System Structures: Defn. 2.1 Reliability

DK598X_book.
fm Page 7 Monday, January 24, 2005 11:11 PM
2
System Structures
The point of departure for the study of reliability and main-

tenance planning is the elementary definition of the term
reliability. As mentioned in Chapter 1, the technical definition
of reliability is similar to the colloquial definition but is more
precise. Formally, the definition is
Defn. 2.1: Reliability is the probability that a device prop-
erly performs its intended function over time when oper-
ated within the environment for which it is designed.
Observe that there are four specific attributes of this
definition of reliability. The four attributes are (1) probability,
(2) proper performance, (3) qualification with respect to envi-
ronment, and (4) time. All four are important. Over this and
the next several chapters, we explore a series of algebraic
models that are used to represent equipment reliability. We
develop the models successively by sequentially including in
the models each of the four attributes identified in the above
definition. To start, consider the representation of equipment
performance to which we refer as function.
2.1 STATUS FUNCTIONS

The question of what constitutes proper operation or proper
function for a particular type of equipment is usually specific
7
DK598X_book.fm Page 8 Monday, January 24, 2005 11:11 PM
8 Nachlas
to the equipment. Rather than attempt to suggest a general

definition for proper function, we assume that the appropriate
definition for a device of interest has been specified, and we
represent the functional status of the device as
 1 if the device functions properly

φ
0 if the device is failed
Note that this representation is intentionally binary. We
assume here that the status of the equipment of interest is
Downloaded by [Engineers Australia ] at 01:25 15 May 2014
either satisfactory or failed. There are many types of equip-

ment for which one or more derated states are possible. Dis-
cussion of this possibility is postponed until the end of this
chapter.
We presume that most equipment is comprised of com-
ponents and that the status of the device is determined by
the status of the components. Accordingly, let n be the number
of components that make up the device and define the com-
ponent status variables, xi , as
 1 if component i is functioning
xi 
0 if component i is failed
so the set of n components that comprise a device is repre-
sented by the component status vector:
{
x = x1 , x2 ,........, xn }
Next, we represent the dependence of the device status
on the component status as the function
φ = φ( x) (2.1)
and the specific form for the function is determined by the
way in which the components interact to determine system
function. In the discussions that follow, φ(x) is referred to as
a “system structure function” or as a “system status function”
or simply as a “structure.” In all cases, the intent is to reflect
System Structures 9
the dependence of the system state upon the states of the

components that comprise the system. A parenthetical point
is that the terms “device” and “system” are used here in a
generic sense and may be interpreted as appropriate.
An observation concerning the component status vector
is that it is defined here as a vector of binary elements so that
an n-component system has 2n possible component status
vectors. For example, a three-component system has 2 3 = 8
component status vectors. They are
{1, 1, 1} {1, 0, 1}
{1, 1, 0} {1, 0, 0}
{0, 1, 1} {0, 0, 1}
{0, 1, 0} {0, 0, 0}
Each component status vector yields a corresponding
value for the system status function, φ.
From a purely mathematical point of view, there is no
reason to limit the definition of the system status function,
so forms that have no practical interpretation can be con-
structed. In order to avoid any mathematically correct but
practically meaningless forms for the system status function,
we limit our attention to coherent systems.
Defn. 2.2: A coherent system is one for which the system
structure function is nondecreasing in each of its argu-
ments.
This means that for each element of the component sta-
tus vector, xi, there exists a realization of the vector for which
φ( x1 , ...., xi−1 , 0, xi+1 , ....., xn ) < φ( x1 , ...., xi−1 , 1, xi+1 , ....., xn ) (2.2)
Throughout our study of reliability, we will limit our attention
to algebraic forms that comply with this restriction.
Generally, we expect that the physical relationships
among the components determine the algebraic form of the
system status function, φ.
10 Nachlas
2.2 SYSTEM STRUCTURES AND STATUS FUNCTIONS

