taylor & Francis Group: London, UK, 2017; pp. 2343–2352. ISBN 978-1-138-62937-0. [Google Scholar]
- Genschel, U.; Meeker, W.Q. A comparison of maximum likelihood and median rank regression for weibull estimation. In Proceedings of the Joint Statistical Meetings, Salt Lake City, UT, USA, 30 July 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Genschel, U.; Meeker, W.Q. A Comparison of maximum likelihood and median-rank regression for weibull estimation. Qual. Eng.
**2010**, 22, 236–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Nelson, W. Weibull analysis of reliability data with few or no failures. J. Qual. Technol.
**1985**, 17, 140–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Gertsbakh, L. Reliability Theory with Applications to Preventive Maintenance; Springer: Cham, Germany, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Hirose, H. Bias correction for the maximum likelihood estimation in two-parameter weibull distribution. IEEE Trans. Dielectr. Electr. Insul.
**1999**, 6, 66–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Selech, J.; Andrzejczak, K. An aggregate criterion for selecting a distribution for times to failure of components of rail vehicles. Maint. Reliab.
**2020**, 22, 102–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Cox, S.; Tait, R. Safety, Reliability and Risk Management: An Integrated Approach, 2nd ed.; Butterworth Heinemann: Oxford, UK, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, N.; Chang, Y.-C.; El-Sheikh, A.A. Monte Carlo simulation approach to life cycle cost management. Struct. Infrastruct. Eng.
**2002**, 8, 739–746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - ReliaSoft Corporation. Life Data (Weibull) Analysis Reference; ReliaSoft Publishing: Tucson, AZ, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Kececioglu, D. Reliability and Life Testing Handbook; Prentice Hall: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1993; Volume 1. [Google Scholar]
- Pulido, J. Life data analysis using the competing failure modes technique. In Proceedings of the 2015 Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium (RAMS), Palm Harbor, FL, USA, 26–29 January 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maintenance, Replacement, and Reliability: Theory and Applications, 2nd ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2013. [CrossRef]
- Dhillon, B.S. Maintainability, Maintenance and Reliability for Engineers; Taylor & Francis Group, LLC: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Frangopol, D.; Tsompanakis, Y. Maintenance and Safety of Aging Infrastructure: Structures and Infrastructures Book Series, 1st ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2014; Volume 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

**Figure 1.**Boot lid contactor; (

**a**) front site view, (

**b**) front site with an open cover-electronic switch system-button, (

**c**) the place where the contactor is located.

**Figure 2.**View of the gap between the chrome strip and the vehicle body, through the water entered, causing damage to the boot lid contactor.

**Figure 9.**Diagram showing the place of installation of the boot lid contactor (marked with a red line); (

**a**) vehicle before modification (has a chrome strip), (

**b**) vehicle after modification (without the strip).

**Table 1.**Failure/suspension date of contactor (F/S–failure, suspension, car body type: H–hatchback, E–Estate).

F/S | Mileage [km] | Car Body Type | F/S | Mileage [km] | Car Body Type | F/S | Mileage [km] | Car Body Type |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

