AD-AlIO 155 NAVAL WEAPONS SUPPORT CENTER CRANE IN WEAPONS AUALIT--ETC F/A 17/2

FLEET RELIABILITY ASSESSMENT PROGRAM EQUIPMENT REPORT AN/USG-69--ETC(U)

/IJUL A1 F E GAITHER

UNCLASSIFIED WQEC/C-82-31I U EEEomhohEEEEEI lflflflflffl.....hEELomomom

3 2l2 -

1.1 'i1.8

1111.25 1.jj4 iI 11LU .6

WC M P R ESOLTJION ttll tlAPI

FINAL REPORT

NAVAL ELECTRONIC

SYSTEMS COMMAND JAN....

- EQUIPMENT REPORTR~N/USQ-6 9 (V )

~NAVAL NEAPONS SUPPORT CENTER

~~~~CRANE, I ND A N ' ""

1 Published by the directi on o Commander Naval Electronic System. Comalndm

i " JULY 1981IN 7

L i .. .. ..... ....., .... .....--- -- . .. lili i I.. . . ... . U - IP M N IR......P O R TIIIHI 1I--

SLCJRIT ~ A

IA,! - L'TONEPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE 'i . 1 1rU.TIONs

WQEC/C_82-314 T'L I-

Fleet Reliability Assessment Program EquipmentReport AN/USQ-69(V) Final Report - 1981

7 A~j

Fred E. Gaither

9 PER 7 ., ... , . - -

Naval Weapons Support CenterCrane, IN 47522

Naval Electronics Systems Command (Code 813) 1 July 1981Washington, DC 20360 .. _43

N/A

I- I N16 0 S ,-R ,2 9" '

Approved for public release; Distribution unlimited

18 SPPLEME t,-4

19 KEYWOZ '.

Reliability, Maintainability, Availability Data Collection, MaintenanceAction Information, Mean Time Between Failure, Failure Analysis.

2_ ABSTRACT -- :,1-,~

This report present Fleet Reliability Assessment Program collection andanalysis on the AN/USQ-69(V) Data Terminal Set in field use.

DD JAN"73 1473 E ITI 4 -V,, ;I

ECP y (,SSIAT -N -AP*CE Ws-!~.nr,

Reproduction of the information or illustrations contained in this

puulication for other than military use is not permitted. The policy

for military use reproduction is established for the Army in AR 380-5;

for the Navy and Marine corps in OPNAVINST 5510.1b; and for the Air

Force in Air Force Regulation 205-1.

LIST JF FFFECTIVE PAGES

Insert latest changed pages; dispose of superceded pages in accordancewith applicable regulations.

NOTE: On a chanqed page, the portion of the text affected by the latest

change is indicated by a vertical line (or other change symbol) in theouter margin of the page. Changes to illustrations are indicated by

miniature pointing hands. Changes to wiring diagrams are indicated by

shaded areas.

Total number of pages in this Volume is 4', consistinq of the following:

PAGE NO. *CHANGE NO.

A 0i to iv 01 to 37 0

Ir4-)

* Zero in this column indicates an original paqe.

A

FLEET RELIABILITY ASSESS:IENT PROGPAM

DEPARTiMENT OF THE- NAVY

1 NAVAL ELECTRONICS SYSTEMS COMMAND

EQUIPMENT REPORT

PREPARED UNDER THE DIR CTION OF

L. SHA L EGHRELIABILITY ENGINEERING B RA

REVIEWED BY APP Y

WILLIAM E. WALLACE, r. .K. VON PERBANDT

SYSTEMS EFFECTIVENESS And CAPTAIN, USN

COMPONENT ENGINEERING DIVISION DEPUTY COMMANDERLIFE CYCLE ENGINEERINGAnd PLATFORM INTEGRATIONDIRECTORATE

PREPARED BY

- A EANS SUPPORT CENTERCRANE, IN

RECORD OF CHANGES

CHANGE DAETITLE OR BRIEF ETRDBNO. _______ DESCRIPTION ENTERED___BY

AN/USO-69 (V)DATA TERMINAL SET

EQUIPMENT RELIABILITY REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

I. RESULTS SUMM ARY 1

1-1 RESULTS 11-2 PRO3LEMS 31-3 CONCLUS IONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 3

II. SYSITEM DESCRIPTION 5

2-1 GENERAL 52-2 MISSION4 52-3 EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION 52-4 SAMPLE PLATFORMS 5

III. SPECIFICATIONS 8

3-1 RELIABILITY 83-2 MAINTAINABILITY 83-3 AVAILABILITY 8

IV. PRODLEMS 9

4-1 HARDWARE PRO3LEMS 9

4-2 SOFTWARE Pi.Ii]S 9

V. CORRECTIVE ACTIONS (RECOMMENDATIONS) 10

11VI. EQUIPMENT RELIABILITY MODEL ii

VII. ANALYSES 14

