Advertisement

Problem of Calculation of Reliability of Hierarchical Complex Technical Systems

  • P. A. KulakovEmail author
  • D. D. Galyautdinov
  • V. G. Afanasenko
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering book series (LNME)

Abstract

Within the framework of ensuring availability at oil and gas processing facilities, an analysis of methods for assessing the reliability of a technical object based on the reliability, availability and maintainability of individual elements was made. The difficulties arising from the complex assessment of the reliability of complex technical objects using different methods are shown: A number of methods did not allow to assess the entire complexity of the object, and other methods led to an increase in the complexity of calculations with an increase in the number of individual elements. The authors propose to use combinations of previously known methods at different hierarchical levels for system analysis. An algorithm for assessing reliability based on dividing a complex object into elements, the evaluation of the reliability of which is determined by one of the most suitable methods, such as the Markov models of states and transitions or statistical models, has been developed. Additional designations are proposed for the unambiguous interpretation and structuring of the reliability assessment system. As an example, the calculation of the failure-free operation of the gas treatment unit of the tar visbreaker was made. The possibility of calculating complex interdependent systems, where linear statistical calculation methods are not applicable, and the labor intensity for the Markov method has power-law dependence, is shown.

Keywords

Reliability Availability Markov processes Redundancy Technical systems Hierarchical systems Statistical analysis 

References

  1. 1.
    Grishko A, Yurkov N, Goryachev N (2017) Reliability analysis of complex systems based on the probability 13 dynamics of subsystem failures and deviation of parameters. CADSM, pp 179–182Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tanasijevic M, Ivezic D, Jovancic P et al (2013) Study of dependability evaluation for multi-hierarchical systems based on max-min composition. Qual Reliab Eng Int 29(3):317–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zhang F, Liu T, Liu J (2010) Research on bearing life prediction based on three parameters Weibull distribution. Adv Mater Res 136:162–166.  https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.136.162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baikov I, Kitaev S, Fayrushin Sh (2016) Evaluation of reliability indicators of pumps of type NC, NCB and PS. Reliability 16:11–16Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zhadnov V, Iofin A (2015) Methodological aspects of the calculation of reliability indicators in the practice of designing radio altimeters and radio altimeter systems for rocket technology. Reliab Qual Complex Syst 2:42–46Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Liu J, Wang J, Li G (2017) Evaluation of the energy performance of variable refrigerant flow systems using dynamic energy benchmarks based on data mining techniques. Appl Energy 208:522–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tong Q, Cao J, Han B et al (2017) A fault diagnosis approach for rolling element bearings based on dual-tree complex wavelet packet transform-improved intrinsic time-scale decomposition, singular value decomposition, and online sequential extreme learning machine. Adv Mech Eng 9.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1687814017737721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Demichela M, Baldissone G, Camuncoli G (2017) Risk-based decision making for the management of change in process plants: benefits of integrating probabilistic and phenomenological analysis. Ind Eng Chem Res 56(50):14873–14887CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kelbert M, Sukhov Y (2010) Probability and statistics in examples and problems. Moscow Center for Continuous Mathematical EducationGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kulakov P, Afanasenko V (2019) Influence of minimally permissible quantity of source materials on the probability of failure of a pump−tank system. Chem Pet Eng 54(9–10):681–686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    He Q-M, Alfa AS (2018) Space reduction for a class of multidimensional markov chains: a summary and some applications. Informs J Comput 30(1):1–10MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rakhman PA (2018) A calculation method for estimation of the mean time to first failure of the technical systems on basis of the topological conversion of the markov reliability model. J Eng Appl Sci 13(5):1819–1826Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rakhman P, Bobkova E (2017) The reliability model of the fault-tolerant border routing with two internet services providers in the enterprise computer network. J Phys Conf Ser 803(1):012124.1Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zhao X, Cai K, Wang X et al (2018) Optimal replacement policies for a shock model with a change point. Comput Ind Eng 118:383–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Landquist H, Norrman J, Lindhe A (2017) Expert elicitation for deriving input data for probabilistic risk assessment of shipwrecks. Mar Pollut Bull 125(1–2):399–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tanasijevic M, Ivezic D, Ignjatovic D et al (2011) Dependability as criteria for bucket wheel excavator revitalization. J Sci Ind Res 70(1):13–19Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rykov V, Kozyrev D (2010) Reliability model for hierarchical systems: regenerative approach. Autom Remote Control 71(7):1325–1336MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Emelin N (2015) Analysis and synthesis of systems to ensure the reliability of information management systems (Markov approach). News Inst Eng Phys 4(38):3–9Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fedorov Yu (2006) Fundamentals of building explosive industries. SINTEG, MoscowGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rahman P, Bobkova E (2017) The reliability model of the fault-tolerant computing system with triple-modular redundancy based on the independent nodes. J Phys Conf Ser 803(1):012125.1Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. A. Kulakov
    • 1
    Email author
  • D. D. Galyautdinov
    • 1
  • V. G. Afanasenko
    • 1
  1. 1.Ufa State Petroleum Technological UniversityUfaRussia

Personalised recommendations