Device reliability by components failure probability
$begingroup$
A device is assembled using three type of components: A, B and C. Device reliability is dependant of components failure probability. Any of component failure is a single cause to device failure.
Device is assembled from:
A) 20 components of A type where each component probability of failure is 0.1
B) 2 components of B type where each component probability of failure is 0.7
C) 8 components of C type where each component probability of failure is 0.2
In the case when device fail, what is probability that it is caused by failure of A type, B type or C type component classification?
I tried to solve it by:
Component failure probability for the device:
Type A: (20/30)0.1(2/30)0.3(8/30)*0.8=0.0002844,,
It doesn’t look right and I will appreciate any help.
probability
asked Dec 8 '18 at 16:12
Milovan BanicevicMilovan Banicevic
85
$endgroup$
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
A device is assembled using three type of components: A, B and C. Device reliability is dependant of components failure probability. Any of component failure is a single cause to device failure.
Device is assembled from:
A) 20 components of A type where each component probability of failure is 0.1
B) 2 components of B type where each component probability of failure is 0.7
C) 8 components of C type where each component probability of failure is 0.2
In the case when device fail, what is probability that it is caused by failure of A type, B type or C type component classification?
I tried to solve it by:
Component failure probability for the device:
Type A: (20/30)0.1(2/30)0.3(8/30)*0.8=0.0002844,,
It doesn’t look right and I will appreciate any help.
probability
asked Dec 8 '18 at 16:12
Milovan BanicevicMilovan Banicevic
85
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I used one calculation that looks right, but I am not sure:
$endgroup$
– Milovan Banicevic
Dec 8 '18 at 16:51
$begingroup$
Type A: 20*0.1*(0.9^19)*(0.3^2)*(0.8^8)=0.0040794
$endgroup$
– Milovan Banicevic
Dec 8 '18 at 16:55
$begingroup$
The device works $color{grey}{textrm{if and only if}}$ all $30(=20+2+8)$ components work, is that right?
$endgroup$
– callculus
Dec 8 '18 at 18:12
$begingroup$
Yes, that is correct. There is no paralelism in components assembly. Failure of single component, regardles of classification type will cause device failure.
$endgroup$
– Milovan Banicevic
Dec 9 '18 at 1:24
$begingroup$
I tried again and I think that I got right result. I need positive/negative confirmation:
$endgroup$
– Milovan Banicevic
Dec 9 '18 at 3:52
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
A device is assembled using three type of components: A, B and C. Device reliability is dependant of components failure probability. Any of component failure is a single cause to device failure.
Device is assembled from:
A) 20 components of A type where each component probability of failure is 0.1
B) 2 components of B type where each component probability of failure is 0.7
C) 8 components of C type where each component probability of failure is 0.2
In the case when device fail, what is probability that it is caused by failure of A type, B type or C type component classification?
I tried to solve it by:
Component failure probability for the device:
Type A: (20/30)0.1(2/30)0.3(8/30)*0.8=0.0002844,,
It doesn’t look right and I will appreciate any help.
probability
asked Dec 8 '18 at 16:12
Milovan BanicevicMilovan Banicevic
85
$endgroup$
A device is assembled using three type of components: A, B and C. Device reliability is dependant of components failure probability. Any of component failure is a single cause to device failure.
Device is assembled from:
A) 20 components of A type where each component probability of failure is 0.1
B) 2 components of B type where each component probability of failure is 0.7
C) 8 components of C type where each component probability of failure is 0.2
In the case when device fail, what is probability that it is caused by failure of A type, B type or C type component classification?
I tried to solve it by:
Component failure probability for the device:
Type A: (20/30)0.1(2/30)0.3(8/30)*0.8=0.0002844,,
It doesn’t look right and I will appreciate any help.
probability
probability
asked Dec 8 '18 at 16:12
Milovan BanicevicMilovan Banicevic
85
asked Dec 8 '18 at 16:12
Milovan BanicevicMilovan Banicevic
85
asked Dec 8 '18 at 16:12
Milovan BanicevicMilovan Banicevic
85
asked Dec 8 '18 at 16:12
Milovan BanicevicMilovan Banicevic
85
asked Dec 8 '18 at 16:12
Milovan BanicevicMilovan Banicevic
85
85
$begingroup$
I used one calculation that looks right, but I am not sure:
$endgroup$
– Milovan Banicevic
Dec 8 '18 at 16:51
$begingroup$
Type A: 20*0.1*(0.9^19)*(0.3^2)*(0.8^8)=0.0040794
$endgroup$
– Milovan Banicevic
Dec 8 '18 at 16:55
$begingroup$
The device works $color{grey}{textrm{if and only if}}$ all $30(=20+2+8)$ components work, is that right?
