/ osate2 Public

# K ormore calculates failure probability wrong#1976

Closed
opened this issue Aug 30, 2019 · 9 comments
Closed

# K ormore calculates failure probability wrong #1976

opened this issue Aug 30, 2019 · 9 comments
Assignees
Labels
Milestone

### reteprelief commented Aug 30, 2019

 Use the test case issue1837 and change the failure probability of a node to 0.2. For the case 2 ormore we should get .104: 1 - Rs with Rs = 2RR - 2 * RRR with R = 1 - 0.2 However, I get a negative number (-0.41) The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:

### reteprelief commented Aug 30, 2019

 I used info from the following links for the formula above. http://reliawiki.org/index.php/Fault_Tree_Diagrams_and_System_Analysis voting or gate http://reliawiki.org/index.php/RBDs_and_Analytical_System_Reliability k-out-of-n Parallel Configuration

### jjhugues commented Aug 30, 2019 • edited

 Peter, agreed about the negative value, an oversight when reorganizing the additions in the final computation. Patch is ready But the value you get is for 2 out of 3. 2 or more out of 3 should be ( (2 out of 3) or (3 out of 3), hence 0.112 = 0.104 + 0.2^3

### jjhugues commented Aug 30, 2019

 Oh, I may have interpreted that to strictly. @reteprelief can you please confirm?

### reteprelief commented Sep 3, 2019

 Jerome, the voting OR gate section of http://reliawiki.org/index.php/Fault_Tree_Diagrams_and_System_Analysis states that "In a Voting OR gate, the output event occurs if or more of the input events occur. " http://reliawiki.org/index.php/RBDs_and_Analytical_System_Reliability is a little confusing as it calls the logic k-out-of-n and presents it as success logic. The text states "This type of configuration requires that at least components succeed out of the total parallel components for the system to succeed." The fail logic would be 1 - Psuccess. I interpreted this as n-k ormore failures.

### reteprelief commented Sep 3, 2019

 The formula for 2 ormore of 3 failure would be P1P2(1-P3) + P1*(1-P2)P3 + (1-P1)P2P3 + P1P2P3 which leads to P1P2 + P2P3 + P1P3 - 2P1P2P3. For all components with the same P it would be 3PP - 2PPP where P is the failure rate.

### reteprelief commented Sep 3, 2019

 Just noticed the multiply symbol is interpreted as Italic on/off :-) Only one actually shows.

mentioned this issue Sep 3, 2019

### reteprelief commented Sep 3, 2019

 Jerome, when I assign different values to the three Modules in you test case I still do not get the right numbers. When they are the same the numbers are ok. Example: in TMR_Archetype.impl EMV2 annex properties emv2::OccurrenceDistribution => [ProbabilityValue => 0.1; ] applies to ^Module_1@Failure; emv2::OccurrenceDistribution => [ProbabilityValue => 0.2; ] applies to ^Module_2@Failure; emv2::OccurrenceDistribution => [ProbabilityValue => 0.3; ] applies to ^Module_3@Failure; The result should be .098 but is .064 From http://reliawiki.org/index.php/RBDs_and_Analytical_System_Reliability: Hardware drive example: The reliability of HD #1 is 0.9, HD #2 is 0.88 and HD #3 is 0.85, all at the same mission time. (Failure rates 0.1, 0.12, 0.15). The result should be 0.0414 but is 0.03376

### jjhugues commented Sep 4, 2019

 Translating old BASIC stuff remembered me I had to double check indexes. This should now be settled. Thanks for your reviews @reteprelief

### lwrage commented Sep 4, 2019

 Fixed via PR #1982

closed this as completed Sep 4, 2019