The Community for Technology Leaders
RSS Icon
Issue No.01 - January-March (2009 vol.6)
pp: 4-17
Salvatore Distefano , University of Messina, Messina
Antonio Puliafito , University of Messina, Messina
Dependability evaluation is an important step in designing and analyzing (critical) systems. Introducing control and/or computing devices to automate processes increases the system complexity with an impact on the overall dependability. This occurs as a consequence of interferences and similar effects that can not be adequately managed through reliability block diagrams (RBD), fault trees (FT) and reliability graphs (RG), since the statistical independence assumption is not satisfied. Also more enhanced formalisms such as dynamic FT (DFT) might not be adequate to represent all the behavioral aspects of dynamic systems. To overcome these problems we developed a new formalism derived from RBD: the dynamic RBD (DRBD). DRBD exploit the concept of dependence as the building block to represent dynamic behaviors, allowing to compose the dependencies and adequately managing the arising conflicts by means of a priority algorithm. In this paper we explain how to use the DRBD notation by specifying a practical methodology. Starting from the system knowledge, the proposed methodology drives to the overall system reliability evaluation through the entire phases of modeling and analysis. An example taken from literature, consisting of a multiprocessor distributed computing system, is analyzed.
Control Structure Reliability, Testing, and Fault-Tolerance, Reliability, availability, and serviceability, Theory and models, Formal models, System architectures, integration and modeling
Salvatore Distefano, Antonio Puliafito, "Dependability Evaluation with Dynamic Reliability Block Diagrams and Dynamic Fault Trees", IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing, vol.6, no. 1, pp. 4-17, January-March 2009, doi:10.1109/TDSC.2007.70242
[1] Reliasoft Publishing, System Analysis Reference: Reliability Availability and Optimization. 2003.
[2] M. Marseguerra and E. Zio, Basics of the Monte Carlo Method with Application to System Reliability. LiLoLe Verlag, 2002.
[3] H. Kamal and B.M. Ayyub, “Reliability Assessment of Structural Systems Using Discrete-Event Simulation,” Proc. 13th ASCE Eng. Mechanics Division Specialty Conf., June 1999.
[4] K.S. Trivedi, Probability and Statistics with Reliability, Queueing andComputer Science Applications, second ed. John Wiley & Sons, Nov. 2001.
[5] M. Veeraraghavan and K.S. Trivedi, “A Combinatorial Algorithm for Performance and Reliability Analysis Using Multistate Models,” IEEE Trans. Computers, vol. 43, no. 2, pp.229-234, Feb. 1994.
[6] M. Bouissou and J.-L. Bonc, “A New Formalism that Combines Advantages of Fault Trees and Markov Models: Boolean-Logic-Driven Markov Processes,” Reliability Eng. and System Safety, vol. 82, no. 2, pp. 149-163, Nov. 2003.
[7] M. Malhotra and K.S. Trivedi, “Dependability Modeling Using Petri Nets,” IEEE Trans. Reliability, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 428-440, Sept. 1995.
[8] A. Bobbio, G. Franceschinis, R. Gaeta, and L. Portinale, “Parametric Fault Tree for the Dependability Analysis of Redundant Systems and Its High-Level Petri Net Semantics,” IEEE Trans. Software Eng., vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 270-287, Mar. 2003.
[9] S. Montani, L. Portinale, A. Bobbio, and D.C. Raiteri, “Automatically Translating Dynamic Fault Trees into Dynamic Bayesian Networks by Means of a Software Tool,” Proc. First IEEE Int'l Conf. Availability, Reliability and Security (ARES '06), pp. 804-809, 2006.
[10] M. Rausand and A. Høyland, System Reliability Theory: Models,Statistical Methods, and Applications, third ed. Wiley-IEEE, Nov. 2003.
[11] W.E. Vesely, F.F. Goldberg, N.H. Roberts, and D.F. Haasl, FaultTree Handbook, NUREG-0492, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1981.
[12] R. Sahner, K. Trivedi, and A. Puliafito, Performance and Reliability Analysis of Computer Systems: An Example-Based Approach Using the SHARPE Software Package. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1996.
[13] M.A. Boyd, “Dynamic Fault Tree Models: Techniques for Analysis of Advanced Fault-Tolerant Computer Systems,” PhD dissertation, Dept. of Computer Science, Duke Univ., Apr. 1991.
[14] J.B. Dugan, S. Bavuso, and M. Boyd, “Dynamic Fault Tree Models for Fault-Tolerant Computer Systems,” IEEE Trans. Reliability, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 363-377, Sept. 1992.
