Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-45l2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T04:56:49.232Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On identifiability in the autopsy model of reliability systems of lifemonitored and conditionally lifemonitored components

Part of: Operations research and management science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 July 2016

Jørund Gåsemyr
Jørund Gåsemyr*
Affiliation:
University of Oslo
*
∗Postal address: Universitetet I Oslo, Matematisk Institutt, PB 1053 Blindern, N-0316 Oslo, Norway. E-mail address: gaasemyr@maths.uio.net
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The autopsy data of a coherent system is the pair (T, I), where T is the time to the failure of the system, and I is the set of components failed by that time. A basic question is under which conditions the distribution of the autopsy data determines the joint life distribution of the components. This problem has been studied under various distributional and structural assumptions (always under the assumption of independent component life distributions) by Meilijson (1981), Nowik (1990) and Antoine, Doss and Hollander (1993). In this paper we study the same problem in the situation when the autopsy data is supplemented with data from lifemonitoring and conditional lifemonitoring of some components, as introduced by Meilijson (1994).

Keywords

Coherent systemfatal setinspection plan

MSC classification

Primary: 90B25: Reliability, availability, maintenance, inspection
Type
Research Papers
Information
Journal of Applied Probability , Volume 35 , Issue 2 , June 1998 , pp. 427 - 437
Copyright
Copyright © Applied Probability Trust 1998 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Antoine, R., Doss, H., and Hollander, M. (1993). On identifiability in the autopsy model of reliability theory. J. Appl. Prob. 30, 913–930.Google Scholar
Gail, M. (1975). A review and critique of some models used in competing risks analysis. Biometrics 31, 209–222.Google Scholar
Gåsemyr, J. (1995). On identifiability in the autopsy model of reliability systems of lifemonitored and conditionally lifemonitored components. Technical report, Department of Mathematics, Univ. of Oslo.Google Scholar
Gåsemyr, J., and Natvig, B. (1997). On lifemonitoring and conditional lifemonitoring of system components with applications for preventive system maintenance. Submitted to Scand. J. Statist.Google Scholar
Meilijson, I. (1981). Estimation of the lifetime distribution of the parts from the autopsy statistics of the machine. J. Appl. Prob. 18, 829–838.Google Scholar
Meilijson, I. (1994). Competing risks on coherent reliability systems. Estimation in the parametric case. J. Amer. Statist. Ass. 89, 1459–1464.Google Scholar
Nowik, S. (1990). Identifiability problems in coherent systems. J. Appl. Prob. 28, 862–872.Google Scholar