Accendo Reliability

Your Reliability Engineering Professional Development Site

  • Home
  • About
    • Contributors
    • About Us
    • Colophon
    • Survey
  • Reliability.fm
  • Articles
    • CRE Preparation Notes
    • NoMTBF
    • on Leadership & Career
      • Advanced Engineering Culture
      • ASQR&R
      • Engineering Leadership
      • Managing in the 2000s
      • Product Development and Process Improvement
    • on Maintenance Reliability
      • Aasan Asset Management
      • AI & Predictive Maintenance
      • Asset Management in the Mining Industry
      • CMMS and Maintenance Management
      • CMMS and Reliability
      • Conscious Asset
      • EAM & CMMS
      • Everyday RCM
      • History of Maintenance Management
      • Life Cycle Asset Management
      • Maintenance and Reliability
      • Maintenance Management
      • Plant Maintenance
      • Process Plant Reliability Engineering
      • RCM Blitz®
      • ReliabilityXperience
      • Rob’s Reliability Project
      • The Intelligent Transformer Blog
      • The People Side of Maintenance
      • The Reliability Mindset
    • on Product Reliability
      • Accelerated Reliability
      • Achieving the Benefits of Reliability
      • Apex Ridge
      • Field Reliability Data Analysis
      • Metals Engineering and Product Reliability
      • Musings on Reliability and Maintenance Topics
      • Product Validation
      • Reliability by Design
      • Reliability Competence
      • Reliability Engineering Insights
      • Reliability in Emerging Technology
      • Reliability Knowledge
    • on Risk & Safety
      • CERM® Risk Insights
      • Equipment Risk and Reliability in Downhole Applications
      • Operational Risk Process Safety
    • on Systems Thinking
      • Communicating with FINESSE
      • The RCA
    • on Tools & Techniques
      • Big Data & Analytics
      • Experimental Design for NPD
      • Innovative Thinking in Reliability and Durability
      • Inside and Beyond HALT
      • Inside FMEA
      • Institute of Quality & Reliability
      • Integral Concepts
      • Learning from Failures
      • Progress in Field Reliability?
      • R for Engineering
      • Reliability Engineering Using Python
      • Reliability Reflections
      • Statistical Methods for Failure-Time Data
      • Testing 1 2 3
      • The Manufacturing Academy
  • eBooks
  • Resources
    • Accendo Authors
    • FMEA Resources
    • Glossary
    • Feed Forward Publications
    • Openings
    • Books
    • Webinar Sources
    • Podcasts
  • Courses
    • Your Courses
    • Live Courses
      • Introduction to Reliability Engineering & Accelerated Testings Course Landing Page
      • Advanced Accelerated Testing Course Landing Page
    • Integral Concepts Courses
      • Reliability Analysis Methods Course Landing Page
      • Applied Reliability Analysis Course Landing Page
      • Statistics, Hypothesis Testing, & Regression Modeling Course Landing Page
      • Measurement System Assessment Course Landing Page
      • SPC & Process Capability Course Landing Page
      • Design of Experiments Course Landing Page
    • The Manufacturing Academy Courses
      • An Introduction to Reliability Engineering
      • Reliability Engineering Statistics
      • An Introduction to Quality Engineering
      • Quality Engineering Statistics
      • FMEA in Practice
      • Process Capability Analysis course
      • Root Cause Analysis and the 8D Corrective Action Process course
      • Return on Investment online course
    • Industrial Metallurgist Courses
    • FMEA courses Powered by The Luminous Group
    • Foundations of RCM online course
    • Reliability Engineering for Heavy Industry
    • How to be an Online Student
    • Quondam Courses
  • Calendar
    • Call for Papers Listing
    • Upcoming Webinars
    • Webinar Calendar
  • Login
    • Member Home
  • Barringer Process Reliability Introduction Course Landing Page
  • Upcoming Live Events
You are here: Home / Articles / K Out of N

by Fred Schenkelberg 12 Comments

K Out of N

K Out of N

The design of a product includes the arrangement of all of the product elements. When considering the reliability of a system, the arrangement matters. Many systems are arranged serially. This means that with the failure of any one element, the system will not work. See the article on Series Systems for more details.

