Abstract
In Chap. 3, we have seen the approach and methodology for component reliability modeling. However, the aim of any reliability analysis is to model a system and complete a plant in an integrated manner so that decisions can be made using insights available at the system level and lower down at the component level. Even at the component level, reliability modeling may require an understanding of various operational states and associated failure modes. The analysis may require assessment of the probability of a component in more than one state or condition. For example, analysis of an electronic module may require, apart from the module’s operating state and failed state, the probability of detection and location. Reliability modeling may require modeling for contribution of repair to arrive at statement of system unavailability. Hence, characterization of the reliability of basic components or subsystems depends on the objective function and aim of the analysis.
Success consists of going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm.
Winston Churchill, Goalcast
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Procedures for Performing a Failure Modes, Effects, and Criticality Analysis, MIL-STD-1629
Potential Failure Mode and Effects Analysis in Design (Design FMEA), Potential Failure Mode and Effects Analysis in Manufacturing, SAE J1739
Failure Modes and Effects Analysis and Critical Items List Requirements for Space Station, SSP 30234
International Standard, Analysis Technique for System Reliability—Procedure for Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA), IEC-60812 (IEC, 2006)
M. Modarres, M. Kaminskiy, V. Krivtsov, Reliability Engineering and Risk Analysis—Practical Guide, 2nd edn. (CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group, 2010)
International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA Safety Standards—Development and Application of Level 1 Probabilistic Safety Assessment for Nuclear Power Plants, IAEA Safety Guide No SSG-3 (IAEA Headquarters, Vienna, 2010)
C. Acosta, N. Siu, Dynamic event trees in accident sequence analysis: application to steam generator tube ruptures. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 41, 135–154 (1993)
T. Aldemir, A survey of dynamic methodologies for probabilistic safety assessment of nuclear power plants. Ann. Nucl. Energy 52, 113–124 (2013)
E. Hofer, M. Kloss, B. Krzykacz-Hausmann, J. Peschke, M. Sonnenkalb, Dynamic Event Trees for Probabilistic Safety Assessment, http://www.eurosafe-forum-org/sites/default/files/euro-2-2-10-trees-probabilistic.pdf
L. Andreas, T. Norberg, L. Rosan, Approximate dynamic fault tree calculations for modeling water supply risks. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 106, 61–71 (2002)
K.D. Rao, V. Gopika, S.V. Rao, H. Kushwaha, A. Verma, A. Srividya, Dynamic fault tree analysis using Monte Carlo simulation in probabilistic safety assessment. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 94, 822–883 (2009)
C. Acosta, N. Sui, Dynamic Event Tree Analysis Method (DETAM) for Accident Sequence Analysis, Final Report NRC-04-88-143 (USNRC, Washington DC, Oct 1991)
M. Cepin, B. Mavko, A dynamic fault tree. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 75, 83–91 (2002)
D. Marko, S. Ilic, J. Glisovic, D. Catic, Dynamic fault tree analysis of Lawnmower, in 9th International Quality Conference, Center for Quality, Faculty of Engineering, University of Kragujevac, June 2015
H. Boudali, P. Crouzen, M. Steolinga, Dynamic Fault Tree Analysis Using Input/Output Interactive Markov Chains
M. Guillaume, R. Jean-Marc, L. Jean-Jacques, Dynamic fault tree analysis, based on the structure function, in Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium 2011, (RAMS 2011), Jan 2011
P. Bucci, J. Kirschenbaum, A. Mangan, T. Aldemir, Construction of event tree/fault tree models from a Markov approach to dynamic system modelling. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 93, 1616–1627 (2008)
C. Shannon, A symbolic analysis of relays and switching circuits. Trans. AIEE 57(12), 713–723 (1938)
R. Bryant, Graph based algorithms for boolean function manipulation. IEEE Trans. Comput. 35(8), 677–691 (1987)
A. Rauzy, New algorithms for fault trees analysis. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 40, 203–211 (1993)
A.K. Reay, J.D. Andrews, A fault tree analysis strategy using binary decision diagrams. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 78, 45–56 (2002)
C. Ibanez Llano, A. Rauzy, E. Melendez, F. Nieto, A reduction approach to improve the quantification of linked fault trees through binary decision diagram. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 95, 1314–1323 (2010)
NASA, Fault Tree Handbook with Aerospace Applications Version 1.1 (NASA Office of Safety and Mission Assurance, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546, Aug 2002)
G. Daochuan, L. Meng, Y. Yanhua, Z. Ruoxing, C. Qiang, Quantitative analysis of dynamic fault trees using improved sequential binary decision diagrams. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 142, 289–299 (2015)
J. Andrews, S. Dunnett, Event Tree Analysis Using Binary Decision Diagram, www.lboro.ac.uk/microsites/maths/research/preprints/…/99-25.pdf
R. Sinnamon, J.D. Andrews, Fault tree analysis and binary decision diagram, in Reliability and Maintainability Symposium, 1996 Proceedings, 1996 IEEE. 07803-3112-5/96/
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Varde, P.V., Pecht, M.G. (2018). System Reliability Modeling. In: Risk-Based Engineering. Springer Series in Reliability Engineering. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0090-5_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0090-5_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-13-0088-2
Online ISBN: 978-981-13-0090-5
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)