All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.

Information Report

Category:
## Education

Published:

Views: 5 | Pages: 15

Extension: PDF | Download: 0

Share

Related documents

Description

Loughborough University Institutional Repository Assessing systems reliability: a Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) approach This item was submitted to Loughborough University's Institutional Repository

Transcript

Loughborough University Institutional Repository Assessing systems reliability: a Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) approach This item was submitted to Loughborough University's Institutional Repository by the/an author. Citation: MORCOS, M., Assessing systems reliability: a Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) approach. IN: Proceedings of 18th AR2TS, Advances in Risk and Reliability Technology Symposium Loughborough University, April Additional Information: This is a conference paper. Further details of the conference are available at: Metadata Record: https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/2134/5391 Please cite the published version. This item was submitted to Loughborough s Institutional Repository (https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/) by the author and is made available under the following Creative Commons Licence conditions. For the full text of this licence, please go to: Assessing Systems Reliability: A Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) Approach Abstract Maged Morcos Department of Electronic and Electrical Engineering, Systems Engineering Innovation Centre (SEIC), Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK Assessing the reliability performance of complex system involves dealing with events whose occurrence cannot be predicted easily. Not only a good descriptive procedure of the system's components is required but the solution requires some means by which the likelihood of the events can be expressed in terms of quantitative methods. This can be done by adopting a probabilistic risk and reliability assessment method to assess system behaviour. This requires enhancing the reliability analysis with a probabilistic risk analysis technique. The procedure of integration suggested in this work is called Probabilistic Risk Analysis [PRA]. It involves: 1) Identification of the potential events of failures and their modes of failures. 2) Estimation of the consequences of these failures on the total system. 3) Estimation of the probability of occurrence of each event of failure. 4) Comparison of the results of the analysis against an acceptability criterion or criteria. The third step is the focus of this paper where the novelty of this work appears. Rather than drawing a deterministic FTD for identifying probability of occurrences of the failure events a probabilistic one is suggested to cater for any risks or uncertainties involved in the system. By allowing probabilistic input of basic events a probabilistic top event is produced giving managers more freedom to check among a range of failure probabilities that the system might fall in rather than one limited deterministic failure value. This gives more practicality to the assessment of the whole system resulting in better actions and higher reliable performance. 1. Systems Failure and Their Causes Failure of a system or a component in a system can be a catastrophic phenomenon which may result in severe physical and social consequences. Systems failure - either engineering systems, management systems or sociotechnical ones or other sort of defined systems - can be caused by a vast number of factors which may interactively contribute towards the failure of a system s performance as a whole. As Sauer [1] put it in his study for systems failures: All kinds of technological and organisational systems suffer failure . Typically, each type of system experiences a different kind of failure within its own field. Sauer's statement can be seen to be valid when it comes to complex systems which is expected to work in complex interrelated subsystems. However, the major problem that faces systems engineers is the quantification of risk involved in the performance of the system with its different components. Obviously, this quantification will facilitate the prediction of the system success or its failure and malfunctioning. Thus, the problem of risk quantification should be fully recognised and thoroughly looked into to get 1 a realistic picture of the size of the failure problem. Additionally, in the author's personal opinion, there is a big drawback in the way systems engineers assess their system performance, mainly due to: 1. Only applying deterministic methods in their assessment without forecasting or understanding the stochastic nature of the factors influencing the system's internal and external performance. 2. Lack of establishment of a reliable and effective method by which they can monitor, audit and evaluate all component performance and predict the possibilities of failure in their functions before accepting the system for operation. 