International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development (IJTSRD) International Open Access Journal ISSN No: 2456 - 6470 | www.ijtsrd.com | Volume - 2 | Issue – 5 Reliability Modeling and Analysis of a Parallel Unit System with Priority to Repair oover Replacement Subject to Maximum Operation and Repair Times Reetu eetu Rathee1, D. Pawar1, S. C. Malik2 1 Assistant Professor, 2Professor 1 Amity Institute of Applied Science, AMITY University, Noida Noida, Uttar Pradesh, Pradesh India 2 Department of Statistics, M. D. University, Rohtak, Haryana,, India ABSTRACT This paper proposes the study of modelling and analysis of a two unit parallel system. A constant failure rate is considered for the units which are identical in nature. All repair activities like repair, replacement, preventive maintenance are mended immediately by a single server. The repair of the unit is done after its failure and if the fault is not rectified by the server within a given repair time, called maximum repair time, the unit replaced by new one. And, if there is no fault occurs up to a pre pre-fixed operation time, called maximum ximum operation time, the unit undergoes for the preventive maintenance. The unit works as new after all repair activities done by the server. Priority to repair of one unit is given over the replacement of the other one. All random variables are statistically ally independent. The distribution for the failure, preventive maintenance and replacement rates are negative exponential whereas the distribution for all repair activities are taken as arbitrary with different probability density functions. Semi-Markov andd regenerative point techniques are used to derive some reliability measures in steady state. The variation of MTSF, availability and profit function has been observed graphically for various parameters and costs. Keywords: Parallel system, Preventive Mai Maintenance, Replacement, Priority, Reliability Measures INTRODUCTION The general purpose of the modern world is to achieve the require performance level using the lowest possible cost. And, the parallel system works not only for maximize the profit but also for minimize the failure risk as well as cost. Keeping in view of their practical applications, reliability models of parallel systems have been developed and analyzed stochastically by the researchers and reliability engineers. Kishan and Kumar (2009) (2009 evaluated stochastically a parallel system using preventive maintenance. Further, kumar et al. (2010) and Malik and Gitanjali (2012) have analyzed cost-benefit cost of a parallel system subject to degradation after repair and arrival time of the server respectively. respec However, to enhance the profit of the system Reetu and Malik (2013) and Rathee and Chander (2014) developed parallel systems using the concept of priority. Also, the objective of the present paper is to determine the reliability measures by giving the priority to one repair activity over the other ones. A constant failure rate is considered for the units which are identical in nature. All repair activities are done immediately by a single server. The repair of the unit is conducted after its failuree and if the fault is not rectified by the server within a given repair time, the unit replaced by new one. And, if there is no fault occurs up to a pre-fixed fixed operation time, the