Quantification of Priority-OR Gates in Temporal Fault Trees

  • Ernest Edifor
  • Martin Walker
  • Neil Gordon
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7612)


Fault Tree Analysis has been used in reliability engineering for many decades and has seen various modifications to enable it to analyse fault trees with dynamic and temporal gates so it can incorporate sequential failure in its analysis. Pandora is a technique that analyses fault trees logically with three temporal gates (PAND, SAND, POR) in addition to Boolean gates. However, it needs extending so it can probabilistically analyse fault trees. In this paper, we present three techniques to probabilistically analyse one of its temporal gates – specifically the Priority-OR (POR) gate. We employ Monte Carlo simulation, Markov analysis and Pandora’s own logical analysis in this solution. These techniques are evaluated and applied to a case study. All three techniques are shown to give essentially the same results.


Safety Fault Trees Dynamic Fault Trees Markov Chains Monte Carlo Pandora 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Vesely, W.E., Stamatelatos, M., Dugan, J.B., et al.: Fault tree handbook with aerospace applications. NASA office of safety and mission assurance, Washington DC (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Merle, G., Roussel, J.: Algebraic modelling of fault trees with priority AND gates. In: IFAC Workshop on Dependable Control of Discrete Systems, pp. 175–180 (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dugan, J.B., Bavuso, S.J., Boyd, M.A.: Dynamic fault-tree for fault-tolerant computer systems. IEEE Transactions on Reliability 41(3), 363–376 (1992)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Merle, G.: Algebraic modelling of dynamic fault trees, contribution to qualitative and quantitative analysis. Dissertation, Décole Normale Supérieure De Cachan (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tang, Z., Dugan, J.B.: Minimal cut set/sequence generation for dynamic fault trees. In: Reliability And Maintainability Symposium (RAMS), Los Angeles, January 26-29 (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Walker, M., Papadopoulos, Y.: Synthesis and analysis of temporal fault trees with PANDORA: The Time of Priority AND Gates. Nonlinear Analysis Hybrid Systems 2(2008), 368–382 (2006)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Walker, M.D.: Pandora: A Logic for the Qualitative Analysis of Temporal Fault Trees. Dissertation. University of Hull (2009)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fussel, J.B., Aber, E.F., Rahl, R.G.: On the quantitative analysis of Priority-AND failure logic. IEEE Transactions on Reliability R-25(5), 324–326 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Walker, M., Papadopoulos, Y.: Qualitative Temporal Analysis: Towards a full implementation of the Fault Tree Handbook. Control Engineering Practice 17(2009), 1115–1125 (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Vesely, W.E., Goldberg, F.F., Roberts, N.H., Haasl, D.F.: Fault Tree Handbook. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC (1981)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Andrews, J.A.: To Not or Not to Not. In: Proceedings of the 18th International System Safety Conference, Fort Worth, pp. 267–275 (September 2000)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sharvia, S., Papadopoulos, Y.: Non-coherent modelling in compositional fault tree analysis. In: The International Federation of Automatic Control, Seoul, July 6-11 (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Esary, D., Proschan, F.: Coherent Structures with Non-Identical Components. Technometrics 5(2), 191–209 (1963)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Department of Defence, Military Handbook: electronic reliability design handbook, Webbooks (1998), (accessed June 27, 2011)
  15. 15.
    Pukite, J., Pukite, P.: Modelling for reliability analysis. Wiley-IEEE Press, New York (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Weisstein, E.W.: Monte Carlo Method, MathWorld (2011), (Accessed August 01, 2011)
  17. 17.
    Rao, D.K., et al.: Dynamic fault tree analysis using Monte Carlo simulation in probabilistic safety assessment. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 94(4), 872–883 (2008)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rocco, C.M., Muselli, M.: A machine learning algorithm to estimate minimal cut and path sets from a Monte Carlo simulation. In: Proceedings Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management PSAM7/ESREL 2004, pp. 3142–3147. Springer, Berlin (2004)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Manian, R., Dugan, B.J., Coppit, D., Sullivan, K.J.: Combining various solution techniques for dynamic fault tree analysis of computer systems. In: Third IEEE International High-Assurance Systems Engineering Symposium, pp. 21–28. IEEE Computer Society (2002)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Isograph Limited, Reliability Workbench Version 11 User Guide, p. 392 (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ernest Edifor
    • 1
  • Martin Walker
    • 1
  • Neil Gordon
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of HullHullUK

Personalised recommendations