Among reliability specialists, it is generally accepted that
there are four generic types of structural relationships
between a device and its components. These are (1) series, (2)
parallel, (3) k out of n, and (4) all others. Consider each of
these forms in sequence.
2.2.1 Series Systems

The simplest and most commonly encountered configuration
of components is the series system. The formal definition of

a series system is:
Defn. 2.3: A series system is one in which all components
must function properly in order for the system to function
properly.
The conceptual analog to the series structure is a series-
type electrical circuit. However, unlike a series circuit, it is
specifically not implied here that the components must be
physically connected in sequence. Instead, the point of empha-
sis is the requirement that all components function. An exam-
ple of a series system in which the components are not
physically connected is the set of legs of a three-legged stool.
Another is the set of tires on an automobile. In both examples,
the components are not physically connected to each other in
a linear configuration. Nevertheless, all of the components
must function properly for the system to operate.
The concept of a series circuit is commonly used to define
a graphical representation of a series structure. For three com-
ponents, this is shown in Figure 2.1. In general, representations
of system structures such as the one in Figure 2.1 are referred
to as reliability block diagrams. They are often helpful in under-
standing the relationships between components.
1 2 3
Figure 2.1 Reliability block diagram for a series system.

System Structures 11
For the series structure, the requirement that all com-

ponents must function in order for the system to function
implies that a logical algebraic form for the system structure
function is
φ( x) = min xi
i
{ } (2.3)
but an equivalent and more useful form is

n
φ( x) = ∏x
i (2.4)
i =1
As examples, consider a three-component series system

and the cases
x1 = x2=1, x3 = 0 and φ( x) = 0
x1 = 1, x2 = x3 = 0 and φ( x) = 0
x1 = x2 = x3 = 1 and φ( x) = 1
Only the functioning of all components yields system
function.
2.2.2 Parallel System

The second type of structure is the parallel structure. The
conceptual analog is again the corresponding electrical circuit,
and the definition is:
Defn. 2.4: A parallel system is one in which the proper
function of any one component implies system function.
It is again emphasized that no specific physical connec-
tions among the components are implied by the definition or
by the reliability block diagram. Figure 2.2 shows the reli-
ability block diagram for a three-component parallel system.
One example of a parallel system is the set of two engines
on a two-engine airplane. As long as at least one engine
functions, flight is sustained. However, this example implies
that simply maintaining flight corresponds to proper function.
12 Nachlas
2
Figure 2.2 Reliability block diagram for a three-component par-

allel system.
It is a worthwhile debate to discuss when this is and when it

is not an appropriate example of a parallel system.
Another example that is more appealing is the fact that
the communications satellites presently in use have triple
redundancy for each communications channel. That is, three
copies of each set of transmitting components are installed in
the satellite and arranged in parallel in order to assure con-
tinued operation of the channel. In view of the fact that this
implies significant weight increases over the use of only sin-
gle-configuration transmitters, the satellite provides an exam-
ple of the importance of reliability as well as one of a parallel
structure.
In a similar manner to that for the series system, the
structure function for the parallel system may be defined as
φ( x) = max xi
i
{ } (2.5)
An alternate form that is more amenable to analytical

manipulation can be defined using a shorthand developed by
Barlow and Proschan [11].
φ( x) = x
i=1
i (2.6)
The inverted product symbol, ∏, is called “ip” and is defined as
n n
x = 1 − ∏ (1 − x )
i=1
i
i=1
i (2.7)
Once mastered, this shorthand is very convenient. Example

cases for the three component parallel system are
x1 = x2 = 1, x3 = 0, and φ( x) = 1
x1 = 1, x2 = x3 = 0, and φ( x) = 1
x1 = x2 = x3 = 0, and φ( x) = 0
Conceptually, a parallel system is failed only when all

system components are failed.
Before leaving the discussion of parallel structures, it is
appropriate to mention the fact that the parallel arrangement
of components is often referred to as redundancy. This is
because the proper function of any of the parallel components
implies proper function of the structure. Thus, the additional
components are redundant until a component fails. Fre-
quently, parallel structures are included in product designs
specifically because of the resulting redundancy. Often but
not always, the parallel components are identical. At the same
time, there are actually several ways in which the redundancy
may be implemented. A distinction is made between redun-
dancy obtained using a parallel structure in which all com-
ponents function simultaneously and that obtained using
parallel components of which one functions and the other(s)
wait as standby units until the failure of the functioning unit.
Models that describe the reliability of active redundancy and
of standby redundancy are presented at the end of Chapter 4.
14 Nachlas
2.2.3 k-out-of-n Systems

