IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/risrel/v227y2013i3p302-314.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Implementing dynamic flowgraph methodology models with logic programs

Author

Listed:
  • Ilkka Karanta

Abstract

The dynamic flowgraph methodology is a promising way to find the prime implicants of a top event for a dynamic system possibly containing digital subsystems. This article demonstrates how to express dynamic flowgraph methodology models as logic programs, and top events as queries to those programs, in a natural and comprehensible way. Computation of the logic program lists the prime implicants of a top event in the system. We also present and implement an algorithm for computing the probability of the top event from its prime implicants. Together, computation of prime implicants and calculation of top event probability from these constitute a complete way of finding a system’s failure probability. Logic programs, implemented in this article in the leading logic programming language Prolog, enable rapid prototyping of dynamic flowgraph methodology models. The logic programming framework introduced here could also be utilized in teaching dynamic flowgraph methodology in risk analysis courses.

Suggested Citation

  • Ilkka Karanta, 2013. "Implementing dynamic flowgraph methodology models with logic programs," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 227(3), pages 302-314, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:risrel:v:227:y:2013:i:3:p:302-314
    DOI: 10.1177/1748006X13484425
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1748006X13484425
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1748006X13484425?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Aldemir, T. & Guarro, S. & Mandelli, D. & Kirschenbaum, J. & Mangan, L.A. & Bucci, P. & Yau, M. & Ekici, E. & Miller, D.W. & Sun, X. & Arndt, S.A., 2010. "Probabilistic risk assessment modeling of digital instrumentation and control systems using two dynamic methodologies," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 95(10), pages 1011-1039.
    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. McNelles, Phillip & Zeng, Zhao Chang & Renganathan, Guna & Lamarre, Greg & Akl, Yolande & Lu, Lixuan, 2016. "A comparison of Fault Trees and the Dynamic Flowgraph Methodology for the analysis of FPGA-based safety systems Part 1: Reactor trip logic loop reliability analysis," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 135-150.
    2. McNelles, Phillip & Renganathan, Guna & Zeng, Zhao Chang & Chirila, Marius & Lu, Lixuan, 2019. "A comparison of fault trees and the Dynamic Flowgraph Methodology for the analysis of FPGA-based safety systems part 2: Theoretical investigations," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 183(C), pages 60-83.

    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. Zio, E., 2018. "The future of risk assessment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 176-190.
    2. Babykina, Génia & Brînzei, Nicolae & Aubry, Jean-François & Deleuze, Gilles, 2016. "Modeling and simulation of a controlled steam generator in the context of dynamic reliability using a Stochastic Hybrid Automaton," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 115-136.
    3. Ghostine, Rony & Thiriet, Jean-Marc & Aubry, Jean-François, 2011. "Variable delays and message losses: Influence on the reliability of a control loop," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 96(1), pages 160-171.
    4. Yang, Jun & Zou, Bowen & Yang, Ming, 2019. "Bidirectional implementation of Markov/CCMT for dynamic reliability analysis with application to digital I&C systems," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 278-290.
    5. Favarò, Francesca M. & Saleh, Joseph H., 2016. "Toward risk assessment 2.0: Safety supervisory control and model-based hazard monitoring for risk-informed safety interventions," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 316-330.
    6. McNelles, Phillip & Zeng, Zhao Chang & Renganathan, Guna & Lamarre, Greg & Akl, Yolande & Lu, Lixuan, 2016. "A comparison of Fault Trees and the Dynamic Flowgraph Methodology for the analysis of FPGA-based safety systems Part 1: Reactor trip logic loop reliability analysis," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 135-150.
    7. Yang, Jun & Aldemir, Tunc, 2016. "An algorithm for the computationally efficient deductive implementation of the Markov/Cell-to-Cell-Mapping Technique for risk significant scenario identification," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 1-8.
    8. Brissaud, Florent & Smidts, Carol & Barros, Anne & Bérenguer, Christophe, 2011. "Dynamic reliability of digital-based transmitters," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 96(7), pages 793-813.
    9. Tyrväinen, T., 2013. "Risk importance measures in the dynamic flowgraph methodology," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 35-50.
    10. Shin, Sung-Min & Lee, Sang Hun & Shin, Seung Ki, 2022. "A novel approach for quantitative importance analysis of safety DI&C systems in the nuclear field," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 228(C).
    11. Yoo, Heejong & Heo, Gyunyoung, 2023. "Analysis of site operating state contributions for multi-unit PSA with Korean NPP Sites," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 236(C).
    12. Bolbot, Victor & Theotokatos, Gerasimos & Bujorianu, Luminita Manuela & Boulougouris, Evangelos & Vassalos, Dracos, 2019. "Vulnerabilities and safety assurance methods in Cyber-Physical Systems: A comprehensive review," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 182(C), pages 179-193.
    13. Thieme, Christoph A. & Mosleh, Ali & Utne, Ingrid B. & Hegde, Jeevith, 2020. "Incorporating software failure in risk analysis – Part 1: Software functional failure mode classification," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    14. Lee, Sang Hun & Lee, Seung Jun & Shin, Sung Min & Lee, Eun-chan & Kang, Hyun Gook, 2020. "Exhaustive testing of safety-critical software for reactor protection system," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    15. Jenab, K. & Sarfaraz, A. & Dhillon, B.S. & Seyed Hosseini, S.M., 2012. "Dynamic MLD analysis with flow graphs," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 80-85.
    16. McNelles, Phillip & Renganathan, Guna & Zeng, Zhao Chang & Chirila, Marius & Lu, Lixuan, 2019. "A comparison of fault trees and the Dynamic Flowgraph Methodology for the analysis of FPGA-based safety systems part 2: Theoretical investigations," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 183(C), pages 60-83.
    17. Bas, Esra, 2011. "An investment plan for preventing child injuries using risk priority number of failure mode and effects analysis methodology and a multi-objective, multi-dimensional mixed 0-1 knapsack model," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 96(7), pages 748-756.

    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:sae:risrel:v:227:y:2013:i:3:p:302-314. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.