2. System Reliability Assessment To avoid these drawbacks systems engineers need a method that can ensure the robustness and flexibility of their system to cope with any malfunctioning and uncertainties. They need to perform system reliability assessment to evaluate the performance of all the individual components of the system. Reliability analysis offers the solution. Furthermore, in order to understand the probabilistic nature of the system this paper suggests that systems engineers should not only apply qualitative reliability techniques in assessing the performance of their system but quantitative probabilistic risk methods must also be introduced [2] and [3]. Unfortunately, most studies done in reliability evaluation highlight and diagnose the problem in qualitative rather than quantitative terms [4]. Confirming the importance of introducing quantitative reliability methods Andrews and Moss [5] showed that reliability technology has benefited significantly from applying some qualitative and quantitative reliability techniques such as Fault Trees, Markov and human reliability analysis. 2.1 Terminology and Definition of Reliability Aggarwal [6] quoted a detailed definition by the Electronics Industries Association (EIA) which defined reliability in general terms by stating that: Reliability of an item ( a component, a complex system, a computer program or a human-being) is defined as the probability of performing its purpose adequately for the period of time under the operating and environmental conditions encountered . Similar definitions of reliability can be found in articles written by a number of authors and reliability theorists such as [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12] and [13]. 2.2 Objective of Probabilistic Analysis Reliability theory is mainly concerned with the occurrence and non-occurrence of failure events. Probability theory, on the other hand, is used along with reliability theory to enable managers to determine the chances of occurrence of these uncertain events quantitatively. The objective of probabilistic analysis of systems is to assess the degree of guarantee, from a system performance perspective, which can be associated with a given system during its operation. Thus assessing the risks associated with system s components is useful for improving their functions by minimising chances of their occurrence. 2 3. Risk Assessment Before analysing systems reliability it is important to understand what is risk assessment. Risk assessment is widely recognised as a systematic process for quantitatively (or qualitatively) describing risk. Bedford and Cook [14] characterise risk with two particular elements: hazard (a source of danger) and uncertainty (quantified by probability). The total risk is the sum of the products of the consequences multiplied by their probabilities. 3.1 The Challenge: Realising the Problem Expectations of reliability are increasing and the consequences of reducing systems failure have never been greater. Systems engineers are committed to supplying reliable systems with low risk associated with them. To maintain that commitment into the future, systems engineers must address an array of uncertainties. In this uncertain environment, the traditional methods of performing system reliability assessments are no longer adequate. The traditional tools use a deterministic approach to calculate the impact of potentially disruptive events, without regard to the probability of their occurrence. A probabilistic approach is therefore required for assessing the performance of the system with its components. 3.2 The Solution: Introducing the Probabilistic Risk Assessment Assessing the reliability performance of complex system involves dealing with events whose occurrence cannot be predicted easily. Not only a good descriptive procedure of the system s components is required but also the solution requires some means by which the likelihood of the events can be expressed in terms of quantitative methods. This places an emphasis on the importance of enhancing the reliability analysis with probabilistic risk analysis technique for evaluating system s risk in terms of calculating its failure events and the corresponding range of probabilities values associated with those failures. This procedure of integration has been extensively and successfully used to evaluate complex systems under the name of Probabilistic Safety or Risk Analysis [PSA/PRA]. PRA is an approach developed over the last 20 years to estimate quantitatively the risks associated with complex engineering systems, such as nuclear power plants, chemical process facilities, waste products and space systems. 4. The Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) Approach 4.1 PRA Characteristics PRA enables decision makers to balance reliability and risk. PRA provides a more accurate tool for assessing systems reliability. Unlike traditional deterministic contingency analysis tools, PRA calculates a measure of the probability of undesirable events and a measure of their severity or impact. In a PRA, risk is characterised by two quantities [15]: 1. The magnitude (severity) of the possible adverse consequence(s) (for example failure of a certain component or components in a mechanical 3 or electrical physical system, failure percentage of a department in a socio-technical system,..etc.). 