Reference no: EM131619476

Question: In the failures occorred at low frequency compaied with the processing time of entity. Tune to failure was 1000 minutes, and interarrival time was 10 minutes, implying that few entities would experience a failure. But, when an entity did experience a failure (of 50 minutes, on average), it was several times larger than the processing time of 7.5 minutes. · Redo the model for assuming high-frequency failures. Specjfically, assume that the time to failure is exponentially distributed, with mean 2 minutes, and the time to repair is ,ponentially. distributed, with mean 0. 1 minute or 6 seconds. As compared with the low-frequency case, entities will tend to experience a number of short downtimes. For low-frequency versus high-frequency downtimes, compare the average number of downtimes experienced per entity, the average duration of downtime experienced, the average time to complete service (including downtime, if arty), and the percent of time down. Note that the percentage of time the machine is down for repair should be the same in both cases:

50/(1000 + 50) = 4.76%

6 sec/(2min + 6 sec) = 4.76%

Verify percentage downtime from the simulation results. Are the results identical? close? Should they be identical, or just close? As the simulation run-length increases, what should happen to percentage of time down? With high-frequency failures, do you come to the same conclusions as were drawn in the text regarding the different ways to simulate downtimes? Make recommendations regarding how to model low-frequency versus high-frequency failures.