7-1 RELIABILITY 147-2 MAINTAINABILITY 157-3 AVAILABILITY 157-4 ANALYSIS TERM1INOLOGY 15

SUBSECTION (1) AN/USQ-69(V) OPERATIONAL RELIABILITY 19SUBSECTION (2) AN/USO-69(V) MNINTAINABILITY (REPAIR TIME) 29SUBSECTION (3) AN/USQ-69(V) MAINTAINABILITY (DOWN TIME) 31SUBSECTION (3) AN/USQ-69(V) OPERATIONAL AVAILABILITY 34

iii

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure Ti te Paqe

2-1 AN/USQ-69(V) DATA TERMINAL SET 62-2 AN/USQ-69(V) FUNCTIONAL 13LOCK DIAGRAM 76-1 AN/USQ-69(V) RELIABILITY BLOCK DIAGRAM 127-1 ANALYSIS RESULT EXCLUDING STANDLEY FAILURE 167-2 ANALYSIS DATA EXCLUDING STANDLEY FAILURE 17

LIST OF TABLES

Table Title Paqe

1-1 DATA SUMMARY FOR AN/USQ-69(V) 21-2 SUMMARY OF WRA AND O-LEVEL ASSEMBLIES FAILING 47-1 SUMMARY OF AN/US0-69(V) PARTS REPLACEMENT BY PLATFORM 14

iv

6255A/268

SECTION I - RESULTS SUMMARY

1-1 RESULTS

From April 1979 to March 1981, a FRAP field study was conducted on theAN/USQ-69(V) Data Terminal Set. A total of 74,250 operating hours out of213,216 calendar hours were accumulated on 23 systems. A total of 4 equipmentfailures were reported from OPNAV A790/2K maintenance action forms andmessages resulting in an observed Mean-Time-Between-Failure (MTBF) of18,562 hours. Two additional failures were reported via CASREP which furtherreduced the MTBF to 12,375 hours.

Reported repair time for 4 completed actions (5 failures) was included on onlyone report. Therefore, utilizing NAVMATINSTR 3000.2, 10 hours per repair wasincluded for each of the remaining 3 failures. This resulted in aMean-Time-To-Repair (MTTR) of 8 hours.

The AN/USQ-69(V) Operational Availability was 0.9743. However, an additional3,038 down time hours (CASREP reported) reduced the point estimate OperationalAvailability to .9545. The cause of the largest amount of down time was aCathode Ray Tube replacement on the USS Daniels.

Table 1-1 summarizes the RMA results. In Table 1-1, the Operational analysisdescribes the RMA performance of the system in Fleet operation and takes intoaccount the system design, equipment design, operator training, maintenancetraining, operation/maintenance documentation effectiveness, and shipboardadministrative procedures. The Equipment analysis describes the RMAperformance of the equipment only and provides a basis of comparison with thecontractually-specified RMA performance. The Parts Replacement analysisprovides a means of judging the logistics demand on the supply system and someinsight into the impact upon the ship's maintenance workload of the system'sRMA performance.

The assessment procedure described in Volume I - General Program Report(Section IV) of September 1979 is used to perform all the analyses. Thedifference is in the criteria used to select the data to be analyzed. Dataset selection criteria are as follows.

(1) OPERATIONAL RMA ANALYSIS. Failures causing a 10 percent or greaterloss of system capability are selected. Active maintenance time from Block 32of the OPNAV 4790/2K form is used for repair time calculation.

(2) EQUIPMENT RMA ANALYSIS. Failures of the equipment to perform itsintended function because of hardware or software malfunction are selected.Active maintenance time from Block 32 of the OPNAV 4790/2K form is used forrepair time calculation.

(3) PARTS REPLACEMENT RMA ANALYSIS. Failures requiring replacement of apart (module, circuit card, or component) are selected. Ship's Force RepairMan-hours from Block 30 of the OPNAV 4790/2K form is used for repair timecalculation.

1. OPER. - OPERATIONRL2. EQUIP. - EQUIPMENT3. PRRTS - PRRTS REPLRCEMENT

See SECTION VII - RNRLYSES

TABLE 1-1 . DATA SUMMARY FOR AN/USQ-69V.