2. The likelihood (probability) of occurrence of each consequence. (i.e., the number of occurrences or the corresponding probability value to every departmental failure percentage, etc.). PRA usually answers three basic questions [3]: 1. What can go wrong with the studied system, or what are the initiators or initiating events (undesirable starting events) that lead to adverse consequence(s)? 2. What and how severe are the potential detriments, or the adverse consequences that the system may be eventually subjected to as a result of the occurrence of the initiator? 3. How likely to occur are these undesirable consequences, or what are their probabilities or frequencies? The answer to the first question is a set of failure scenarios. The second question requires the evaluation of the probabilities of these scenarios, while the third estimates their consequences. Two common methods of answering this last question are the Event Tree Analysis and Fault Tree Analysis [16], and [17]. The last one is the one this work will employ for illustrating the proposed PRA approach. 4.2 PRA Stages In this work it is recommended to use quantitative risk and reliability techniques together with the qualitative ones for building a Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) approach for assessing system reliability. The proposed PRA involves four main stages under two main risk headings: 1. Risk estimation: which encompasses a detailed description of the risks scenarios, this includes: 1) Identification of the potential events and their modes of failures. 2) The estimation of the consequences of these failures on the total system. 2. Risk acceptability: which involves determination of an acceptable level to the risk encountered and to ask how safe is safe enough? This includes: 3) The estimation of the probability of occurrence of each event of failure. 4) Comparison of the results of the analysis against acceptability criteria. The first two stages of risk estimation are mainly performed using qualitative risk and reliability techniques like the Reliability Block Diagram (RBD) to represent the connections between system s components and the Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA) to represent the knowledge about the system's performance in terms of identifying the potential failing events and their mode of failures in addition to their consequences on the total system function then preparing what is called Knowledge Base Production Rules (KBPR). These methods will be illustrated in the application example at the end of this paper. However, for more understanding of how they are prepared the reader can refer to references like: [5], [7], [9], [18], [19], and [20]. On the other hand, the third and fourth stages of risk acceptability use different quantitative techniques to provide the probabilistic assessment suggested in this work. For more details, see for example [2], [6], [8], [10] and [21]. 4 The third stage is the main focus of this paper where it suggests transforming the qualitative Fault Tree Diagram (FTD) of the Fault Tree Analysis (FTA) to a quantitative one for identifying the probability of occurrences of the system s failure events. This is done by entering the expected failure percentages (rates) of all the basic events and their corresponding probabilities values, then calculating the expected failure percentages and the corresponding probabilities values of all dependent (intermediate) events followed by the top undesired event as will be shown in the illustrative example next. 5. Illustrating the PRA Approach in an Example 5.1 Systems Description To illustrate how the proposed PRA approach in this work can give insight into probabilistic evaluation and assessment of reliability to the system performance, the system under investigation is a physical system used to pass electric power to two terminals personal computers as shown in Figure 1. The system is composed of a Source (S) motor power which is connected in series to a Circuit Breaker (CB). Both are connected in series to two groups of couple Transformers (TR1 and TR2) and couple of personal computer terminals (PC1 and PC2) where each group of transformers is connected in series to one personal computer terminal. Both joined groups are joined in parallel connection. The source of this example is obtained from literature on reliability evaluation [9]. Similar types of systems can be found in [12] but representing electric bulbs instead of computer terminals. Figure 1: Computer Network System Original Model (Source: Pages and Gondran,1986 [9]) 5.2 System Reliability Assessment: The PRA Approach Main assumption: In this computer system, it is assumed that in real application any of the components of the system can be defective at any time during its operation and that systems engineers cannot wait until they monitor the failure of each component in application then record them for future remedy actions. Hence a formal reliability evaluation to predict potential modes of failures, their possible causes and their effects on the total system performance has to be conducted. Furthermore, systems engineers have to define the possible failure scenarios