Another approach is the arrangement of the elements in a parallel structure. This means that the elements share the load of providing the function. The basic analysis of this type of system is to assume that any one element of all that work in parallel can operate alone for the system to work. This increases system reliability, regardless of the reliability of each individual element in parallel. See the post on parallel systems for more.

A third approach is to arrange the elements in parallel, where one or more elements must function for the system to work. If there are, n elements in parallel, the system may require k elements as a minimum to operate. K must be less than or equal to n. When k equals n, it is a series system, as all have to work. When k = 1 and n is greater than 1 than it is a simple parallel system. When k = 2 and n= 4, the system operates if any two of the four elements are working. Thus we get some benefit of the parallel structure, yet it is not as expensive or reliable as a simple redundancy system.

The general formula is similar to the binomial distribution reliability function in construction. The first term with factorials determines the number of ways the n units could combine in working and not working elements. The second term is the probability of the product successfully working, for the k minimum elements for successful operation of the system. The later term is the probability of failure for the n-k remaining units. In this case pay attention to the summation, otherwise, the formula is pretty flexible.

$$ \large\displaystyle \begin{array}{l}R(t)={{e}^{-\lambda t}}\\R(1)=0.995={{e}^{-\lambda (1)}}\end{array}$$ $$ \large\displaystyle \begin{array}{l}\ln (0.995)=-\lambda \\\lambda =0.005\end{array}$$

λ is the failure rate and single parameter for the exponential distribution.

n is the number of elements in parallel

k is the minimum number of elements required for successful operation of the system.

Example Problem

The autonomous parking system of a car contains three computers and sensor set to determine the appropriate parking maneuver for a given situation. The computers consider the information and plan the steering and acceleration to successfully park the car. Then the computers compare results before attempting the parking maneuver. When two computers agree, and one does not, the car parks with the plan created by the two computers, and warns the driving that maintenance is required for the faulty computer.

If each computer has a 0.995 probability of success, what is the probability of a successfully parked car?

Example Solution

The car has a 2 out of 3 active redundancy system. Thus we can use the above formula where k = 2 and n = 3.

First we need the failure rate, and given only the reliability for the parking maneuver, we assume the exponential distribution and solve for λ.

$$ \large\displaystyle \begin{array}{l}R(t)={{e}^{-\lambda t}}\\R(1)=0.995={{e}^{-\lambda (1)}}\end{array}$$ $$ \large\displaystyle \begin{array}{l}\ln (0.995)=-\lambda \\\lambda =0.005\end{array}$$

Using the formula from above, k = 2, n = 3, λ = 0.005, and t = 1 to find

$$ \large\displaystyle \begin{array}{l}R(t)=\sum\limits_{y=k}^{n}{\frac{n!}{y!(n-y)!}{{\left( {{e}^{-\lambda t}} \right)}^{y}}}{{\left( 1-{{e}^{-\lambda t}} \right)}^{n-y}}\\R(1)=\sum\limits_{2}^{3}{\frac{3!}{2!(3-2)!}{{\left( {{e}^{-0.005}} \right)}^{2}}}{{\left( 1-{{e}^{-0.005}} \right)}^{3-2}}\\R(1)=\text{0.999926}\end{array}$$

Now, I’m not sure if the new cars with the fancy self-parking feature really have triple redundancy, yet if the onboard computers work as well as my old PC at home, then I would hope it does have the active redundancy. Still, its always important to consider system arrangement in product design, weighing all aspects of reliability, costs and benefits.


Related:

Reliability Block Diagrams Overview and Value (article)

Parallel Systems (article)

Reliability Apportionment (article)

 

Filed Under: Articles, CRE Preparation Notes, Reliability Modeling and Predictions Tagged With: Exponential distribution, Reliability Block Diagram (RBD)

About Fred Schenkelberg

I am the reliability expert at FMS Reliability, a reliability engineering and management consulting firm I founded in 2004. I left Hewlett Packard (HP)’s Reliability Team, where I helped create a culture of reliability across the corporation, to assist other organizations.