F | 52,621 | H | F | 126,639 | E | F | 272,945 | H |

F | 57,801 | H | F | 128,676 | H | S | 21,147 | E |

F | 58,001 | H | F | 133,390 | H | S | 21,169 | E |

F | 61,628 | H | F | 143,159 | E | S | 21,772 | E |

F | 68,100 | H | F | 144,041 | H | S | 23,071 | E |

F | 79,051 | H | F | 151,230 | H | S | 27,165 | H |

F | 85,974 | H | F | 153,345 | E | S | 36,019 | E |

F | 87,451 | E | F | 158,420 | E | S | 40,208 | E |

F | 88,050 | H | F | 161,200 | H | S | 44,374 | H |

F | 92,003 | E | F | 163,141 | H | S | 45,895 | E |

F | 95,636 | H | F | 163,952 | E | S | 49,990 | E |

F | 102,178 | H | F | 169,230 | H | S | 63,422 | E |

F | 105,600 | H | F | 176,965 | E | S | 63,519 | H |

F | 106,639 | H | F | 193,500 | H | S | 86,527 | H |

F | 110,558 | H | F | 199,263 | E | S | 99,784 | E |

F | 113,359 | H | F | 204,898 | E | S | 120,111 | E |

F | 115,000 | H | F | 206,460 | E | S | 128,523 | E |

F | 115,210 | H | F | 214,521 | H | S | 142,302 | E |

F | 116,762 | E | F | 231,403 | H | S | 151,209 | E |

F | 125,489 | H | F | 253,241 | H | S | 164,287 | E |

S | 171,356 | H |

Distribution | (K-S) | (rho) | LKV |
---|---|---|---|

1P-Exponential | 98.6344 | 13.157 | −373.271 |

2P-Exponential | 46.7258 | 5.121 | −357.329 |

Normal | 36.3504 | 5.114 | −360.985 |

Lognormal | 0.00136 | 2.168 | −357.914 |

2P-Weibull | 13.3673 | 3.803 | −359.422 |

3P-Weibull | 0.0004 | 2.316 | −356.841 |

Gamma | 1.6526 | 2.682 | −358.212 |

G-Gamma | 0.0018 | 2.170 | −357.914 |

Logistic | 10.3364 | 3.544 | −361.249 |

Loglogistic | 0.00697 | 2.172 | −358.661 |

Gumbel | 58.8010 | 7.855 | −366.116 |

Distribution | (K-S) | (rho) | LKV |
---|---|---|---|

1P-Exponential | 91.569 | 17.371 | −160.982 |

2P-Exponential | 95.994 | 20.586 | −151.111 |

Normal | 0.594 | 4.003 | −146.373 |

Lognormal | 0.020 | 4.846 | −147.220 |

2P-Weibull | 2.379 | 3.807 | −146.021 |

3P-Weibull | 2.918 | 3.758 | −146.001 |

Gamma | 0.016 | 4.626 | −146.840 |

G-Gamma | 9.291 | 6.338 | −143.857 |

Logistic | 0.328 | 3.580 | −146.749 |

Loglogistic | 0.002 | 3.919 | −147.255 |

Gumbel | 5.040 | 4.615 | −146.121 |

Distribution | K-S | rho | LKV | WDV | Ranking |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

3P-Weibull | 1 | 4 | 1 | 130 | 1 |

Lognormal | 2 | 1 | 4 | 290 | 2 |

G-Gamma | 3 | 2 | 3 | 290 | 2 |

Loglogistic | 4 | 3 | 6 | 490 | 3 |

Gamma | 5 | 5 | 5 | 500 | 4 |

2P-Exponential | 9 | 9 | 2 | 550 | 5 |

2P-Weibull | 7 | 7 | 7 | 700 | 6 |

Logistic | 6 | 6 | 9 | 750 | 7 |

Normal | 8 | 8 | 8 | 800 | 8 |

Gumbel | 10 | 10 | 10 | 1000 | 9 |

1P-Exponential | 11 | 11 | 11 | 1100 | 10 |

Distribution | K-S | rho | LKV | WDV | Ranking |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

3P-Weibull | 7 | 2 | 2 | 400 | 1 |

2P-Weibull | 6 | 3 | 3 | 420 | 2 |

Logistic | 4 | 1 | 6 | 470 | 3 |

Normal | 5 | 5 | 5 | 500 | 4 |

Gamma | 2 | 7 | 7 | 500 | 4 |

G-Gamma | 9 | 9 | 1 | 500 | 4 |

Loglogistic | 1 | 4 | 9 | 530 | 5 |

Gumbel | 8 | 6 | 4 | 580 | 6 |

Lognormal | 3 | 8 | 8 | 600 | 7 |

1P-Exponential | 10 | 10 | 11 | 1050 | 8 |

2P-Exponential | 11 | 11 | 10 | 1050 | 8 |

Body Type | Year of Registration | Sum | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | ||

Hatchback | 2402 | 3876 | 2418 | 1705 | 1207 | 1766 | 1597 | 14,971 |

Estate | 538 | 1379 | 1338 | 1131 | 1084 | 1817 | 1049 | 8336 |

Type of Body Car | Minimal Replacement Cost [EUR] | Optimal Time Interval [km] | Cost/Per Car [EUR] | Cost for all Cars (2009–2015) [EUR] |
---|---|---|---|---|

Hatchback | 0.000223 | 157,047.98 | 35.02 | 349,540 |

Estate | 0.000139 | 201,946.70 | 28.07 | 155,998 |

Total cost | 505,538 |

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |

© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Ulbrich, D.; Selech, J.; Kowalczyk, J.; Jóźwiak, J.; Durczak, K.; Gil, L.; Pieniak, D.; Paczkowska, M.; Przystupa, K. Reliability Analysis for Unrepairable Automotive Components. *Materials* **2021**, *14*, 7014.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14227014

**AMA Style**

Ulbrich D, Selech J, Kowalczyk J, Jóźwiak J, Durczak K, Gil L, Pieniak D, Paczkowska M, Przystupa K. Reliability Analysis for Unrepairable Automotive Components. *Materials*. 2021; 14(22):7014.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14227014

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Ulbrich, Dariusz, Jaroslaw Selech, Jakub Kowalczyk, Jakub Jóźwiak, Karol Durczak, Leszek Gil, Daniel Pieniak, Marta Paczkowska, and Krzysztof Przystupa. 2021. "Reliability Analysis for Unrepairable Automotive Components" *Materials* 14, no. 22: 7014.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14227014