PARAMETER OPER EQUIP PARTS

OPERATIONAL

Calendar Hours 213,216 213,216 213,216Operating Hours 74,258 74,250 74,250Duty Cycle 0.348 0.348 0.348Sample Size 23 23 23

*RELIRBILITY

Number of Failures 6 6 7Time Between Failures-Mean 12,375 112375 10,607Time Between Failures-Median 4060{] 4060 4060

Distribution NEIBULL HEIBULL WEIBULL

MAINTAINABILITY

Total Repair Time 32 32 32Number of Repairs 4 4 4Time to Repair-Mean 8.00 8.00 8.00Time to Repair-Median 6.7 6.7 6.7Distribution LOGNML LOGNML LOGNMLTotal Down Time 502 502 502Repairs (with Down Time) 4 4 4Down Time-Mean 125.50 125.50 125.50Down Time-Median 17.6 17.6 17.6Distribution LOGNML LOGNML LOGNML

AVAILABILITY

Inherent .9994 .9994 .9994Observed-Mean .9743 .9743 .9743Observed-Med i an .9978 .9978 .9978Effective .9994 .9994 .9994

NOTE: R11 time units are in hours.

.+ , .. .. . . . . -

6255A/268

Table 1-2 summarizes the WRA's (Weapons Replaceable Assemblies) and O-Levelswhich failed. It should be noted that the AN/USQ-69 is assigned WRA 18 andthat the WRA and O-Level assignments are exclusively FRAP assignments toconveniently identify elements of systems and subsystems. A cross reference

of O-Levels to reference designators and part numbers is shown in Figure 6-Iaand 6-1b, AN/USQ-69(V) Reliability Block Diagram. In Table 1-2, the O-Levelfailures reported by CASREP are indicated with an asterisk.

1-2 Problems. The AN/USQ-69 exhibited no apparent chronic problems. The mostfrequent failures occurred with the keyboard assembly 1A3. This was reportedto have failed three times, of which, one of the failures was human error.Other failures included the Low Voltage Power Supply, a Cathode Ray Tube, andPanel/Keyboard/1 Page Ram Module 1A1A3A5.

1-3 Conclusions/Recommendations. It is concluded that the AN/USQ-69(V) meetsor exceeds the MTBF of 5,000 hours as specified by ELEX-D-186. TheMean-Time-To-Repair exceeds the specified 15 minutes. However, it should benoted that the calculated MTTR includes estimated times to repair andtherefore cannot be viewed as conclusive. It can be concluded, however, thattrouble isolation is not a problem for technicians repairing the AN/USQ-69.This conclusion is based on contact with ship's personnel responsible formaintaining the Data Terminal Set.

It is recommended that logistics support for the AN/USQ-69 be re-evaluated.Spares support from central supply sources was apparently weak, which resultedin excessive down time on several failures.

It is also recommended that the Keyboard Assembly IA3 be tracked to determinethe failure trend. The assembly did not meet the predicted failure rateduring the sample period.

3

UI)

a:(L

(L'-D I44 J E D

Li 0> Li

I IL -4 -4 N - -

0~ mL

a: (-gza: " CC

-L. 00 H fl

w cL a:a:nca:m Ln mc.a a:

a: x ) 3 Q -LAJ Li.-

Ln I- -ia

-- 4 C4

6255A/ 268

SECTION II - DESCRIPTION

2-1 General. The AN/USQ-69 Data Terminal Set is an alpha-numeric, digitaldata display device designed to provide a reliable interface between operatorand combat computers such as the AN/UYK-20 and AN/UYK-7. The unit providesthe means for the operator to assemble a message from a keyboard for localdisplay or entry into a computer. It also provides the computer with a remotedisplay unit for data output. The AN/USQ-69, shown in Figure 2-1, ismanufactured by Sperry-Univac, Clear Water, Florida.

2-2 Mission. The AN/USQ-69 serves as a computer system peripheralinput/output (I/O) device with various weapons systems. Examples are theCarrier Air Traffic Control Center Direct Altitude and Identity Readout(CATC-DAIR) system and Naval Modular Automated Communications System (NAVMACSA+ and NAVMACS B). Additionally, the AN/USQ-69 is being considered as a partof the I/O display device for the AEGIS weapons system. The Data Terminal Set(AN/USQ-69) can be considered a "building block" for general purpose digitalsystem developement.

2-3 Equipment Description. The AN/USQ-69 is a remote operated keyboardinput, cathode ray tube output display device, used for operator/computerinterface. The AN/USQ-69(V) Functional Block Diagram is shown in Figure 2-2.

2-4 Sample Platforms. The Platforms selected for monitoring the AN/USQ-69Data Terminal Set are shown in Tables 2-1 and 2-2.

