IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/reensy/v118y2013icp35-50.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk importance measures in the dynamic flowgraph methodology

Author

Listed:
  • Tyrväinen, T.

Abstract

This paper presents new risk importance measures applicable to a dynamic reliability analysis approach with multi-state components. Dynamic reliability analysis methods are needed because traditional methods, such as fault tree analysis, can describe system's dynamical behaviour only in limited manner. Dynamic flowgraph methodology (DFM) is an approach used for analysing systems with time dependencies and feedback loops. The aim of DFM is to identify root causes of a top event, usually representing the system's failure. Components of DFM models are analysed at discrete time points and they can have multiple states. Traditional risk importance measures developed for static and binary logic are not applicable to DFM as such. Some importance measures have previously been developed for DFM but their ability to describe how components contribute to the top event is fairly limited. The paper formulates dynamic risk importance measures that measure the importances of states of components and take the time-aspect of DFM into account in a logical way that supports the interpretation of results. Dynamic risk importance measures are developed as generalisations of the Fussell-Vesely importance and the risk increase factor.

Suggested Citation

  • Tyrväinen, T., 2013. "Risk importance measures in the dynamic flowgraph methodology," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 35-50.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:reensy:v:118:y:2013:i:c:p:35-50
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2013.04.013
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0951832013001087
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ress.2013.04.013?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Aldemir, T. & Guarro, S. & Mandelli, D. & Kirschenbaum, J. & Mangan, L.A. & Bucci, P. & Yau, M. & Ekici, E. & Miller, D.W. & Sun, X. & Arndt, S.A., 2010. "Probabilistic risk assessment modeling of digital instrumentation and control systems using two dynamic methodologies," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 95(10), pages 1011-1039.
    2. Enrico Zio, 2011. "Risk Importance Measures," Springer Series in Reliability Engineering, in: Hoang Pham (ed.), Safety and Risk Modeling and Its Applications, pages 151-196, Springer.
    3. Do Van, Phuc & Barros, Anne & Bérenguer, Christophe, 2008. "Reliability importance analysis of Markovian systems at steady state using perturbation analysis," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 93(11), pages 1605-1615.
    4. Vaurio, J.K., 2011. "Importance measures for multi-phase missions," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 96(1), pages 230-235.
    5. Al-Dabbagh, Ahmad W. & Lu, Lixuan, 2010. "Reliability modeling of networked control systems using dynamic flowgraph methodology," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 95(11), pages 1202-1209.
    6. Do Van, Phuc & Barros, Anne & Bérenguer, Christophe, 2010. "From differential to difference importance measures for Markov reliability models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 204(3), pages 513-521, August.
    7. Contini, S. & Cojazzi, G.G.M. & Renda, G., 2008. "On the use of non-coherent fault trees in safety and security studies," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 93(12), pages 1886-1895.
    8. Huang, Chin-Yu & Chang, Yung-Ruei, 2007. "An improved decomposition scheme for assessing the reliability of embedded systems by using dynamic fault trees," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 92(10), pages 1403-1412.
    9. Ramirez-Marquez, Jose E. & Rocco, Claudio M. & Gebre, Bethel A. & Coit, David W. & Tortorella, Michael, 2006. "New insights on multi-state component criticality and importance," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 91(8), pages 894-904.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Dui, Hongyan & Si, Shubin & Yam, Richard C.M., 2017. "A cost-based integrated importance measure of system components for preventive maintenance," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 168(C), pages 98-104.
    2. Dui, Hongyan & Si, Shubin & Wu, Shaomin & Yam, Richard C.M., 2017. "An importance measure for multistate systems with external factors," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 49-57.
    3. Tyrväinen, Tero, 2016. "Prime implicants in dynamic reliability analysis," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 39-46.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Shumin Li & Shubin Si & Liudong Xing & Shudong Sun, 2014. "Integrated importance of multi-state fault tree based on multi-state multi-valued decision diagram," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 228(2), pages 200-208, April.
