Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention

, Volume 14, Issue 3, pp 426–434 | Cite as

Unification of Common Cause Failures’ Parametric Models Using a Generic Markovian Model

  • Mourad Chebila
  • Fares Innal
Technical Article---Peer-Reviewed


The main objective of this paper is to provide a unified Markov model which could implement any parametric models devoted to the treatment of common cause failures (CCFs), namely: beta factor, multiple greek letter, alpha factor, multiple beta factor, and binomial failure rate. The choice of the Markovian representation is motivated by the fact that classical reliability approaches (e.g., Fault trees) are not able to catch the dynamic aspect induced by CCF events. The proposed Markovian model is also capable of dealing with any M-out-of-N configuration. It is illustrated on the basis of a system made up of four identical components (N = 4) in order to quantitatively examine the differences between the first four mentioned parametric models. For that purpose, the considered performance indicators are the average unavailability (U avg) and the average unconditional failure intensity (i.e., failure frequency) (w avg).


Common cause failures Parametric models Unified Markov model MooN architectures 


  1. 1.
    IEC61508, Functional Safety of Electrical/Electronic/Programmable Electronic Safety-Related Systems (International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva, 2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    NUREG/CR-4780, Procedures for Treating Common Cause Failures in Safety and Reliability Studies. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (Electric Power Research Institute, Washington DC, 1988)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    NUREG/CR-6819, Common-Cause Failure Event Insights (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC, 2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    L. Mary Ann, R. Marvin, Common cause failures in safety instrumented systems on oil and gas installations: implementing defense measures through function testing. Prev. Process Ind. 20, 218–229 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    NEA/ CSNI/ R (92) 18, State of the Art of Level-1 PSA Methodology. Nuclear Energy Agency (1993)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    P. Hokstad, Common Cause and Dependent Failure Modeling. New Trends in System Reliability Evaluation (Elsevier Science Publishers B.V, New York, 1993)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    K.N. Fleming, A. Mosleh, Classification and Analysis of Reactor Operating Experience Involving Dependent Events (Electric Power Research Institute, 1985)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    G.W. Parry, Incompleteness in Data Bases: Impact on Parameter Estimation Uncertainty (Springer, New York, 1987)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    M.G.K. Evans, G.W. Parry, J. Wreathall, On the treatment of common-cause failures in system analysis. Reliab. Eng. 9(2), 107–115 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    K.N. Fleming, A Reliability Model for Common Mode Failure in Redundant Safety Systems. Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Pittsburgh Conference on Modeling and Simulation. General Atomic Report GA-A13284 (1975)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    K.N. Fleming, A.M. Kalinowski, An Extension of the Beta Factor Method to Systems with High Levels of Redundancy (Pickard, Lowe and Garrick, Washington, DC, 1983)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    A. Mosleh, N.O. Siu, A multi-parameter, event-based common- cause failure model. Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology. (Lausanne, 1987)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    NUREG/CR-2098, Common Cause Fault Rates for Pumps. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (1983)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    NUREG/CR-4780 Vol. 2, Procedures for Treating Common Cause Failures in Safety and Reliability Studies (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Electric Power Research Institute, Washington DC, 1989)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    P. Hokstad, K. Corneliussen, Reliability Prediction Method for Safety Instrumented Systems PDS Method Handbook (SINTEF Industrial Management Safety and Reliability, Trondheim, 2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    P. Hokstad, K. Corneliussen, Loss of safety assessment and the IEC 61508 standard. Reliab. Eng. Sys. Saf. 83, 111–120 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    H. Per, M. Alexandre, A.P. Tomis, Estimation of common cause factors from systems with different numbers of channels. IEEE Tans. Relaib. 55(1), 18–25 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    S.G. Han, W.H. Yoo, S.H. Chang, The trinomial failure rate model for treating common. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 25, 131–146 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Z. Athena, B. Tim, W. Lesley, An influence diagram extension of the unified partial method for common cause failures. Qual. Technol. Quant. Manag. 4(1), 111–128 (2007)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    J. Cantarella, Treatement of Multiple Related Failures by Markov Method. Advanced Seminar on Common Cause Failure Analysis in Probabilistic Safety Assessment (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Ispra, 1989), pp. 145–157Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (2012), CCF Parameter Estimations (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© ASM International 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.IHSI-LRPIBatna UniversityBatnaAlgeria

Personalised recommendations