Principal steps in reliability engineering include estimation of system reliability and identification and quantification of situations which cause a system failure. There are several techniques that can be used to solve these tasks. Some of them are based on minimal cut (path) sets, which represent minimal sets of basic events, whose simultaneous occurrence leads to a failure (repair) of the system. In this article, applications of minimal cut (path) sets in reliability analysis are summarized, and their connection with direct partial Boolean derivatives is studied. In reliability analysis, direct partial Boolean derivatives identify situations in which a failure (repair) of one system component results in a system failure (repair). Therefore, they reveal the influence of one system component on the whole system. However, minimal cut (path) sets define the influence of a simultaneous failure (repair) of a group of system components on the system activity. Therefore, there should be some correlation between direct partial Boolean derivatives and minimal cut (path) sets. This correlation is studied in this article, and as a result, new algorithms for identification of minimal cut (path) sets are proposed based on this correlation.
UshakovIA. Handbook of reliability engineering. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1994, 704 pp.
2.
BarlowREProschanF. Importance of system components and fault tree events. Stoch Proc Appl1975; 3: 153–173.
3.
FussellJB. How to hand-calculate system reliability and safety characteristics. IEEE T Reliab1975; R-24: 169–174.
4.
VeselyWE. A time-dependent methodology for fault tree evaluation. Nucl Eng Des1970; 13: 337–360.
5.
LimniosN. Fault trees. London: ISTE Ltd, 2007, 150 pp.
6.
GertsbakhIBShpunginY. Models of network reliability: analysis, combinatorics, and Monte Carlo. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2009, 217 pp.
7.
TanZ. Minimal cut sets of s–t networks with k-out-of-n nodes. Reliab Eng Syst Safe2003; 82: 49–54.
8.
OikawaTKondoMMizunoY. Development of systems reliability analysis code SECOM-2 for seismic PSA. Reliab Eng Syst Safe1998; 62: 251–271.
9.
ParkCKJungWSYangJE. A PSA-based vital area identification methodology development. Reliab Eng Syst Safe2003; 82: 133–140.
10.
VeselyWE. Reliability and fault tree applications at the NRTS. IEEE T Nucl Sci1971; 18: 472–480.
11.
WatanabeYOikawaTMuramatsuK. Development of the DQFM method to consider the effect of correlation of component failures in seismic PSA of nuclear power plant. Reliab Eng Syst Safe2003; 79: 265–279.
12.
LingZShan-ShuiYLinC. Reliability analysis of DC power distribution network based on minimal cut sets. In: 14th European conference on power electronics and applications (EPE 2011), Birmingham, 30 August–1 September 2011, pp.1–7. New York: IEEE.
13.
LijuanLKangWZhiyongA. The research on fault diagnosis technique of aerocamera exposure board. In: IEEE international conference on grey systems and intelligent services, Nanjing, China, 18–20 November 2007, pp.1502–1504. New York: IEEE.
14.
NystromBAustrinLAnkarbackN. Fault tree analysis of an aircraft electric power supply system to electrical actuators. In: International conference on probabilistic methods applied to power systems (PMAPS 2006), Stockholm, 11–15 June 2006, pp.1–7. New York: IEEE.
15.
HaarlaLPulkkinenUKoskinenM. A method for analysing the reliability of a transmission grid. Reliab Eng Syst Safe2008; 93: 277–287.
16.
LambertH. Use of fault tree analysis for automotive reliability and safety analysis. SAE technical paper 2004-01-1537, 2004.
17.
Xiao-linLQing-zhenY. Research on fault tree based complex electronic device fault diagnosis expert system. In: International conference on data storage and data engineering (DSDE), Bangalore, India, 9–11 February 2010, pp.69–72. New York: IEEE.
18.
XueBinZ. Fault tree analysis on the causes of public safety incidents of water pollution in Three Gorges Reservoir. In: International conference on information science and technology (ICIST), Nanjing, China, 26–28 March 2011, pp.1394–1396. New York: IEEE.
19.
ČepinM. Analysis of truncation limit in probabilistic safety assessment. Reliab Eng Syst Safe2005; 87: 395–403.
20.
HwangYJChowLRHuangHC. A knowledge-based approach to the evaluation of fault trees. Reliab Eng Syst Safe1996; 52: 77–85.
21.
ChoiJSChoNZ. A practical method for accurate quantification of large fault trees. Reliab Eng Syst Safe2007; 92: 971–982.
22.
BrownKS, Evaluating fault trees (AND and OR gates only) with repeated events.IEEE T Reliab1990; 39: 226–235.
23.
ContiniSMatuzasV. Analysis of large fault trees based on functional decomposition. Reliab Eng Syst Safe2011; 96: 383–390.
24.
SinnamonRMAndrewsJD. New approaches to evaluating fault trees. Reliab Eng Syst Safe1997; 58: 89–96.
25.
VatnJ. Finding minimal cut sets in a fault tree. Reliab Eng Syst Safe1992; 36: 59–62.
26.
RauzyA. New algorithms for fault trees analysis. Reliab Eng Syst Safe1993; 40: 203–211.
27.
JungWSHanSHHaJ. A fast BDD algorithm for large coherent fault trees analysis. Reliab Eng Syst Safe2004; 83: 369–374.
28.
BolligBWegenerI. Improving the variable ordering of OBDDs is NP-complete. IEEE T Comput1996; 45: 993–1002.
29.
RochdiZDrissBMohamedT. Industrial systems maintenance modelling using Petri nets. Reliab Eng Syst Safe1999; 65: 119–124.
