Active redundancy allows a system to continue functioning if any of the components are operational, with reliability calculated based on the probability that at least one component is working. In contrast, standby redundancy involves backup components that are only activated when primary components fail, adding a layer of complexity in reliability calculation due to the dependency of failure times . Active redundancy is generally simpler to model because all components are continuously sharing the load, whereas standby requires consideration of both switching failures and potential deterioration of standby components .

The failure rate is crucial in determining the Mean Time To Failure (MTTF) as it directly affects reliability calculations. In active redundant systems, all components are continuously contributing, so the MTTF is determined by the combined effect of all components’ failure rates . For standby systems, MTTF calculations are more complex because they need to take into account the failure rates during standby and the reliability of the switching mechanism, along with dependencies between components . The standby component failure rates may differ significantly from the active rates due to less frequent use or different stressors .

When determining the design life to maintain a desired end of life reliability, factors such as the failure rates of individual components, whether the system configuration is parallel or series, and the inherent redundancy should be considered. In parallel configurations, the design life can often be extended due to the increased reliability from redundancy, but it is vital to ensure that the increase does not exceed the point where the end of life reliability decreases . Calculations should be done for both individual component reliability and system-wide effects, factoring in potential failures or deteriorations .

Common mode failures (CMF) occur when interdependencies between components cause simultaneous failure, effectively reducing the system's redundancy by acting as if an additional component were in series with the parallel system. This significantly impacts reliability . Mitigating CMF involves eliminating the root causes of these interdependencies if possible, otherwise, these effects must be incorporated into reliability models by modifying component failure rates or system configurations . Implementing high-level redundancy can also reduce the impact of CMF compared to low-level redundancy .

Increasing the number of parallel components in a system enhances its reliability due to redundancy. High-level redundancy, where entire systems are placed in parallel, tends to be more advantageous than low-level redundancy because it is less susceptible to common mode failures (CMF). Low-level redundancy can lead to higher reliability only if failures are independent, but in reality, CMF can have a more significant impact on low-level redundant systems, reducing their effectiveness compared to high-level redundancy systems .

In redundant systems with load sharing, the failure of one component increases the stress and thus the failure rate of the remaining components. This can decrease the overall system reliability compared to an ideal redundancy scenario where components operate independently . The increase in failure rates after one component's failure needs to be quantified and modeled to accurately predict the system MTTF, taking into account both the initial load and the load distribution post-failure .

Switching failures and secondary standby failures are significant because they can prevent the system from effectively transitioning to a backup component, thus reducing system reliability. These can be mitigated by improving the reliability of the switching mechanism and ensuring that standby components are regularly maintained to prevent failures due to infrequent use or deterioration . Combining these considerations with robust reliability analysis allows systems to better handle potential standby activation issues .

Key factors include the likelihood of independent failures versus common mode failures (CMF), the cost implications of additional components versus entire system replication, and the operational impact of potential failures. High-level redundancy is typically preferred in scenarios where CMF are a concern since it is inherently more isolated, though it may be more costly to implement . Low-level redundancy can be more cost-effective and provide better reliability if failures are truly independent, but it may not be as robust against CMF . Careful analysis of failure modes and costs are necessary to make informed decisions on redundancy planning.

Increasing a component's failure rate by a fixed percentage in a parallel configuration generally reduces the system's Mean Time To Failure (MTTF) because each component's probability of failure affects the overall system reliability. In configurations where components are supposed to back each other up, higher failure rates decrease the overall backup capacity, leading to a reduced MTTF . The rate of decrease depends on how sensitive the system is to changes in individual component reliabilities and can vary based on the redundancy level and configuration .

Estimating reliability for the design life can significantly affect the rare event approximations, which are often employed when event times are small compared to the Mean Time To Failure (MTTF). In such cases, systems may leverage simplified approximations to model reliability at these early stages, which helps in efficient design and testing . Implications for system design include the potential for overestimating reliability under rare events if these estimations are inaccurate, leading to potential system failures that could have been prevented with more detailed modeling .