preventive maintenance is conducted. The unit works as new after all repair activities ctivities done by the server. Priority to repair of one unit is given over the replacement of the other one. All random variables are statistically independent. The distribution for the failure, preventive maintenance and replacement rates are @ IJTSRD | Available Online @ www.ijtsrd.com | Volume – 2 | Issue – 5 | Jul-Aug Aug 2018 Page: 350 International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development (IJTSRD) ISSN: 2456-6470 negative exponential whereas the distribution for all repair activities are taken as arbitrary with different probability density functions. Semi-Markov and regenerative point techniques are used to derive some reliability measures in steady state. The variation of MTSF, availability and profit function has been observed graphically for various parameters and costs. NOTATIONS: E : Set of regenerative states 𝐸 : Set of non-regenerative states λ : Constant failure rate α0 : The rate by which system undergoes for preventive maintenance (called maximum constant rate of operation time) β0 : The rate by which system undergoes for replacement (called maximum constant rate of repair time) FUr /FWr : The unit is failed and under repair/waiting for repair FURp/FWRp : The unit is failed and under replacement/waiting for replacement UPm/WPm : The unit is under preventive maintenance/waiting for preventive maintenance FUR/FWR : The unit is failed and under repair / waiting for repair continuously from previous state FURP/FWRP : The unit is failed and under /waiting for replacement continuously from previous state UPM/WPM : The unit is under/waiting for preventive maintenance continuously from previous state g(t)/G(t) : pdf/cdf of repair time of the unit f(t)/F(t) : pdf/cdf of preventive maintenance time of the unit r(t)/R(t) : pdf/cdf of replacement time of the unit qij (t)/Qij (t) : pdf / cdf of passage time from regenerative state Si to a regenerative stateSjor to a failed state Sj without visiting any other regenerative state in (0, t] qij.kr (t)/Qij.kr(t) : pdf/cdf of direct transition time from regenerative state Si to a regenerative state Sj or to a failed state Sj visiting state Sk, Sr once in (0, t] Mi(t) : Probability that the system up initially in state Si E is up at time t without visiting to any regenerative state Wi(t) : Probability that the server is busy in the state Si up to time ‘t’ without making any transition to any other regenerative state or returning to the same state via one or more nonregenerative states. i : The mean sojourn time in state 𝑆 which is given by ∞ 𝜇 = 𝐸(𝑇) = 𝑃(𝑇 > 𝑡) 𝑑𝑡 = 𝑚 , where𝑇denotes the time to system failure. mij:Contribution to mean sojourn time (i) in state Si when system transits directlyto state Sjso that i mij and mij = j tdQ (t ) q ij * ij '(0) & : Symbol for Laplace-Stieltjes convolution/Laplace convolution */** : Symbol for Laplace Transformation /LaplaceStieltjes Transformation The states S0, S1, S2, S4, S6and S7 are regenerative while the states S3,S5, S8,S9, S10, S11 and S12 are nonregenerative as shown in figure 1. @ IJTSRD | Available Online @ www.ijtsrd.com | Volume – 2 | Issue – 5 | Jul-Aug 2018 Page: 351 International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development (IJTSRD) ISSN: 2456-6470 TRANSITION STATE DIAGRAM αO Upm S2 WPm f(t) O SO O 2λ OS 1 FUr λ βO FWr UPM f(t) r(t) FUR WPm αO r(t) O FURp S11 αO S5 βO f(t) O UPm FWr S3 FUR g(t) g(t) f(t) S6 λ λ g(t) S4 αO βO FUr FWRp S10 FURp WPM S7 r(t) βO g(t) UPM WPm WPm FURP S12 S9 Up-State r(t) FURp FWRP S8 Failed-State Fig. 1 Regenerative point Transition Probabilities and Mean Sojourn Times Simple probabilistic considerations yield the following expressions for the non-zero elements pij Qij () qij (t )dt as 0 p01 (1) 0 0 2 , p02 , p15 (1 g * ( 0 0 )), 2 0 2 0 ( 0 0 ) (1 g * ( 0 0 )) , p60 f * ( 0 ), ( 0 0 ) p10 g * ( 0 0 ), p17.3 (1 g * ( 0 ))(1 g * ( 0 0 )) , ( 0 0 ) 0 p6,12 p66.12 (1 f * ( 0 )) , p6,11 p61.11 (1 f * ( 0 )) , ( 0 ) ( 0 ) 0 p49 p46.9 (1 r * ( 0 )) , p37 p5,10 p78 p74.8 1 g * ( 0 ) , ( 0 ) 0 p14 (1 g * ( 0 0 )) , p47 (1 r * ( 0 )) , ( 0 0 ) ( 0 ) p40 r * ( 0 ), p13 p31 p56 p74 g * ( 0 ) , p26 p84 p96 p10,6 p11,1 p12,6 1 It can be easily verify that p01 p02 p10 p13 p14 p15 p26 p40 p47 p49 p60 p6,11 p6,12 1 p10 p14 p11.3 p16.5 p16.5,10 p17.3 p40 p47 p46.9 1 p60 p61.11 p66.12 p74 p74.8 1 @ IJTSRD | Available Online @ www.ijtsrd.com | Volume – 2 | Issue – 5 | Jul-Aug 2018 Page: 352 International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development (IJTSRD) ISSN: 2456-6470 The mean sojourn times (𝝁𝒊 ) is in the state Si are 0 m01 m02 , 1 m10 m13 m14 m15 , 2 m26 , 4 m40 m47 m49 , 6 m60 m6,11 m6,12 , 1' m10 m14 m11.3 m16.5 m16.5,10 m17.3 , 4' m40 m47 m46.9 , 7 m74 m74.8 , Reliability and Mean Time to System Failure (MTSF) Let i(t) be the cdf of first passage time from regenerative state Si to a failed state. Regarding thefailed state as absorbing state, we have the following recursive relations for i(t): 0 (t ) Q01 (t )& 1 (t ) Q02 (t ) 1 (t ) Q10 (t )& 0 (t ) Q14 (t )& 4 (t ) Q13 (t ) Q15 (t ) 4 (t ) Q40 (t )& 0 (t ) Q48 (t ) Q49 (t ) (2) ∗∗ Taking LST of above relation (7.4) and solving for Ф (s), we have 1 ** ( s ) * R (s) s (3) The reliability of the system model can be obtained by taking Inverse Laplace transform of (3). The mean time to system failure (MTSF) is given by 1 ** ( s ) N MTSF = lim (4) s0 s D Where N 0 p011 p01 p14 4 and D 1 p01 p10 p01 p14 p40 (5) Steady State Availability Let Ai(t) be the probability that the system is in up-state at instant ‘t’ given that thesystementered regenerative state Si at t = 0.The recursive relations for Ai (t ) are given as: A0 (t ) M 0 (t ) q01 (t )A1 (t ) q02 (t )A2 (t ) A1 (t ) M 1 (t ) q10 (t ) A0 (t ) q11.3 (t ) A1 (t ) q14 (t ) A4 (t ) q17.3 (t ) A7 (t ) ( q16.5 (t ) q16.5,10 (t )) A6 (t ) A2 (t ) q26 (t )A6 (t ) A4 (t ) M 4 (t ) q40 (t )A0 (t ) q47 (t )A7 (t ) q46.9 (t )A6 (t ) A6 (t ) M 6 (t ) q60 (t )A0 (t ) q61.11 (t )A1 (t ) q66.12 (t )A6 (t ) A7 (t ) (q74 (t ) q74.8 (t ))A4 (t ) Where (6) M 0 (t ) e (2 0 )t , M 1 (t ) e ( 0 0 )t G (t ) , (7) M 4 (t ) e ( 0 )t R (t ) , M 6 (t ) e ( 0 )t F (t ) Taking LT of above relation (6) and solving for A 0*(s). The steady state availability is given by N A0 () lim sA0* ( s ) 1 (8) s 0 D1 Where N1 0 [(1 p47 ){ p60 (1 p11.3 ) p61.11 p10 } p61.11 p40 ( p14 p17.3 )] 6 [(1 p47 ){ p01 ( p16.5 p16.5,10 ) p02 (1 p11.3 )} p01 p46.9 ( p14 p17.3 )] 1 (1 p47 ){ p01 (1 p66.12 ) p02 p61.11} (9) 4 ( p14 p17.3 ){ p01 p60 p61.11} @ IJTSRD | Available Online @ www.ijtsrd.com | Volume – 2 | Issue – 5 | Jul-Aug 2018 Page: 353 International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development (IJTSRD) ISSN: 2456-6470 D1 ( 0 2 p02 )[(1 