This article explains information flow diagrams (IFDs) in great detail. With these models, scenarios leading to dangerous failures as well as spurious shutdowns can be generated, taking into account several failure modes for basic components. These scenarios can be evaluated in a qualitative and quantified way. For an efficient solution different BDD-techniques were combined, mainly zero suppressed BDDs and binary expression diagrams. It is shown how these techniques were used for the model and how a large BDD is created by assembling several smaller diagrams, so that even large and complex systems can be described and evaluated in a compact and efficient way.
PockMBelhadaouiHMalass'eOWalterM, ‘Efficient generation and representation of failure lists out of an information flux model for modeling safety critical systems’ In Proceedings of the European Safety and Reliability Conference (ESREL 2008), pp. 1829–1838 (Taylor & Francis Ltd).
2.
BraceKRudellRBryantR, ‘Efficient implementation of a BDD package’ (1990) In 27th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference, pp. 40–45 (IEEENew York).
3.
ZangXSungNTriverdiK. S., ‘A BDD-based algorithm for reliability analysis of phased-mission systems’IEEE Trans. Reliability48 (1) (1999): 50–60.
4.
Ibanez-LlanoCMelendezENietoF, ‘Variable ordering schemes to apply to the binary decisions diagram methodology for event tree sequences assessment’J. Risk Reliability222 (1/2008) (2008): 7–16.
5.
RauzyA. B., ‘Some disturbing facts about depth-first left-most variable ordering heuristics for binary decision diagrams’J. Risk Reliability222 (4/2008) (2008): 573–582.
6.
ContiniS, ‘Quantification of fault trees containing mutually exclusive events’J. Risk Reliability222 (4/2008) (2008): 623–634.
7.
Ibanez-LlanoCRauzyAMelandezENietoF, ‘Minimal cutsets-based reduction approach for the use of binary decision diagrams on probabilistic safety assessment fault tree models’J. Risk Reliability223 (4/2009) (2009): 301–311.
8.
MinatoS, ‘Zero-supressed BDDs for set manipulation in combinatorical problems’ (1993) In 30th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference, pp. 272–277 (ACM/IEEE).
9.
AndersenHHulgaardH, ‘Boolean expression diagrams’ (1997) In 12th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in computer science, pp. 88–111 (IEEE).
10.
PapadopoulosYGranteCGrunskeLKaiserB, ‘Continuous assessment of designs and re-use in model-based safety analysis’ (2005) In 16th IFAC World Congress, Prague.
11.
WalterMTrinitisC, ‘Automatic generation of state based dependability models: from availability to safety’ In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Architecture of computing systems (ARCS 2007 pp. 47–54 (VDE-VerlagBerlin).
12.
PresscottDAndrewsJ, ‘A cause consequence analysis approach to modelling multi-platform phased missions’ (2009): 419–437 In Advances in Risk and Reliability Technology Symposium, 2009, Loughborough, UK, pp.
13.
PrescottD. R.Remenythe-PrescottRReedSAndrewsJ. D.DownesC. G., ‘A reliability analysis method using binary decision diagrams in phased mission planning’J. Risk Reliability223 (2/2009) (2009): 133–143.
EchtleKKimmeskampTJaquetSMalass'eOPockMWalterM, ‘Reliability analysis of a control systems built using remote redundancy’ (2009): 335–346 In Advances in Risk and Reliability Technology Symposium, pp.