$endgroup$
– callculus
Dec 8 '18 at 18:12
$begingroup$
Yes, that is correct. There is no paralelism in components assembly. Failure of single component, regardles of classification type will cause device failure.
$endgroup$
– Milovan Banicevic
Dec 9 '18 at 1:24
$begingroup$
I tried again and I think that I got right result. I need positive/negative confirmation:
$endgroup$
– Milovan Banicevic
Dec 9 '18 at 3:52
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
I used one calculation that looks right, but I am not sure:
$endgroup$
– Milovan Banicevic
Dec 8 '18 at 16:51
$begingroup$
Type A: 20*0.1*(0.9^19)*(0.3^2)*(0.8^8)=0.0040794
$endgroup$
– Milovan Banicevic
Dec 8 '18 at 16:55
$begingroup$
The device works $color{grey}{textrm{if and only if}}$ all $30(=20+2+8)$ components work, is that right?
$endgroup$
– callculus
Dec 8 '18 at 18:12
$begingroup$
Yes, that is correct. There is no paralelism in components assembly. Failure of single component, regardles of classification type will cause device failure.
$endgroup$
– Milovan Banicevic
Dec 9 '18 at 1:24
$begingroup$
I tried again and I think that I got right result. I need positive/negative confirmation:
$endgroup$
– Milovan Banicevic
Dec 9 '18 at 3:52
$begingroup$
I used one calculation that looks right, but I am not sure:
$endgroup$
– Milovan Banicevic
Dec 8 '18 at 16:51
$begingroup$
I used one calculation that looks right, but I am not sure:
$endgroup$
– Milovan Banicevic
Dec 8 '18 at 16:51
$begingroup$
Type A: 20*0.1*(0.9^19)*(0.3^2)*(0.8^8)=0.0040794
$endgroup$
– Milovan Banicevic
Dec 8 '18 at 16:55
$begingroup$
Type A: 20*0.1*(0.9^19)*(0.3^2)*(0.8^8)=0.0040794
$endgroup$
– Milovan Banicevic
Dec 8 '18 at 16:55
$begingroup$
The device works $color{grey}{textrm{if and only if}}$ all $30(=20+2+8)$ components work, is that right?
$endgroup$
– callculus
Dec 8 '18 at 18:12
$begingroup$
The device works $color{grey}{textrm{if and only if}}$ all $30(=20+2+8)$ components work, is that right?
$endgroup$
– callculus
Dec 8 '18 at 18:12
$begingroup$
Yes, that is correct. There is no paralelism in components assembly. Failure of single component, regardles of classification type will cause device failure.
$endgroup$
– Milovan Banicevic
Dec 9 '18 at 1:24
$begingroup$
Yes, that is correct. There is no paralelism in components assembly. Failure of single component, regardles of classification type will cause device failure.
$endgroup$
– Milovan Banicevic
Dec 9 '18 at 1:24
$begingroup$
I tried again and I think that I got right result. I need positive/negative confirmation:
$endgroup$
– Milovan Banicevic
Dec 9 '18 at 3:52
$begingroup$
I tried again and I think that I got right result. I need positive/negative confirmation:
$endgroup$
– Milovan Banicevic
Dec 9 '18 at 3:52
|
show 1 more comment
0
active
oldest
votes
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3031292%2fdevice-reliability-by-components-failure-probability%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
0
active
oldest
votes
0
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3031292%2fdevice-reliability-by-components-failure-probability%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
I used one calculation that looks right, but I am not sure:
$endgroup$
– Milovan Banicevic
Dec 8 '18 at 16:51
$begingroup$
Type A: 20*0.1*(0.9^19)*(0.3^2)*(0.8^8)=0.0040794
$endgroup$
– Milovan Banicevic
Dec 8 '18 at 16:55
$begingroup$
The device works $color{grey}{textrm{if and only if}}$ all $30(=20+2+8)$ components work, is that right?
$endgroup$
– callculus
Dec 8 '18 at 18:12
$begingroup$
Yes, that is correct. There is no paralelism in components assembly. Failure of single component, regardles of classification type will cause device failure.
$endgroup$
– Milovan Banicevic
Dec 9 '18 at 1:24
$begingroup$
I tried again and I think that I got right result. I need positive/negative confirmation:
$endgroup$
– Milovan Banicevic
Dec 9 '18 at 3:52