Safety systems and protection systems can experience
two phases of operation (standby and active); an accurate
dependability analysis must combine an analysis of both phases.
The standby mode can last for a long time, during which the safety
system is periodically tested and maintained. Once a demand occurs,
the safety system must operate successfully for the length of
demand. The failure characteristics of the system are different in
the two phases, and the system can fail in two ways:
1) It can fail to start (fail on-demand), or
2) It can fail while in active mode.
Failure on demand requires an availability analysis of components
(typically electromechanical components) which are
required to start or support the safety system. These support
components are usually maintained periodically while not in
active use.
Active failure refers to the failure while running (once started)
of the active components of the safety system. These active components
can be fault tolerant and use spares or other forms of redundancy,
but are not maintainable while in use.
The approach, in this paper, automatically combines the “availability
analysis of the system in standby mode” with the “reliability
analysis of the system in its active mode.” The general approach
uses an availability analysis of the standby phase to determine the
initial state probabilities for a Markov model of the demand phase.
A detailed method is presented in terms of a dynamic fault-tree
model. A new “dynamic fault-tree construct” captures the dependency
of the demand-components on the support systems, which
are required to detect the demand or to start the demand system.
The method is discussed using a single example sprinkler system
and then applied to a more complete system taken from the offshore
industry.
History
School
Aeronautical, Automotive, Chemical and Materials Engineering
Department
Aeronautical and Automotive Engineering
Citation
MESHKAT, L., DUGAN, J.B. and ANDREWS, J.D., 2002. Dependability analysis of systems with on-demand and active failure modes, using dynamic fault trees. IEEE Transactions on Reliability, 51 (2), pp 240-251