Table 2-1. FRAP Sample Platforms (LANTFLT)

Ship Name Hull Number

AMERICA CV-66 Aircraft CarrierDANIELS (JOSEPHUS) CG-27 Guided Missile CruiserPUGET SOUND AD-38 Destroyer TenderTURNER (RICHMOND K) CG-20 Guided Missile CruiserWAINWRIGHT CG-28 Guided Missile Cruiser

Table 2-2. FRAP Sample Platforms (PACFLT)

CORAL SEA CV-43 Aircraft CarrierFOX CG-33 Guided Missile CruiserKITTY HAWK CV-63 Aircraft CarrierRANGER CV-61 Aircraft CarrierSTANDLEY (WILLIAM H.) CG-32 Guided Missile CruiserTRUXTUN CGN-35 Guided Missile Cruiser (Nuclear)

6DATI\ TEI,,L S1AL

CRT MICROPROGRAM MEMORYMON ITO R CON TROL (RAM)

I/O BUS

KEYBOARD COMPUTERINTERFACE INTERFACE

TO/FROMKEYBOARD COMPUTER(OPTIONAL)

FIGURE 2-2. AN/LJSQ-69(V) FUNCIIONAL BLOCK DIAGRAMi

7

6255A/268

SECTION III - SPECIFICATIONS

3-1 Reliability. The specified Mean-Time-Between-Failure for the AN/USQ-69Data Terminal Set is 5,000 hours (0o as defined by MIL-STD-785).

3-2 Maintainability. Any configuration of the AN/USQ-69 is specified at .25hour for mean corrective maintenance time and a maximum corrective maintenancetime (M max) of two hours at a 95 percentile confidence level when repair isaccomplished by replacement of line replaceable items and chassis mountedcomponents.

3-3 Availability. Availability is not specified for the AN/USQ-69. Theequipment operational availability is, however, related toMean-Time-Between-Failure, ease of maintenance, and problem isolation.Operational availability is also influenced by the user's accessibility tospares and to logistics system response.

4- . . . .. . . . .

6255A/268

SECTION IV - PROBLEMS

4-1 Hardware Problems. The areas of most frequently encountered problemswere the keyboard and the Low Voltage power supply. The three failures of thekeyboard assembly, 1A3, resulted in replacement of the assembly. One of theassemblies was damaged when coffee was accidentally spilled on the keyboard.Other failures included one CRT, one panel/keyboard/i page Ram module, and twopower supply failures. The USS FOX reported numerous heat problems requiringoperation with the logic drawer open to obtain adequate cooling. The USSRANGER reported a power supply capacitor failure, just prior to FRAPinitialization, which was concluded to be heat related.

4-2 Software Problems. No software problems were observed to be attributableto this equipment.

6255A/268

SECTION V - CORRECTIVE ACTIONS (RECOMMENDATIONS)

5-1 No reliability oriented corrective actions are recommended for theAN/USQ-69(V), based on the available data.

10

6255A/268

SECTION VI - EQUIPMENT RELIABILITY MODEL

System reliability is defined as the probability of performing a specifiedfunction or mission under specified conditions for a specified time.Reliability models are word statements or block diagrams which represent therequirements for mission success. The FRAP equipment models are used todetermine the achieved operational reliability and to assess the effect ofECPs and other corrective action upon system reliability. Maintenance ActionReports are compared against the model to determine if a reported failureresults in a system failure, or if not a system failure, then the degree ofsystem degradation. In addition, reliability models are used in determininglogistics support requirements in the development phases of an equipment lifecycle.

Maintenance of Naval shipboard equipment is accomplished by replacement orrepair of components at Organizational (0), Intermediate (1), or Depot(D)repair levels. Ships Maintenance and Material Management (3-M) normallycollects organizational level repair data but not intermediate or depot levelrepair data. Using 3-M field data requires that the lowest components of themodel be the lowest level reported by 3-M, i.e., the O-level replaceablecomponent. This O-level component can be a piece-part, printed circuit board,major assembly, or whatever is planned for the O-level maintenance concept.

Figures 6-1a and 6-lb define the reliability block diagram for the AN/USQ-69Data Terminal Set. The DTS is referred to as WRA 18 in the report where WRAstands for Weapons Replaceable Assembly (the Equipment indenture level).

The maintenance concept for the DTS is plug-in subassemblies or modules. InFigures 6-1a and 6-1b, the modules have been assigned O-Level numbers 001through 022. O-Level number 999 has been assigned to all other DTS pieceparts. The blocks containing the O-Level numbers also contain the predictedfailure rate figure per million operating hours (Lambda).

h1

E0L

mJ I w? in to

I,~ *6 0

>. cu4.)

~~- N tWW I,:

'L. '.U . IEL -'E a. -'L.