of the system and to predict beforehand, either from previous experience (if it is an existing system) or by guess (if it is a new system), the expected failure percentage of every basic event that can happen and the likelihood (probability) of its occurrence. To show how this reliability evaluation can be performed, the author has developed a DSS programme called ManageRely (Management Reliability) to illustrate the steps of this PRA approach. The application was initially designed to assess 5 the reliability of a socio-technical system of organisations in the construction industry. However, the same programme is used, in this work, to illustrate the PRA procedure to assess the reliability of this physical computer system. It is worth mentioning here that a short overview was done on available PRA software in the market. There are many Probabilistic Safety Assessment (PSA) software packages out there, but there is only one for the serious PSA professional: RISKMAN. It incorporates the four major steps of PSA analysis into one package: data analysis, system analysis, natural hazard analysis and event tree analysis. It makes use of modern mathematical techniques for avoiding approximations. However, when approximations must be done, the exact value of the error is calculated which can help in reducing the guessing of how accurate your results are. SAPHIRE (Systems Analysis Programs for Hands-on Integrated Reliability Evaluations) is another probabilistic risk and reliability assessment software tool developed for the U.S. nuclear regulatory commission (NRC) by the Idaho National Laboratory. SAPHIRE gives a user the ability to create and analyze fault trees and event trees using a personal computer. In terms of reliability evaluation fault trees can be constructed and analysed to obtain different measure of system unreliability, event importance measures, include: Fussell-Vesely; Birnbaum; risk increase ratio and interval; risk reduction ratio and interval; group; and uncertainty importance. Another risk analysis software is RiskSpectrum ; Risk Management Software which is a product of the most advanced Risk and Reliability Analysis software in the world. The software includes advanced tools for fault tree and event tree analysis, documentation, risk monitoring and failure mode and effect analysis. All these packages do not use the 2nd-order assessments as recommended by ManagerRely. Although more work required to make ManageRely a commercial package, it is sought here that it is still useful in analysing and assessing the probability of failure of systems, especially those of management systems that does not need high mathematical accuracy as mechanical and electrical systems. It can give systems management a sense of the ranges the failure of their departments can fall within. This is done using a two dimensional probabilistic approach rather than one dimensional deterministic value. Figure 2: RBD for the Computer System Model (as Appears in ManageRely Programme) 6 5.3 Steps of the PRA Methodology The first step in the PRA process starts with the systems engineers performing a thoroughly systems approach study where the main mission, goals and objectives of the system and its components are identified and defined. Then, for reliability evaluation, the system is displayed and modelled on a chart called Reliability Block Diagram (RBD) showing series, parallel or series-parallel relationships between its various components, as in Figure 2. The second step is to perform PRA as follows: A] Applying Qualitative Reliability Techniques: This is done by using: 1) The Failure Mode and Effect Analysis [FMEA]: where a detailed study is performed to identify the modes of failure expected in the system and to determine their possible causes of failure with their effect on the total system. Figure 3 illustrates the FMEA table as represented in ManageRely for the whole system. This is followed by applying a qualitative representation called: Figure 3: FMEA of The Whole System (as Appears in ManageRely Programme) 2) The Knowledge Based Production Rules [KBPR]: as in Figure 4 which aims to represent the knowledge about the system in a comprehensive manner using 'If..then failure scenario. This important technique then facilitates the application of: Figure 4: KBPRs For The Computer System (as Appears in ManageRely Programme) 3) The Fault Tree Analysis [FTA]: where the qualitative Fault Tree Diagram [qual_ftd] is constructed as shown in Figure 5 where its branches demonstrate the KBPR table. FTA has the advantage of identifying the weak components of the system on the screen of the computer to assist managers to assess their performance and allow to make necessary actions for 7 improving their performance. In this qualitative FTD, as shown in Figure 5, the Top Event TE (failure supply to the PC1 and PC2, which means the failure of the whol

Recommended

Related Search

We Need Your Support

Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks

SAVE OUR EARTH

We need your sign to support Project to invent "SMART AND CONTROLLABLE REFLECTIVE BALLOONS" to cover the Sun and Save Our Earth.

More details...Sign Now!

We are very appreciated for your Prompt Action!

x