Abstract
Since dependency can influence the performance of a system, it is crucial to investigate and to understand the consequences of dependency when designing, operating and maintaining a system. To do this requires a clear understanding of various types of dependency. For example, it is important to distinguish between dependency in the times between failure and the practically important area of common-cause. The type of dependency will also effect the nature of any data analysis to be carried out.
By reviewing the literature in the area, this paper attempts to categorise the main types of dependency. Methods of identification of dependency are examined. This is done primarily through data analysis. Ways of incorporating dependency into model-building are also described.
Keywords
Failure Process Repairable System Engineering Judgment Instantaneous Failure Dependent Failure
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- 1.Amendola, A., Common cause failure analysis in reliability and risk assessment, Reliability Engineering, ed A. Amendola and A. S. De Bustamante, 1986, Kluwer Academic Pub. London, pp. 221–256.Google Scholar
- 2.Ballard, G.M., Depenent failure analysis in PSA, Proc IAEA Int. Conf. Nucl. Power Perf. & Saf., Viena, 1989, pp. 119–133.Google Scholar
- 3.Crellin, G.L., Jacobs, F.M., Smith, A.M. and Worledge, D.M., Organising dependent event data–a classification and analysis of multiple compoent fault reports, Reliab. Eng., 15, 1988, pp. 145–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4.Edwards, G.T., and Watson, I.A., A study of CMF, UKAEA Report no SRD-R-146, 1979.Google Scholar
- 5.Fleming, R.N., Mosleh, A., Kelley, A.J., On the analysis of dependent failure in risk assessment and reliability evaluation, Nucl. Saf., 24, 1983, pp. 637–657.Google Scholar
- 6.Games, A.M., Breewood, M., Amendola, A., Martin, P., Keller, A.Z., CCF investigation using the European reliability data system, Proc. 8th ARTS, 1984, B2/2/1–7.Google Scholar
- 7.Games, A.M., Amendola, A., and Martin P., Multiple related failure events - risk, design maintenance and cost, 5th Nat. Reliab. Conf., Birmigham, 1985, 5B/4/1–7.Google Scholar
- 8.Humphreys, P., Games, A.M., Smith, A.F., and Worledge, D.H., Progress towards a better understanding of dependent failures by data collection, classification and improved modelling techniques, Proc Reliab ‘87, 1987, 2C/4/1–14.Google Scholar
- 9.Watson, I.A., Analysis of dependent event and multiple unavailability with particular reference to common-cause failures, Nucl Eng and Des, 93, 1986, pp. 227–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Virolainen, R., On CCF, statistical dependence and calculation of uncertainty; disagreement in interpretation of data, Nucl Ena and Des, 77, 1984, pp. 103–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Ascher, H., and Feingold, H., Repairable systems reliability, Marcel Dekker, London, (1984)MATHGoogle Scholar
- 12.Walls, L.A., and Bendell, A., Exploring reliability data, Oual & Rel Eng. Int, 1, 1985, pp. 37–51.Google Scholar
- 13.Games, A.M., DEFEND–a dependent failure database, Euredata, 1989, pp. 178–194.Google Scholar
- 14.Cross, A., and Stevens, B., Reliability data banks - friend foe or waste of time, Proc Reliab ‘87, 1987, 5C/5/1–15.Google Scholar
- 15.Gibson, I.R., McIntyre, P.J., and Witt, H.W., Aspects of a model to improve the reliability estimates of engineering components, Proc Reliab ‘89, 1989, 4Aa/2/1–14.Google Scholar
- 16.Mclntrye, P.J., Gibson, I.R., and Witt, H.M., Addressing the problem of relevance of reliability data to varied applications, EureData, Siena, 1989, pp. 28–38.Google Scholar
- 17.Walls, L.A., and Bendell, A., Exploring field reliability data for potential dependent failures, Proc Reliab ‘87, 1989, pp. 4Ab/3/1–8.Google Scholar
- 18.Ansell, J.I., and Phillips, M.J., Practical problems in the statistical analysis of reliability data (with discussion), Appl Stats, 38, 1989, pp. 205–247.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Ansell, J.I., and Phillips, M.J., Practical reliability data analysis, 1990, Rel Eng., to appear.Google Scholar
- 20.Hawkes, A.G., and Oakes, D., A cluster process representation of self exciting process, J. Appl. Prob, 11, 1971, pp. 493–503.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.Lewis, P.A.W., Branching Poisson process, J. Roy Statist Soc, B,, 1964, pp. 398–456.Google Scholar
- 22.Georgiakodis, F., and Jerwood, D., Application of multivariate techniques to monitor system reliability and detect common-mode failure, Proc Reliab ‘87, Birmingham, 1987, 2B/5/1–10.Google Scholar
- 23.Cox, D.R., and Lewis, P.A.W., Statistical analysis of series of events, 1966, Chapman Hall, London.MATHGoogle Scholar
- 24.Bendell, A., and Walls, L.A., Exploring reliability data, Qual Rel Eng Int, 1, 1985, pp. 37–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.Marshall, A.W., and Olkin, I., A multivariate exponential distribution, J. Amer. Stats. Ass., 62, 1967, pp. 30–44.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 26.Downton, F., Bivariate exponential distributions in reliability theory, J. Roy. Statist Soc, B, 32, 1970, pp. 408–417.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
- 27.Smith, R.L., Limit theorems and approximations for reliability of load sharing systems, Adv Appl Prob, 15, 1983, pp. 304–330.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 28.Harlow, D.G., Smith, R.L., and Taylor, H.M., Lower tail analysis of distribution of strength of load sharing systems, J. Appl. Prob., 20, 1983, pp. 358–367.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 29.Hughes, R.P., Distributed failure probability approach to dependent failure analysis and its applications, EureData, Siena, 1989, pp. 167–177.Google Scholar
- 30.Ansell, J.I., and Bendell, A., On the optimality of k-out-of-n:G systems, IEEE Trans Reliab, 31, 1982, pp. 206–210.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 31.Hughes, R.P., New concepts for systems analysis, Proc Reliab ‘89, Brighton, 1989, pp. 4Ab/1/1–9.Google Scholar
Copyright information
© Elsevier Science Publishers Ltd 1990