cv)UD

)- 0 l >-U W)0 EW Z w

2XL MN RONW m wY N m N a*w &SG~ Iw zm m

-~. X ~ ~ u ILC -I CL- 0 XMI - . 0L

CID m

(S) fas),G) V! i'-EN CD I

12i) U

E

L

m

r~ -- -- -- -- -

z X I I M Z cu f0+a.' m 0~ U-) 0.c Aa.u CD inQ- h' U)

I Cn U)' I(nu w LJIZ

a) ( T z I- zr-~ O N (c) N j J(300

xz n -Z z I~ LI .a. cL -4( -~ V, (L a cr u-

~ a:Iz 0* I- . - l) U

mT Qr- U)

CL-c cU i

"a as 0 u

4' - - a00. -00 a: (T Jn I0 -. > -4 (

SC S) '- u Zll0. 2 >. -CE

cm ' E n

w. 0>

%-04' C 0La 0

0*0 % 0

-1

0 *ao . 'L

13

6255A/268

SECTION VII - ANALYSES

7-1 Reliability.

a. Operational Reliability.

Utilizing all available data including CASREPs and messages, theobserved Mean-Time-Between-Failure for the AN/USQ-69(V) was 12,375 hours andthe Median-Time-Between-Failure was 4,060 hours. (Table 7-1 interleaves theCASREP and OPNAV 4790/2K data showing the Mean-Time-Between-Replacements forboth individual ships and for all ships in the sample).

At least one failure of a keyboard assembly (on the Puget Sound) isknown to have occurred approximately 3 months earlier in time than wasreported. Utilizing the CASREP/CASCOR dates and the duty cycle of the failedserial number, the data was adjusted to reflect the corrected failure time.From the analysis of the data, the Weibull distribution function wasdetermined to be a bettor fit to the data (reported by OPNAV 4790/2Ks only)than the Exponenti i distribution. Parameters of the best-fit Weibulldistribution are:

Mean = 14,212.7 IoursMedian = 11,118.S hours

TABLE 7-1

AN/USQ-69(V) Reported ReplacementsCASREPTS and FRAP

Reported Reported Reported ShipShip Name Hours Replacement CASREPTS MTBR

AMERICA 0 0 0 0CORAL SEA 0 0 0 0DANIELS, JOSEPHUS 2,319 0 2 1,159.5FOX 5,533 0 0 5,533KITTY HAWK 15,813 0 0 15,813PUGET SOUND 15,707 2 0 7,853RANGER 2,620 0 0 2,620STANDLEY, WILLIAM 7,237 1 0 7,237TRUXTUN 2,821 2 0 1,410.5TURNER, RICHMOND K. 22,200 0 0 22,200WAINWRIGHT 0 0 0 0

b. Equipment Reliability. The observed Mean-Time-Between-Failure for theEquipment Reliability includes all failures except a keyboard failure whichoccurred on the USS Standley as a result of human error. The observed MTBFwas 14,850 hours and the Median-Time-Between-Failure was 4,060.5 hours.

14

6255A/268

The analysis of the data (excluding CASREPs) is shown in Figures 7-1and 7-2.

Since the analysis includes less than 4 equipment failures, anExponential distribution is assumed. Fewer than 4 failures providesinsufficient data to accurately fit the Weibull distribution. Parameters ofthe Exponential distribution are:

Mean = 24,750 hours

Median = 17,155.4 hours

7-2 Maintainability.

a. Repair Time. Action Maintenance Time was entered on only one of thefive failures reported by OPNAV 4790/2K forms. Therefore, utilizingNAVMAT INSTR 3000.2, 10 hours per repair was included for each of theremaining completed actions. The result is described by a Lognormaldistribution with the following parameters:

Mean = 8.0 hoursMedian = 6.7 hours

b. Down Time. The Down Time analysis resulted in a Lognormaldistribution with parameters:

Mean = 125.5 hoursMedian = 17.6 hours

However, the addition of 3,038 CASREP reported down time hours results in a

point estimate Mean Down Time of 590 hours for a total of 6 repair actions.

7-3 Availability.

a. Inherent. The Inhprent Availability, which can be considered atheoretical limit of Operational Availability, was found to be 0.9994.

b. Operational. Operational Availability was determined from a MonteCarlo simulation process using the Reliability function found in Paragraph7-1a and the Down Time function found in Paragraph 7-2. The resultingOperational Availability distribution parameters are:

Mean = .9743Median = .9978

It should be noted that an additional 3,038 down time hours reported via

CASREP reduced the Operational AVailability to a point estimate mean of 0.9545.

7-4 Analysis Terminology.

