Multivalued Logic in the Representation of Engineering Systems

  • S. Garribba
  • P. Mussio
  • F. Naldi


The paper deals with the construction process of a reliability-oriented system representation made in terms of a multivalued logical tree (MVLT) which computes logical statements. The propositional variables of these logical statements assume values related with the behaviours of the system, and of its subsystems and components. When fed by a set of values for input variables, the MVLT gives the instantaneous value of the proposition it represents. A formal procedure of system decomposition and recomposition can be designed for the automatic construction of the MVLT. Foundations of this procedure are provided and solutions discussed for two cases. Merits of MVLT seem to lay on a better control of information to retain in the representation of the system, high degree of compactness, evidence given to the correspondence between logical structures and physical behaviours.


Input Function Logical Operator Logical Tree Propositional Variable Approximate Representation 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    L. Padulo and M.A. Arbib, “System theory. A unified state-space approach to continuous and discrete systems”, W.B. Saunders, Philadelphia, Pa. (1974).Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    S. Garribba, P. Mussio, F. Naldi and G. Volta, “System reliability and multiple-valued logic”, CESNEF - IN 012, Politecnico di Milano, Milano, Italy (Feb. 1978).Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    S. Contini, S. Fumagalli, P. Mussio, F. Naldi, S. Garribba and G. Volta, “Multiple-valued logic in modelling of nuclear safety systems and automated search for fault states”, Paper XIII-2 in vol. 3 of “Proc. of the Topical Meeting on Probabilistic Analysis of Nuclear Reactor Safety”, ANS, La Grange Park, I II. (May 1978).Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    J.R. Taylor, “A semi-automatic method for qualitative failure mode analysis”, Risoe M-1707, Research Establishment Risoe, Roskilde, Denmark (Aug. 1974).Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    S.L. Salem, G.E. Apostolakis and D. Okrent, “A computer-oriented approach to fault-tree construction”, EPRI-NP-288, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, Calif. (1976).Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    K.A. Solomon, D. Okrent and W.E. Kastenberg, “A prediction of the reliability of the cooling system for a high pressure gas-cooled reactor”, UCLA-ENG-7495, Univ. of California, Los Angeles, Calif. (Jan. 1975).Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    L. Caldarola, “Fault-tree analysis with multistate components”, Paper VI11-1, in Vol. 3 of “Proc. of the Topical Meeting on Probabilistic Analysis of Nuclear Reactor Safety”, ANS, La Grange Park, III.(May 1978 ).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1980

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. Garribba
    • 1
  • P. Mussio
    • 2
  • F. Naldi
    • 2
  1. 1.CESNEF, Instituto Ing. NuclearePolitecnico di MilanoMilanoItaly
  2. 2.CNRMilanoItaly

Personalised recommendations