« HALT Value
Reliability Goals »

Comments

  1. Tarapada Pyne says

    September 11, 2020 at 6:50 AM

    Very easy to understand. Thank you so much Er Fred. Keeping complex things to a Simple, is always your free-flowing interactions and sharing . I learn a lot from you.

    Reply
  2. Paul Thomas says

    October 15, 2020 at 5:38 AM

    Some text books this concept is not clearly explained.
    I am able to understand very clearly your explanation.
    Thanks Fred.

    Reply
    • Fred Schenkelberg says

      October 15, 2020 at 7:22 AM

      Thanks for the note Paul. Glad to help. Cheers, Fred

      Reply
  3. Cristian Rosa says

    June 16, 2021 at 7:02 AM

    First of all, I would like to thank you for this post. It is completely useful and understandable. I only have a question regarding the RBD k-out-n. How can I perform this calculation if I have different Reliability block figures?

    Reply
    • Fred Schenkelberg says

      June 16, 2021 at 7:06 AM

      Hi Cristian,

      I’m not entirely sure. My first thought would to use a monte carlo type simulation of the k-out-n structure with the various different blocks in order to get a single expected distribution to use in the larger model. Just a thought.

      cheers,

      Fred

      Reply
  4. Kamran says

    November 21, 2024 at 11:59 AM

    Hello
    i have a question.
    For a k-out-of-n system with independent and identical component
    how you compare R( k-1,n-1) and R(k,n) ?

    Reply
    • Fred Schenkelberg says

      November 21, 2024 at 1:11 PM

      Hi Kamran,

      Interesting idea. Maybe just add some numbers and see how they compare. Then increase the k and n values by one, to see if the difference remains proportional or varies in some way. I suspect at some point the difference would become insignificant as you increase the values.

      cheers,

      Fred

      Reply
      • Kamran says

        November 26, 2024 at 7:51 PM

        Dear Fred
        Hello
        I have proved that for independent and identical components always:

        R( k-1,n-1) >= R(k,n)

        But I’m not sure if this is an important problem or not.

        Also, I have researched a lot, but I couldn’t find anything about the relation of R( k-1,n-1) and R(k,n).

        What you think?

        Reply
        • Fred Schenkelberg says

          November 27, 2024 at 7:59 AM

          Hi Kamran,

          Not sure, yet it maybe a useful idea to share. Does this mean R(1,1) is the most reliable setup? I don’t think so, is there an optimime configuration for a given component reliability and system objective?

          cheers,

          Fred

          Reply
  5. Kamran says

    November 28, 2024 at 7:55 PM

    Dear Fred
    Hello,
    This means that that for a given k-out-of- n system (identical and independent components), R(1,n−k) represents the most reliable setup.
    Best,
    Kamran

    Reply
  6. Kamran says

    November 28, 2024 at 8:59 PM

    My bad I mean :

    This means that that for a given k-out-of- n system (identical and independent components), R(1,n−k+1) represents the most reliable setup.
    Best,
    Kamran

    Reply
    • Fred Schenkelberg says

      November 29, 2024 at 8:03 AM

      Ok, I do see one issue: finding individual components that individually have the capacity or capability for the design. For example, I often see 4 out of 5 electrolytic capacitor designs as four small capacitors can do the job while one larger one (larger space, more costly, etc.) is not as elegant.

      While optimizing for system reliability, we do still need to consider cost, space, supply chain, assembly, etc.

      cheers,

      Fred

      Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CRE Preparation Notes

Article by Fred Schenkelberg

Join Accendo

Join our members-only community for full access to exclusive eBooks, webinars, training, and more.

It’s free and only takes a minute.

Get Full Site Access

Not ready to join?
Stay current on new articles, podcasts, webinars, courses and more added to the Accendo Reliability website each week.
No membership required to subscribe.

[popup type="" link_text="Get Weekly Email Updates" link_class="button" ][display_form id=266][/popup]

  • CRE Preparation Notes
  • CRE Prep
  • Reliability Management
  • Probability and Statistics for Reliability
  • Reliability in Design and Development
  • Reliability Modeling and Predictions
  • Reliability Testing
  • Maintainability and Availability
  • Data Collection and Use

© 2025 FMS Reliability · Privacy Policy · Terms of Service · Cookies Policy