Non-parametric Distribution (NPD). A probability distribution resulting fromthe order statistics approach of determining an unknown failure distribution.

15

ww /- I (CV-

_j U)a: U-) I)

~LL CO VI

0

F_ 0(D CE

U))

(Y) c

w 0 IV

>1Iz N

F- z -

S ~ U IL

U 3~flhH~I O AI1IB~Od

iro

*ic

z -

E-

E-1*

E-4

1 7-1DA 0

CN

LL Q I4 E-71, 0 0

14 .L r() . r >

z'o C4 M L0-i> mW

LL

Oil- 17

6255A/268

The distribution is calculated by arranging failure times and censored times(failure free times) in ascending order and computing the cumulativeprobability of failure.

Exponential Distribution - a probability distribution derived fromcalculations using a constant failure rate.

Weibull Distribution - A probability distribution derived from calculationsusing scale and shape parameters, Alpha and Beta. The value of Beta is usedto determine the failure trend where for Beta less than 1, the reliability isincreasing and, for Beta greater than 1, decreasing reliability. The Weibulland Exponential distributions are the same for Beta equal to 1, i.e., thefailure rate is constant.

] 3

SU33ECTION (1)

AN/USO-69(V) OPERATIONAL RELIABILITY

INDEX FOR FLEET RELIABILITY ASSESSMENT DATA

COLUMN

1 SHIP - Platform name

2 EQUIP S/N - Serial numo(-r of eoauioment under onsecvation

3 JULIAN DATE - Date of OPNAV 4790/2K REPORT

4 ETM - Elapsed Time leter readinq

5 DUTY CYCLE - Ratio or ooeratinq or ON time to calendart ime

6 REPORT TYPE - OPNAV 4790/2K Report type classified asany of the followini:

a. START - FRAP Initialization estaolisning equipment

time frame reference point

0. DEFERRED - An incompleted maintenance action

c. COMP - A completed maintenance action which had noprior deferral

d. FAIL-DEF - A co mpleted maintenance action for whichthere was a prior deferral

e. UPDATE - A failure free time report - used to trackequipment usage

f. FINAL - A report of equipment status and of the ETMreading upon termination of the FRAP sample interval

7 T3F - Time Between Failures (or Time To Termination) usinqthe START report as the zero reference time

8,9 OLVLI,OLVL2 - Relianility olock diagram number identifi-cation of failed components

'9

> CC) CC CC CCCCC0CC 0C) CCCC CCCCCCC CC110

> CC) CC C CD C)CD CCCCCCCCCCCCCC0CDCDC)0C

0

rL C ) C DCD CC CC C CDCD CCCCCCODCC0CDC)C)C)CD CC

E-4 CC C ~ CC) C L 0C DC)CD CDC) n DCDCD -CC 0C) Lnc C0

CC TLf) (n 1. O

E4

U2 C4E- En (nU CJ)EL r L/2ELI nn: ZD a.Lo-I, nn E L E.

CA 14' W

E-4 C:) C:) C ZCC r C C) 1 l - C)v N CD-L C C-4 0 u )= C )C 0 C)C) C C

.40 0 0

(n U -4U Cn n-4 -4 -- 44

< -o

E-<') o - 117I I I -4ciV 00 --1- wN CN N NCCN 3rCDYC)C - Tr C CCCC0C m

00 r I O I co co I ~c oO 0c 0c o0 C 0 0 01 0 00 Oc D 00 0

4: 4 <'-4- ENN44r

EL Ln< -IUn -r <-1 -4 C-4 <'4 C 4 14 C4 C4: N 44NN 40:c 0 c 4:n:D ~ ~ z r) 0.- -4 C)C DC D-Dq t V-~ 0000 0ri- 1-

E-4 E-4f

:Dc~ M ":D0= = z = z =:a4a4 9 a. " CL a.

in <4 En 4 En U) w (f) T-~-

(N

> 0 C C C)C)QZ C 0C cCDC OCl D D OD C OC)C )CO : 0 00) -4 00

0 0

> C)CD(Dr- (DZ) CD 0 C D o D DoDr- CoooCoCoC ar- C C 0 C0 o ).- A-4 -4 -

o 0 C)C)C-- 1 -4 1-1 14

Il. C) o oo o~ C>o oo o CDC - D )C )oD C DCDC DC ) : DC C )Z C oDC :,n . . . .. . . . . . . . * . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

E-4 DC , CD0 0 0 o DC ic DC 0 -. i 00 0 ~ 0N00 Dc C4 1C C N(7aN0~ l (Nq rD -- 4 r4~(

cN

:p ~ ~ I wI >fl F 3 -a 4" C , F La -4 E E-4 In " 4 (N" C < q

S-EimDM:.Mn x n0D mn0u l .W[.mU w 1 CcLO.