30.
LiuTSChiouSB. The application of Petri nets to failure analysis. Reliab Eng Syst Safe1997; 57: 129–142.
31.
AhmadSH. Simple enumeration of minimal cutsets of acyclic directed graph. IEEE T Reliab1988; 37: 484–487.
32.
SinghB. Enumeration of node cutsets for an s-t network. Microelectron Reliab1994; 34: 559–561.
33.
YanLTahaHALandersTL. A recursive approach for enumerating minimal cutsets in a network. IEEE T Reliab1994; 43: 383–388.
34.
FardNSLeeT-H. Cutset enumeration of network systems with link and node failures. Reliab Eng Syst Safe1999; 65: 141–146.
35.
YehWC. Search for all MCs in networks with unreliable nodes and arcs. Reliab Eng Syst Safe2003; 79: 95–101.
36.
EmadiAAfrakhteH. A novel and fast algorithm for locating minimal cuts up to second order of undirected graphs with multiple sources and sinks. Int J Elec Power2014; 62: 95–102.
37.
RebaiaiaMLAit-KadiD. New technique for generating minimal cut sets in nontrivial network. AASRI Procedia2013; 5: 67–76.
38.
ShenY. A new simple algorithm for enumerating all minimal paths and cuts of a graph. Microelectron Reliab1995; 35: 973–976.
39.
YehWC. A simple algorithm for evaluating the k-out-of-n network reliability. Reliab Eng Syst Safe2004; 83: 93–101.
40.
YehWC. A new algorithm for generating minimal cut sets in k-out-of-n networks. Reliab Eng Syst Safe2006; 91: 36–43.
41.
YehWC. An improved algorithm for searching all minimal cuts in modified networks. Reliab Eng Syst Safe2008; 93: 1018–1024.
42.
ZaitsevaENLevashenkoVG. Importance analysis by logical differential calculus. Automat Rem Contr2013; 74: 171–182.
43.
EiterTMakinoKGottlobG. Computational aspects of monotone dualization: a brief survey. Discrete Appl Math2008; 156: 2035–2049.
44.
EiterTGottlobG. Identifying the minimal transversals of a hypergraph and related problems. SIAM J Comput1995; 24: 1278–1304.
45.
ElbassioniKM. On the complexity of monotone dualization and generating minimal hypergraph transversals. Discrete Appl Math2008; 156: 2109–2123.
46.
KhachiyanLBorosEElbassioniK. An efficient implementation of a quasi-polynomial algorithm for generating hypergraph transversals and its application in joint generation. Discrete Appl Math2006; 154: 2350–2372.
47.
RauzyA. Mathematical foundations of minimal cutsets. IEEE T Reliab2001; 50: 389–396.
48.
FredmanMLKhachiyanL. On the complexity of dualization of monotone disjunctive normal forms. J Algorithm1996; 21: 618–628.
49.
GurvichVKhachiyanL. On generating the irredundant conjunctive and disjunctive normal forms of monotone Boolean functions. Discrete Appl Math1999; 96–97: 363–373.
50.
PosthoffCSteinbachB. Logic functions and equations: binary models for computer science. Dordrecht: Springer, 2004, 392 pp.
51.
TuckerJHTapiaMABennettAW. Boolean integral calculus for digital systems. IEEE T Comput1985; C–34: 78–81.
52.
LisnianskiALevitinG. Multi-state system reliability: assessment, optimization and applications. Singapore: World Scientific, 2003, 376 pp.
53.
SchneeweissWG. Calculating the probability of Boolean expression being 1. IEEE T Reliab1977; R-26: 16–22.
54.
SchneeweissWG. A short Boolean derivation of mean failure frequency for any (also non-coherent) system. Reliab Eng Syst Safe2009; 94: 1363–1367.
55.
SohSRaiS. An efficient cutset approach for evaluating communication-network reliability with heterogeneous link-capacities. IEEE T Reliab2005; 54: 133–144.
56.
KuoWZhuX. Importance measures in reliability, risk, and optimization: principles and applications. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2012, 471 pp.
57.
RausandMHøylandA. System reliability theory: models, statistical methods, and applications. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2004, 636 pp.
58.
MoretBMEThomasonMG. Boolean difference techniques for time-sequence and common-cause analysis of fault-trees. IEEE T Reliab1984; R-33: 399–405.
59.
AkersSB. On a theory of Boolean functions. J Soc Ind Appl Math1959; 7: 487–498.
60.
BochmannDPosthoffC. Binary dynamic systems. Berlin: Academic Verlag, 1981, 320 pp. (in German).
61.
ShmerkoVPYanushkevichSNLyshevskiSE. Computer arithmetics for nanoelectronics. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2009, 780 pp.
62.
DutuitYRauzyA. Efficient algorithms to assess component and gate importance in fault tree analysis. Reliab Eng Syst Safe2001; 72: 213–222.
63.
ZioELibrizziMSansaviniG. Determining the minimal cut sets and Fussell-Vesely importance measures in binary network systems by simulation. In Guedes SoaresCZioE (eds) Safety and reliability for managing risk. London: Taylor & Francis Group, 2006, pp.723–729.
64.
AssafTDuganJBBechta DuganJ. Diagnostic expert systems from dynamic fault trees. In: Annual reliability & maintainability symposium, Los Angeles, CA, 26–29 January 2004, pp.444–450. New York: IEEE.
65.
MengFC. Comparing the importance of system components by some structural characteristics. IEEE T Reliab1996; 45: 59–65.