    2. Vaurio, Jussi K., 2016. "Importances of components and events in non-coherent systems and risk models," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 117-122.
    3. Zhu, Xiaoyan & Boushaba, Mahmoud & Coit, David W. & Benyahia, Azzeddine, 2017. "Reliability and importance measures for m-consecutive-k, l-out-of-n system with non-homogeneous Markov-dependent components," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 1-9.
    4. C M Rocco S, 2012. "Effects of the transition rate uncertainty on the steady state probabilities of Markov models using interval arithmetic," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 226(2), pages 234-245, April.
    5. Claudio M Rocco S, 2013. "Affine arithmetic for assessing the uncertainty propagation on steady-state probabilities of Markov models owing to uncertainties in transition rates," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 227(5), pages 523-533, October.
    6. Dui, Hongyan & Si, Shubin & Wu, Shaomin & Yam, Richard C.M., 2017. "An importance measure for multistate systems with external factors," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 49-57.
    7. Thieme, Christoph A. & Mosleh, Ali & Utne, Ingrid B. & Hegde, Jeevith, 2020. "Incorporating software failure in risk analysis – Part 1: Software functional failure mode classification," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    8. McNelles, Phillip & Zeng, Zhao Chang & Renganathan, Guna & Lamarre, Greg & Akl, Yolande & Lu, Lixuan, 2016. "A comparison of Fault Trees and the Dynamic Flowgraph Methodology for the analysis of FPGA-based safety systems Part 1: Reactor trip logic loop reliability analysis," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 135-150.
    9. Tyrväinen, Tero, 2016. "Prime implicants in dynamic reliability analysis," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 39-46.
    10. Rocco S., Claudio M. & Emmanuel Ramirez-Marquez, José, 2015. "Assessment of the transition-rates importance of Markovian systems at steady state using the unscented transformation," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 212-220.
    11. Aizpurua, J.I. & Catterson, V.M. & Papadopoulos, Y. & Chiacchio, F. & D'Urso, D., 2017. "Supporting group maintenance through prognostics-enhanced dynamic dependability prediction," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 168(C), pages 171-188.
    12. Zhai, Qingqing & Yang, Jun & Xie, Min & Zhao, Yu, 2014. "Generalized moment-independent importance measures based on Minkowski distance," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 239(2), pages 449-455.
    13. Brissaud, Florent & Smidts, Carol & Barros, Anne & Bérenguer, Christophe, 2011. "Dynamic reliability of digital-based transmitters," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 96(7), pages 793-813.
    14. Xiaoyan Zhu & Way Kuo, 2014. "Importance measures in reliability and mathematical programming," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 212(1), pages 241-267, January.
    15. Shin, Sung-Min & Lee, Sang Hun & Shin, Seung Ki, 2022. "A novel approach for quantitative importance analysis of safety DI&C systems in the nuclear field," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 228(C).
    16. Zixian, Liu & Xin, Ni & Yiliu, Liu & Qinglu, Song & Yukun, Wang, 2011. "Gastric esophageal surgery risk analysis with a fault tree and Markov integrated model," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 96(12), pages 1591-1600.
    17. Wu, Xin-yang & Wu, Xiao-yue & Balakrishnan, Narayanaswamy, 2018. "Reliability allocation model and algorithm for phased mission systems with uncertain component parameters based on importance measure," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 266-276.
    18. Yan-Feng Li & Jinhua Mi & Yu Liu & Yuan-Jian Yang & Hong-Zhong Huang, 2015. "Dynamic fault tree analysis based on continuous-time Bayesian networks under fuzzy numbers," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 229(6), pages 530-541, December.
    19. Baroud, Hiba & Barker, Kash & Ramirez-Marquez, Jose E. & Rocco S., Claudio M., 2014. "Importance measures for inland waterway network resilience," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 55-67.
    20. Wu, Shaomin & Coolen, Frank P.A., 2013. "A cost-based importance measure for system components: An extension of the Birnbaum importance," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 225(1), pages 189-195.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:reensy:v:118:y:2013:i:c:p:35-50. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/reliability-engineering-and-system-safety .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.