14~-In a - - - ' 5i~ Ei . - - - - - 2 5' ~ - - ~ E

(n :j.2 CD~Z ~C Z~ rl 1C-11xa )a DZ 4 Z - . DC . C r - 1 C -C N

<) C.E- o~UU )a rn-oC n0 cC TxmC )O -r-C 0C 4C NC DC)' ). ICE- i 0r U 0C 0m-q); 0c - Dm0 -r D- D - DL N C nC rC 4C

< -N D r-r C IT0 r- n C) % MCNCO N C4 0 ( NC 00LCDN 0 Z-4 C>o 0>q 4 S- -1 -4 N *1 q 1- r- m 0* 4 -* V r- M ES n r- 4 - n In

c- z

C)r)m .2') 0 I n n 1(z nx-4(4 L 0- -4 ) r"D- I -. - -4 m T :)-'--q ff- - n - i 4-1- 4 -4 4 4 4r- qr-4 r4-40 C) r D - D I .C-) C) 000 00 CDC D0D- C ) 4C CPC-4 1-4 C q -4.-7N -4 C) -43 m 0 CD-4O0

0' < -q- -- 4- 4 4- 1 nrl-4 -4 -q--q-4< <l < < < <

-4

C)-4---:r.-t 31 :r3:

oo000000000000 >4> z 4>

x 4 4 p~lD~tzZ< <0 n0E-U)-4r L4r - -4C1E- E4E 4E4F A 0 0 1JIU t E-4E4E- W~ oooooooooo

m DM -)nm :)M n D nD:DE c- -- c424X2 X

,.4

> 0 C)o o(D (D Coo coooo

CD 0 . .0 0 0 . . . . .= .D .CD CD 0

- CD 00 0OZ 0 , 0CDCD C 'Z(MCD OD 00 O C

CD ) 0 D D 0 CD0 00 0 = -I-C:-4 00.CD

04.1 C. ' 0 0 - F40:0 ~ ~ >4 a 404 o0I:1

C/22

Ln w 0r, c t)i r0 0 ~ 4 N 0 r,14 oqDC n 00 fn-q ,:< 2 01 N f0 000J 0 - 0 000 or-ko4, o D - a0-tz n D n :

-- 4

~ -4

z oooooooooooc.

C-4 2: L4 E-

1- 4 40 n Nrn m -il () n w i ) -" 12"2

AN/USQ-69(V) bRELIA3IIITY ANALYSIS

INDEX TO SYSTEM'l LEVEL RELIAIILITY ANALYSIS

COLUMN

1 REMAINING SYS CAP - Percentaqe of remaining system capa-city as a result of a reported failure

2 TTF - Time To Failure or Censored Time

3 NO. FAIL - The numoer of failures at a reoorted time

4 NO. CENSORED - Nurnoer of failure free times prior toa reported failure

5 SURVIVORS - The numoer of Time-To-Failures and CensoredTimes exceedinq a reportea Ti.rie-To-Failure

6 NPD - The Non-Paranetric Distinution failure probability

7 EXP - [he Exnonential Distrinution failure r)romanility

8 WEI- The Weioull DistriDution failure z)rofaility

23

x wLn 1-404 1-4 (N (

LA C' 1-4 fn

0r('

14 0

'--4

r0-wi ~ --- 4-4--4 444 -4 t nL)Wkr-r- r%-O

Lto

>4

0424

(S)

I> Ol c

uC ~C C

10 Zoc

co 0

lLJ LLI

CU.)

CD i-i

0F-Icy-fIH U)O Ci1IUE

25M

E-

z0

EzW

0

E-4

0

-4

LT4

0001+

C4 0% -4

(1 -4~I

1.00 *oq +-I.I

o .1=.m * IIn~ C I004-lE -4 0 'It V)+e

Oil- N..J2) M04('4uCn"

11 E- w E E-4 *-W4c' *NU < 14 E)-4 M e'4 * ('.3I'

u uW1-4 *Nz (J-4 11 1

CZ4 > =) -- < - )4

ZZ0U)U)00<Q

m z w x0O" 4 E-4

26

cu

Lic> lIG

00 z00 cnCE

D- F-C zZ

LOI

0 0

-' a

LUL

D I-

LifM~ 0O AII~E

> 27

4 000CL

0000

(n 1iCV1-4 N.

