IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/reensy/v96y2011i3p410-424.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Dynamic behavioural model for assessing impact of regeneration actions on system availability: Application to weapon systems

Author

Listed:
  • Monnin, Maxime
  • Iung, Benoit
  • Sénéchal, Olivier

Abstract

Mastering system availability all along the system life cycle is now a critical issue with regards to systems engineering. It is more true for military systems which operate in a battle context. Indeed as they must act in a hostile environment, they can become unavailable due to failures of or damage to the system. In both cases, system regeneration is required to restore its availability. Many approaches based on system modelling have been developed to assess availability. However, very few of them take battlefield damage into account and relevant methods for the model development are missing. In this paper, a modelling method for architecture of weapon system of systems that supports regeneration engineering is proposed. On the one hand, this method relies on a unified failure/damage approach to extend acknowledged availability models. It allows to integrate failures, damages, as well as the possibility of regeneration, into operational availability assessment. Architectures are modelled as a set of operational functions, supported by components that belong to platform (system). Modelling atoms (i.e. elementary units of modelling) for both the architecture components and functions are defined, based on state-space formalism. Monte Carlo method is used to estimate availability through simulation. Availability of the architecture is defined on the basis of the possible states of the required functions for a mission. The states of a function directly depend on the state of the corresponding components (i.e. the components that support the function). Aggregation rules define the state of the function knowing the states of each component. Aggregation is defined by means of combinatorial equations of the component states. The modelling approach is supported by means of stochastic activity network for the models simulation. Results are analysed in terms of graphs of availability for mission's days. Thus, given the simulation results, it is possible to plan combat missions based on criteria such as the number of platforms to be involved given functions required for the mission or the mean of regeneration to be deployed given the possible threats. Further, the simulation will help towards the design of improved architecture of system of systems which could focus on the factors affecting the availability.