p47 ){ p60 (1 p11.3 ) p61.11 p10 } p61.11 p40 ( p14 p17.3 )] 6' [(1 p47 ){ p01 ( p16.5 p16.5,10 ) p02 (1 p11.3 )} p01 p46.9 ( p14 p17.3 )] ( p01 p60 p61.11 ){4' ( p14 p17.3 ) 7' ( p14 p47 p17.3 )} (10) 1' (1 p47 ){ p01 (1 p66.12 ) p02 p61.11} Busy Period Analysis for Server A. Due to Repair Let BiR (t ) be the probability that the server is busy in repairof the unit at an instant‘t’ given that the system entered regenerative state Si at t=0.The recursive relations for BiR (t ) are as follows: B0R (t ) q01 (t )B1R (t ) q02 (t )B2R (t ) B1R (t ) W1 (t ) q10 (t ) B0R (t ) q11.3 (t ) B1R (t ) q14 (t ) B4R (t ) q17.3 (t ) B7R (t ) ( q16.5 (t ) q16.5,10 (t )) B6R (t ) B2R (t ) q26 (t )B6R (t ) B4R (t ) q40 (t )B0R (t ) q47 (t )B7R (t ) q46.9 (t )B6R (t ) B6R (t ) q60 (t )B0R (t ) q61.11 (t )B1R (t ) q66.12 (t )B6R (t ) B7R (t ) W7 (t ) (q74 (t ) q74.8 (t ))B4R (t ) Where, (11) W1 (t ) e( 0 0 )t G (t ) ( e ( 0 0 )t 1)G (t ) ( 0e ( 0 0 )t 1)G (t ) and W7 (t ) e 0t G(t ) (12) Taking LT of above relation (11) and solving for B0R* ( s ) .The time for which serveris busydue to repair is given by N B0R () lim sB0R* ( s ) 2 (13) D1 s 0 Where , N 2 W1* (0)(1 p47 ){ p01 (1 p66.12 ) p02 p61.11} W7* (0)( p14 p47 p17.3 ){ p01 p60 p61.11} and D1 is already mentioned. (14) B. Due to Replacement Let BiRp (t ) be the probability that the server is busy in replacement of the unit at an instant ‘t’ given that the system entered regenerative state Si at t=0.The recursive relations for BiRp (t ) are as follows: B0Rp (t ) q01 (t )B1Rp (t ) q02 (t )B2Rp (t ) B1Rp (t ) q10 (t ) B0Rp (t ) q11.3 (t ) B1Rp (t ) q14 (t ) B4Rp (t ) q17.3 (t ) B7Rp (t ) ( q16.5 (t ) q16.5,10 (t )) B6Rp (t ) B2Rp (t ) q26 (t )B6Rp (t ) B4Rp (t ) W4 (t ) q40 (t )B0Rp (t ) q47 (t )B7Rp (t ) q46.9 (t )B6Rp (t ) B6Rp (t ) q60 (t )B0Rp (t ) q61.11 (t )B1Rp (t ) q66.12 (t )B6Rp (t ) B7Rp (t ) ( q74 (t ) q74.8 (t ))B4Rp (t ) Where, (15) @ IJTSRD | Available Online @ www.ijtsrd.com | Volume – 2 | Issue – 5 | Jul-Aug 2018 Page: 354 International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development (IJTSRD) ISSN: 2456-6470 W4 (t ) e ( 0 )t R (t ) ( 0e ( 0 )t 1) R (t ) (16) B0Rp* ( s ) .The Taking LT of above relation (15) and solving for time for which server is busy due to replacement is given by N B0Rp () lim sB0Rp* ( s) 3 (17) D1 s 0 Where, N3 W4* (0)( p14 p17.3 )( p01 p60 p61.11 ) and D1 is already mentioned. (18) C. Due to Preventive Maintenance Let BiP (t ) be the probability that the server is busy in preventive maintenance of the unit at an instant‘t’ given that the system entered regenerative state Si at t=0.The recursive relations for BiP (t ) are as follows: B0P (t ) q01 (t )B1P (t ) q02 (t )B2P (t ) B1P (t ) q10 (t )B0P (t ) q11.3 (t )B1P (t ) q14 (t )B4P (t ) q17.3 (t ) B7P (t ) ( q16.5 (t ) q16.5,10 (t )) B6P (t ) B2P (t ) W2 (t ) q26 (t ) B6P (t ) B4P (t ) q40 (t )B0P (t ) q47 (t )B7P (t ) q46.9 (t )B6P (t ) B6P (t ) W6 (t ) q60 (t )B0P (t ) q61.11 (t )B1P (t ) q66.12 (t )B6P (t ) B7P (t ) ( q74 (t ) q74.8 (t ))B4P (t ) Where, (19) W6 (t ) e( 0 )t F (t ) ( 0e( 0 )t 1) F (t ) ( e( 0 )t 1) F (t ) and W2 (t ) F (t ) (20) Taking LT of above relation (19) and solving for B0P* ( s ) .The time for which server is busy due to preventive maintenance is given by N B0P () lim sB0P* ( s ) 4 (21) D1 s 0 Where, N 4 W2* (0) p02 [(1 p47 ){ p60 (1 p11.3 ) p61.11 p10 } p61.11 p40 ( p14 p17.3 )] W6* (0)[(1 p47 ){ p01 ( p16.5 p16.5,10 ) p02 (1 p11.3 )} p01 p46.9 ( p14 p17.3 )] and D1 is already mentioned. (22) Expected Number of Repairs Let Ri (t ) be the expected number of repairs by the server in (0, t] given that the system entered the regenerative state Si at t = 0. The recursive relations for Ri (t ) are given as: R0 (t ) Q01 (t ) & R1 (t ) Q02 (t )& R2 (t ) R1 (t ) Q10 (t ) & [1 R0 (t )] Q11.3 (t ) & [1 R1 (t )] Q14 (t ) & R4 (t ) Q17.3 (t ) & R7 (t ) Q16.5 (t ) & [1 R6 (t )] Q16.5,10 (t ) & R6 (t ) R2 (t ) Q26 (t ) & R6 (t ) R4 (t ) Q40 (t )& R0 (t ) Q47 (t ) & R7 (t ) Q46.9 (t ) & R6 (t ) R6 (t ) Q60 (t ) & R0 (t ) Q61.11 (t )& R1 (t ) Q66.12 (t )& R6 (t ) R7 (t ) Q74 (t ) & [1 R4 (t )] Q74.8 (t ) & R4 (t ) (23) @ IJTSRD | Available Online @ www.ijtsrd.com | Volume – 2 | Issue – 5 | Jul-Aug 2018 Page: 355 International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development (IJTSRD) ISSN: 2456-6470 Taking LST of above relations (23) and solving for R0** ( s ) .The expected no. of repairs per unit time by the server are giving by N R0 () lim sR0** ( s ) 5 (24) D1 s 0 Where, N5 ( p10 p11.3 p16.5 )(1 p47 ){ p01 (1 p66.12 ) p02 p61.11} p74 ( p14 p47 p17.3 )( p01 p60 p61.11 ) and D1 is already mentioned. (25) Expected Number of Replacements Let Rpi (t ) be the expected number of replacements by the server in (0, t] given that the system entered the regenerative state Si at t = 0. The recursive relations for Rpi (t ) are given as: Rp0 (t ) Q01 (t )& Rp1 (t ) Q02 (t ) & Rp2 (t ) Rp1 (t ) Q10 (t ) & Rp0 (t ) Q11.3 (t ) & Rp1 (t ) Q14 (t ) & Rp 4 (t ) Q17.3 (t ) & Rp7 (t ) Q16.5,10 (t ) & [1 Rp6 (t )] Q16.5 (t ) & Rp6 (t ) Rp2 (t ) Q26 (t ) & Rp6 (t ) Rp4 (t ) Q40 (t )& [1 Rp0 (t )] Q47 (t )& Rp7 (t ) Q46.9 (t ) & [1 Rp6 (t )] Rp6 (t ) Q60 (t ) & Rp0 (t ) Q61.11 (t )& Rp1 (t ) Q66.12 (t ) & Rp6 (t ) Rp7 (t ) Q74 (t )& Rp4 (t )] Q74.8 (t ) & [1 Rp4 (t )] (26) Taking LST of above relations (26) and solving for Rp0** ( s ) .The expected no. of replacements per unit time by the server are giving by N Rp0 () lim sRp0** ( s ) 6 (27) D1 s 0 Where, N 6 p16.5,10 (1 p47 ){ p01 (1 p66.12 ) p02 p61.11} ( p40 p 46.9 p )( p14 p17.3 ){ p01 p60 p61.11} p74.8 ( p14 p47 p17.3 )( p01 p60 p61.11 ) and D1 is already mentioned. (28) Expected Number of Preventive Maintenances Let Pi (t) be the expected number of preventive maintenance by the server in (0, t] given that the system entered the regenerative state Siat t = 0. The recursive relations for Pi (t) are given as: P0 (t ) Q01 (t ) & P1 (t ) Q02 (t ) & P2 (t ) P1 (t ) Q10 (t ) & P0 (t ) Q11.3 (t ) & P1 (t ) Q14 (t ) & P4 (t ) Q17.3 (t ) & P7 (t ) {Q16.5 (t ) Q16.5,10 (t )}& P6 (t ) P2 (t ) Q26 (t ) & [1 P6 (t )] P4 (t ) Q40 (t )& P0 (t ) Q47 (t ) & P7 (t ) Q46.9 (t ) & P6 (t ) P6 (t ) Q60 (t ) & [1 P0 (t )] Q61.11 (t ) & [1 P1 (t )] Q66.12 (t ) & [1 P6 (t )] P7 (t ) {Q74 (t ) Q74.8 (t )}& P4 (t ) (29) Taking LST of above relations (29) and solving for P0** ( s ) .The expected no. of preventive maintenances per unit time by the server are giving by @ IJTSRD | Available Online @ www.ijtsrd.com | Volume – 2 | Issue – 5 | Jul-Aug 2018 Page: 356 International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development (IJTSRD) ISSN: 2456-6470 P0 ( ) lim sP0** ( s ) s 0 N7 D1 (30) Where, N 7 p02 [(1 p47 ){ p60 (1 p11.3 ) p61.11 p10 } p61.11 p40 ( p14 p17.3 )] [(1 p47 ){ p01 ( p16.5 p16.5,10 ) p02 (1 p11.3 )} p01 p46.9 ( p14 p17.3 )] and D1 is already mentioned. (31) Profit Analysis The profit incurred to the system model in steady state can be obtained as P K0 A0 K1B0R K2 B0Rp K3 B0P K4 R1 K5 Rp0 K6 P0 (32) Where, P = Profit of the system model after reducing cost per unit time busy of the server and cost per repair activity per unit time K 0 = Revenue per unit up-time of the system K1 =Cost per unit time for which server is busy due to repair K 2 =Cost per unit time for which server is busy due to replacement K 3 =Cost per unit time for which server is busy due to preventive maintenance K 4 = Cost per repair per unit time K 5 = Cost per replacement per unit time K 6 = Cost per preventive maintenance per unit time CONCLUSION After solving the equations of MTSF, availability and profit function for the particular case g(t) = 𝜃𝑒 , r(t) = 𝛽𝑒 and f(t) = 𝛼𝑒 , we conclude that These reliability measures are increasing as the repair rate θ, replacement rate β increases while their values decline with the increase of failure rate λ and the rate 𝛼 by which the unit undergoes for preventive maintenance. The MTSF and availability keep on upwards with the increase of the rate 𝛽 by which unit undergoes for replacement but profit decreases. The system model becomes more profitable when we increase the preventive maintenance rate α. GRAPHS FOR PARTICULAR CASE MTSF Vs Failure Rate (λ) 5.02 α0=0.2,β0=3,θ=2.1,α=5,β=10 β0=1 θ=4.1 α0=0.201 α=7 β=5 5 4.98 4.96 4.94 MTSF 4.92 4.9 4.88 4.86 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 Failure Rate (λ) Fig.2 @ IJTSRD | Available Online @ www.ijtsrd.com | Volume – 2 | Issue – 5 | Jul-Aug 2018 Page: 357 International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development (IJTSRD) ISSN: 2456-6470 Availability Availability Vs Failure Rate (λ) 0.973 0.971 0.969 0.967 0.965 0.963 0.961 0.959 0.957 0.955 α0=0.2,β0=3,θ=2.1,α=5,β=10 β0=1 θ=4.1 α0=0.201 α=7 β=5 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 Failure Rate (λ) Fig.3 Profit (P) Profit Vs Failure Rate (λ) 13950 13850 13750 13650 13550 13450 13350 13250 13150 13050 α0=0.2,β0=3,θ=2.1,α=5,β=10 β0=1 θ=4.1 α0=0.201 α=7 β=5 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 Failure Rate (λ) REFERENCES 1. R. Kishan and M. Kumar (2009), “Stochastic analysis of a two-unit parallel system with preventive maintenance”, Journal of Reliability and Statistical Studies, vol. 22, pp. 31- 38. 2. Kumar, Jitender, Kadyan, M.S. and Malik, S.C. (2010): Cost-benefit analysis of a two-unit parallel system subject to degradation after repair. Journal of Applied Mathematical Sciences, Vol.4 (56), pp.2749-2758. 3. Malik S.C. and Gitanjali (2012). Cost-Benefit Analysis of a Parallel System with Arrival Time of the Server and Maximum Repair Time. International Journal of Computer Applications, 46 (5): 39-44. Fig.4 4. Reetu and Malik S.C. (2013),A Parallel System with Priority to Preventive Maintenance Subject to Maximum Operation and Repair Time. American journal of Mathematics and Statistics, Vol. 3(6), pp. 436-440. 5. Rathee R. and Chander S. (2014), A Parallel System with Priority to Repair over Preventive Maintenance Subject to Maximum Operation and Repair Time. International Journal of Statistics and Reliability Engineering, Vol. 1(1), pp. 57-68. @ IJTSRD | Available Online @ www.ijtsrd.com | Volume – 2 | Issue – 5 | Jul-Aug 2018 Page: 358