IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/reensy/v146y2016icp39-46.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Prime implicants in dynamic reliability analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Tyrväinen, Tero

Abstract

This paper develops an improved definition of a prime implicant for the needs of dynamic reliability analysis. Reliability analyses often aim to identify minimal cut sets or prime implicants, which are minimal conditions that cause an undesired top event, such as a system׳s failure. Dynamic reliability analysis methods take the time-dependent behaviour of a system into account. This means that the state of a component can change in the analysed time frame and prime implicants can include the failure of a component at different time points. There can also be dynamic constraints on a component׳s behaviour. For example, a component can be non-repairable in the given time frame. If a non-repairable component needs to be failed at a certain time point to cause the top event, we consider that the condition that it is failed at the latest possible time point is minimal, and the condition in which it fails earlier non-minimal. The traditional definition of a prime implicant does not account for this type of time-related minimality. In this paper, a new definition is introduced and illustrated using a dynamic flowgraph methodology model.

Suggested Citation

  • Tyrväinen, Tero, 2016. "Prime implicants in dynamic reliability analysis," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 39-46.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:reensy:v:146:y:2016:i:c:p:39-46
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2015.10.007
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0951832015002896
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ress.2015.10.007?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. 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.
    2. Tyrväinen, T., 2013. "Risk importance measures in the dynamic flowgraph methodology," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 35-50.
    3. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Tyrväinen, T., 2013. "Risk importance measures in the dynamic flowgraph methodology," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 35-50.
    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. Contini, Sergio & Matuzas, Vaidas, 2011. "New methods to determine the importance measures of initiating and enabling events in fault tree analysis," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 96(7), pages 775-784.
    4. 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.
    5. 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).
    6. 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.
    7. Piètre-Cambacédès, L. & Bouissou, M., 2013. "Cross-fertilization between safety and security engineering," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 110-126.
    8. Ibáñez-Llano, Cristina & Rauzy, Antoine & Meléndez, Enrique & Nieto, Francisco, 2010. "A reduction approach to improve the quantification of linked fault trees through binary decision diagrams," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 95(12), pages 1314-1323.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. George-Williams, Hindolo & Patelli, Edoardo, 2016. "A hybrid load flow and event driven simulation approach to multi-state system reliability evaluation," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 351-367.
    12. Ibáñez-Llano, Cristina & Rauzy, Antoine & Meléndez, Enrique & Nieto, Francisco, 2010. "Hybrid approach for the assessment of PSA models by means of binary decision diagrams," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 95(10), pages 1076-1092.

    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:146:y:2016:i:c:p:39-46. 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.