Suggested Citation

  • Monnin, Maxime & Iung, Benoit & Sénéchal, Olivier, 2011. "Dynamic behavioural model for assessing impact of regeneration actions on system availability: Application to weapon systems," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 96(3), pages 410-424.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:reensy:v:96:y:2011:i:3:p:410-424
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2010.10.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0951832010002176
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ress.2010.10.002?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. K. Sadananda Upadhya & N. K. Srinivasan, 2005. "System simulation for availability of weapon systems under various missions," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(4), pages 309-322.
    2. Muller, Alexandre & Suhner, Marie-Christine & Iung, Benoît, 2008. "Formalisation of a new prognosis model for supporting proactive maintenance implementation on industrial system," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 93(2), pages 234-253.
    3. Korczak, Edward & Levitin, Gregory, 2007. "Survivability of systems under multiple factor impact," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 92(2), pages 269-274.
    4. Clavareau, Julien & Labeau, Pierre-Etienne, 2009. "A Petri net-based modelling of replacement strategies under technological obsolescence," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 94(2), pages 357-369.
    5. Dutuit, Y. & Innal, F. & Rauzy, A. & Signoret, J.-P., 2008. "Probabilistic assessments in relationship with safety integrity levels by using Fault Trees," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 93(12), pages 1867-1876.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hicham Jabrouni & Bernard Kamsu-Foguem & Laurent Geneste & Christophe Vaysse, 2013. "Analysis reuse exploiting taxonomical information and belief assignment in industrial problem solving," Post-Print hal-03526094, HAL.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lijie, Chen & Tao, Tang & Xianqiong, Zhao & Schnieder, Eckehard, 2012. "Verification of the safety communication protocol in train control system using colored Petri net," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 8-18.
    2. Hokstad, Per, 2014. "Demand rate and risk reduction for safety instrumented systems," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 12-20.
    3. Le Son, Khanh & Fouladirad, Mitra & Barros, Anne & Levrat, Eric & Iung, Benoît, 2013. "Remaining useful life estimation based on stochastic deterioration models: A comparative study," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 165-175.
    4. Khanh T.P. Nguyen & Thomas Yeung & Bruno Castanier, 2017. "Acquisition of new technology information for maintenance and replacement policies," International Journal of Production Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 55(8), pages 2212-2231, April.
    5. Kiswendsida Abel Ouedraogo & Julie Beugin & El‐Miloudi El‐Koursi & Joffrey Clarhaut & Dominique Renaux & Frederic Lisiecki, 2018. "Toward an Application Guide for Safety Integrity Level Allocation in Railway Systems," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(8), pages 1634-1655, August.
    6. Oliveira, Luiz Fernando & Abramovitch, Rafael Nelson, 2010. "Extension of ISA TR84.00.02 PFD equations to KooN architectures," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 95(7), pages 707-715.
    7. Alizadeh, Siamak & Sriramula, Srinivas, 2018. "Impact of common cause failure on reliability performance of redundant safety related systems subject to process demand," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 172(C), pages 129-150.
    8. Innal, Fares & Lundteigen, Mary Ann & Liu, Yiliu & Barros, Anne, 2016. "PFDavg generalized formulas for SIS subject to partial and full periodic tests based on multi-phase Markov models," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 160-170.
    9. Montoro-Cazorla, Delia & Pérez-Ocón, Rafael, 2014. "Matrix stochastic analysis of the maintainability of a machine under shocks," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 11-17.
    10. Rebello, Sinda & Yu, Hongyang & Ma, Lin, 2018. "An integrated approach for system functional reliability assessment using Dynamic Bayesian Network and Hidden Markov Model," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 124-135.
    11. Xie, Lin & Lundteigen, Mary Ann & Liu, Yiliu, 2021. "Performance analysis of safety instrumented systems against cascading failures during prolonged demands," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 216(C).
    12. Traore, M. & Chammas, A. & Duviella, E., 2015. "Supervision and prognosis architecture based on dynamical classification method for the predictive maintenance of dynamical evolving systems," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 120-131.
    13. Torres-Echeverría, A.C. & Martorell, S. & Thompson, H.A., 2011. "Modeling safety instrumented systems with MooN voting architectures addressing system reconfiguration for testing," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 96(5), pages 545-563.
    14. W Mechri & C Simon & K Ben Othman, 2011. "Uncertainty analysis of common cause failure in safety instrumented systems," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 225(4), pages 450-460, December.
    15. Misuri, Alessio & Landucci, Gabriele & Cozzani, Valerio, 2021. "Assessment of safety barrier performance in the mitigation of domino scenarios caused by Natech events," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).
    16. Liang, Zhenglin & Parlikad, Ajith Kumar & Srinivasan, Rengarajan & Rasmekomen, Nipat, 2017. "On fault propagation in deterioration of multi-component systems," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 72-80.
    17. Zhang, Aibo & Srivastav, Himanshu & Barros, Anne & Liu, Yiliu, 2021. "Study of testing and maintenance strategies for redundant final elements in SIS with imperfect detection of degraded state," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    18. Cai, Baoping & Liu, Yu & Fan, Qian, 2016. "A multiphase dynamic Bayesian networks methodology for the determination of safety integrity levels," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 105-115.
    19. Singh, Gurmeet & Anil Kumar, T.Ch. & Naikan, V.N.A., 2019. "Efficiency monitoring as a strategy for cost effective maintenance of induction motors for minimizing carbon emission and energy consumption," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 184(C), pages 193-201.
    20. Meysam MALEKI & Virgilio CRUZ MACHADO, 2013. "Generic Integration of Lean, Agile, Resilient, and Green Practices in Automotive Supply Chain," REVISTA DE MANAGEMENT COMPARAT INTERNATIONAL/REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL COMPARATIVE MANAGEMENT, Faculty of Management, Academy of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania, vol. 14(2), pages 237-248, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:reensy:v:96:y:2011:i:3:p:410-424. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/reliability-engineering-and-system-safety .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.