[15] S. Distefano and L. Xing, “A New Modeling Approach: Dynamic Reliability Block Diagrams,” Proc. 52nd Ann. Reliability and Maintainability Symp. (RAMS '06), Jan. 2006.
[16] S. Distefano and A. Puliafito, “System Modeling with Dynamic Reliability Block Diagrams,” Proc. European Safety and Reliability Conf. (ESREL '06), ESRA, Sept. 2006.
[17] S. Distefano, M. Scarpa, and A. Puliafito, “Modeling Distributed Computing System Reliability with DRBD,” Proc. 25th IEEE Symp. Reliable Distributed Systems (SRDS '06), pp. 106-118, 2006.
[18] S. Distefano, “System Dependability and Performances: Techniques, Methodologies and Tools,” PhD dissertation, Univ. of Messina, 2005.
[19] J.B. Dugan, K.J. Sullivan, and D. Coppit, “Developing a Low Cost High-Quality Software Tool for Fault Tree Analysis,” Proc. 10th IEEE Int'l Symp. Software Reliability Eng. (ISSRE '99), pp. 222-231, 1999.
[20] P.H. Kvam and E.A. Peña, “Estimating Load-Sharing Properties in a Dynamic Reliability System,” J. Am. Statistical Assoc., vol. 100, no. 469, pp. 262-272, Mar. 2005.
[21] D.J. Smith, Reliability, Maintainability and Risk Practical Methods for Engineers, sixth ed. Newnes, Mar. 2001.
[22] S. Distefano and A. Puliafito, “DRBD vs. DFT,” Proc. 53rd Ann. Reliability and Mantainability Symp. (RAMS '07), Jan. 2007.
[23] R. Manian, J.B. Dugan, D. Coppit, and K.J. Sullivan, “Combining Various Solution Techniques for Dynamic Fault Tree Analysis of Computer Systems,” Proc. Third IEEE Int'l High-Assurance Systems Eng. Symp. (HASE), 1998.
[24] M. Malhotra and K.S. Trivedi, “Reliability and Performability Techniques and Tools: A Survey,” Proc. Messung, Modellierung undBewertung von Rechenund Kommunikationssystemen (MMB '93), pp. 27-48, 1993.
[25] V.V. Volovoi, “Modeling of System Reliability Using Petri Nets with Aging Tokens,” Reliability Eng. and System Safety, vol. 84, no. 2, pp. 149-161, 2004.
[26] G. Bolch, S. Greiner, H. de Meer, and K.S. Trivedi, Queueing Networks and Markov Chains: Modeling and Performance Evaluation with Computer Science Applications, second ed. Wiley-Interscience, May 2006.
[27] M. Walter, M. Siegle, and A. Bode, “OpenSESAME: The Simple but Extensive, Structured Availability Modeling Environment,” Reliability Eng. and System Safety, 2007.
[28] M. Scarpa, A. Puliafito, and S. Distefano, “A Parallel Approach for the Solution of Non Markovian Petri Nets,” Proc. 10th European PVM/MPI Users' Group Conf. (EuroPVM/MPI '03), pp. 196-203, Sept. 2003.
[29] K.J. Sullivan, J.B. Dugan, and D. Coppit, “The Galileo Fault TreeAnalysis Tool,” Proc. 29th Ann. Int'l Symp. Fault-Tolerant Computing (FTCS '99), pp. 232-235, 1999.
[30] “How Do I Select the Right Modeling Tool?” Relex Software Corp. Quarter Flash, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 4-5, 2004.
[31] G. Clark, T. Courtney, D. Daly, D. Deavours, S. Derisavi, J. Doyle, W. Sanders, and P. Webster, “The Möbius Modeling Tool,” Proc. Ninth Int'l Workshop Petri Nets and Performance Models (PNPM), 2001.
[32] R.A. Sahner and K.S. Trivedi, SHARPE: Symbolic Hierarchical Automated Reliability and Performance Evaluator—Introduction and Guide for Users. Duke Univ., 1992.
[33] Reliasoft Corp., http:/, 2007.
[34] Relex Software Corp., http:/, 2007.
[35] M.A. Marsan, G. Balbo, and G. Conte, “A Class of Generalized Stochastic Petri Nets for the Performance Evaluation of Multiprocessor Systems,” ACM Trans. Computer Systems, vol. 2, pp. 93-122, 1984.
17 ms
(Ver 2.0)

Marketing Automation Platform Marketing Automation Tool