Q04 C'4 C~p

Cz. r- rnN"

>4 0~ LfLfC'

ca Ur.. N C14r-0 Q4 Z r- r- rU) 04 0 -WRrr

:DU C00D %

La 0CD0

.4 Z 00

>4 C> C) -

E-4

as 0t- 004

I-4 4 00 0 (nW4 CL 3 oc -

3: :z c)0a '00 3a N-4

Wz

'0

~i28

sLasr c IO,,j (2)

AN/USQ-69(V) .MAINTAINABILITY(IEPAIR TIME)

INDEX TO REPAIR TIME ANALYSIS

REPAIR TIME - Reported repair times

FREQUENCY - The number of times the repair time was reported

CUM FREQ - The cumulative repairs reported

NPF - Non-Parametric function

29

C0 C0

4 J4 0Z .I

CL V)Z

~ >4

- 0

--

z Ol' ~En ILI -

z z M 114- U u 11 0

E'z z

u- z a IIE-4 ZZ

>4 23 V4 z

w. E-1) *I- 0% r0 W O

04t

if z NE-4 E-4

E-4 00 Q Da0 in m Z"WU

% (0 > '-4 C4lzl

< wz E-4 Cie0M04E U in E4E-4

E- Z0 0 JO

30

CD

m cm

I -Ei

wr 0 QZ cLLJ (f) a

F- M

L:0

zzo 0

En

ina:

00-

:3 0

31

SUBSFCTION (3)

AiJ/USQ-69(V) MAINTAINABILITY(DO)WN TI.E)

INDEX TO DOV'; TI.!E ANALYSIS

DOWN TI1.,E - Reoorted down times

FREQUENCY - The numoer of times the down time was reported

CUM FREQ - Te cumulative down times reported

NPF - Non-Parametric function for down time

32

IE -

zC CD CL.

0 >4

- Cl)

z- > z 11

zq r)z

CD4 < <

>4 fLr O <

2: C-4 -4 11" 7:: 2: Z

C> -4 (N <4 II r- z

F2-4~ 12 Cl) 4

~0 0 *

w2 OC: Zs 0 ID L E4z z

S000 -nZ - LILa- ... 23 EW > a] < mu u

F-4tl Nl CDC) >0 zo C 3 oO 2

0- co <- 02- E- E-1l)O0 0:3E-4 0 . L oac

33

m Co

> 0

co:

I-

LJ 0

w Z I-r c

z - 0

F-4

U)

a

IOILWD~~3~J i1BB~

34~

';L) CC;l ' I C)! (4)

AiJ/Jd). -(- ( V) OPE'ATA'PONAL,AV \ I 1,AVkI L ['PY

Availaoil ity is descrino.' iny a 'lonte Car lo simulation from thecriosen reiiaoility, maintainaLoility, an6 down time distributions. Thecurve [)resentel shows the Oercent of individual units (serial numoers)sihulat ions that would ne avai LanWe a qivcrn uercent of tne time, liventhe assumied distrioutions are reas.,nauly correct. The curves are n)amedupon 20'JO it-'rations of trne ;:onto- C3r lo SiXU13ltion.

zEzl

0

14 -4

>4:E'-4

U)

E--

004 Z-

L14

4 E

co-4 Z

U4

4- 1 0 E-'

z t- < C )N T r

4-4 (N U)E'-Ol E-44:) F-N E-4

zz

<i <z % 0'> 4C

4: n: 0 II-4 Ll 0 - Ox~ 0' 0'

'3 0 0 -4 >Cl) w- E-4 1< z.. I I

NJ m > 0l 0'C) Cl

0~ 0 4: 4N 0

>E- U U:E4E- 0 - 0 < 4-I n-

4: ~~S z- : II I I > >

<- Cl) Cl- E -- 4-

E-4 E-4 4-4 wz - ~ 4EA z u u : 4

z~ w- '-w a, uS E- E- w L i - 0 wDL

C" CN 9- 47%S~

0 N,'USQ-69(V) OPEH'IiONHL HVHILHBILirYCUMULATIVE OBSERVED DISTRIBUTION VERSUS SIMULATEDOPERATIONAL AVAILABILITY PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTION

1

.9

.8

- .7

m.6 OBSERVED

o SIMULATED

.5

CE- 4H

m.4

.2

.1

.I1

00 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9

OPERRTIONRL AVAILABILITY

37