Tools
Sorted by:
Try your query at:
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Results 1 - 10
of
35,336
Table V: Estimates of the unreliability and its sensitivies for di erent time horizons t for the balanced system.
1994
Cited by 9
Table 2: Error ratios (maximum errors): k = 2: Problem(a) Note that we have not included results (for some of the smaller meshes) when COLNEW was not able to obtain convergence of the Newton iteration on the nonlinear discrete system corresponding to the given mesh. Thus, for example, there is no entry in Table 3 for N = 4. Note also that as the accuracy of the approximate solutions begins to approach that of the reference solution, the estimate of the global error becomes unreliable, and thus the estimates of the convergence rates become irrelevant. From Tables 2-7, we can observe that the expected rates of convergence are being approached by the numerical approximations. From Tables 2-4, we can 35
Table 5: Unreliability of a MARS FTU in the interval [0; 10] hours. Balanced Failure Biasing Augmented Balanced Failure Biasing Scale Factor Result Error Result Error
"... In PAGE 8: ...3 Unreliability of a MARS FTU Using the governor for balanced failure biasing with exponential transformation we ran a simulation of 100,000 replications to estimate the unreliability of the MARS FTU modeled in Figure 1 using the re- ward structure in Equation 1. The results are shown in Table5 . The numbers in the columns labeled \Re- sult quot; are the point estimates and the numbers in the \Error quot; columns are estimated relative half-widths of the con dence intervals at a con dence level of 99%.... ..."
Table 4: Sample variance for di erent failure bias values
1999
"... In PAGE 82: ... We used such a xed recovery action in the con gurations Conf2, Conf3, Conf4 and Conf5 mentioned earlier. The unreliability estimates of these con gurations are shown in the Table4 . The failure bias used was 0.... ..."
Table 4: Sample variance for di erent failure bias values
"... In PAGE 82: ... We used such a xed recovery action in the con gurations Conf2, Conf3, Conf4 and Conf5 mentioned earlier. The unreliability estimates of these con gurations are shown in the Table4 . The failure bias used was 0.... ..."
Table 3. Unreliability vs. time
2001
"... In PAGE 4: ... The quantitative analysis of the PFT provides the follow- ing results. The system unreliability ( Table3 ) is evaluated as the probability PrfTEg of reaching the TE at time t and has been computed from t = 0 to t = 4 105 h. Time t (h) TE Unreliability U 10,000 8:295 10?4 20,000 1:993 10?3 40,000 5:300 10?3 60,000 9:865 10?3 80,000 1:563 10?2 100,000 2:253 10?2 200,000 7:207 10?2 300,000 1:407 10?1 400,000 2:212 10?1 Table 3.... ..."
Cited by 4
Table 2: Unreliability results of LEF
Table 1 shows estimated stationary delay ~ p(x; x) given by (A.4) with N=10,000 trials, for the two-server queue with exponential service and inter- arrival times with parameters and = 2 . The percentage error of the estimation compared with the exact value is E, whereas CI is the halfwidth of the con dence interval divided by the estimate (we omit it if its value is unreliable due to rounding errors). The number M displays the \complex- ity quot; of the dual process | it is the number of orthants D(x1; x2) required to de ne its set value at a given time, maximized in each trial and averaged over all trials. Finally, CT is computer time; i.e., the number of seconds that the system spent when computing the estimate in 10,000 trials.
Table 4. Results for the Kanban system with unreliable machines.
Results 1 - 10
of
35,336