The third type of structure is the k-out-of-n structure. There
is no obvious conceptual analog for this structure. A formal
definition of it is:
Defn. 2.5: A k-out-of-n system is one in which the proper
function of any k of the n components that comprise the
system implies proper system function.
The usual approach to constructing the reliability block
diagram for the k-out-of-n system is to show a parallel dia-
gram and to provide an additional indication that the system

is k out of n.
An example of a k-out-of-n system is the rear axle of a
large tractor-trailer on which the functioning of any three out
of the four wheels is sufficient to assure mobility. Another
example is the fact that some (1–k) electronic memory arrays
are configured so that the operation of any 126 of the 128
memory addresses corresponds to satisfactory operation.
The algebraic representation of the structure function for
a k-out-of-n system is not as compact as those for series and
parallel systems. Given the definition of the relationship
between component and system status, the most compact
algebraic form for the structure function is
 n
1
φ( x) = 
if ∑x ≥ k
i =1
i
(2.8)

0 otherwise
Example cases for a 3 out of 4 system are
x1 = x2 = x3 = 1, x4 = 0, and φ( x) = 1
x1 = x2 = 1, x3 = x4 = 0, and φ( x) = 0
x1 = x2 = x3 = 0, x4 = 1, and φ( x) = 0
Note that a series system may be considered as an n-out-
of-n system and a parallel system may be viewed as a 1-out-
of-n system. Thus, the k-out-of-n form provides a generaliza-

tion that is sometimes useful in analyzing system perfor-
mance in a generic context.
As indicated above, the fourth class of component config-
urations is the set of all others that are conceivable. This
statement is not intended to be misleading. Instead, it is
intended to imply that we can establish an equivalence
between any arbitrary component configuration and one
based on series and parallel structures. The process of con-
structing equivalent structures is explained in the next sec-
tion and is illustrated with a classic example.
2.2.4 Equivalent Structures

The selection of a component configuration is usually made
by the device designer in order to assure a specific functional
capability. The configuration selected may not match one of
the classes discussed above. In such a case, there are two
ways by which we can obtain equivalent structural forms that
may be easier to analyze than the actual one. The two ways
are to use either minimum-path or minimum-cut analyses of
the network representation of the system.
As a vehicle for illustrating the two methods, we use the
Whetstone bridge. The reliability block diagram for the bridge
is shown in Figure 2.3. Notice that the bridge structure is not
1 4
2 5
Figure 2.3 Reliability block diagram for a Whetstone bridge.

16 Nachlas
Table 2.1 System Status Values for

the Bridge Structure
x φ(x) x φ(x)
{1, 1, 1, 1, 1} 1 {0, 1, 1, 1, 1} 1
{1, 1, 1, 1, 0} 1 {0, 1, 1, 1, 0} 1
{1, 1, 1, 0, 1} 1 {0, 1, 1, 0, 1} 1
{1, 1, 1, 0, 0} 0 {0, 1, 1, 0, 0} 0
{1, 1, 0, 1, 1} 1 {0, 1, 0, 1, 1} 1
{1, 1, 0, 1, 0} 1 {0, 1, 0, 1, 0} 0
{1, 1, 0, 0, 1} 1 {0, 1, 0, 0, 1} 1
{1, 1, 0, 0, 0} 0 {0, 1, 0, 0, 0} 0
{1, 0, 1, 1, 1} 1 {0, 0, 1, 1, 1} 0
{1, 0, 1, 1, 0} 1 {0, 0, 1, 1, 0} 0
{1, 0, 1, 0, 1} 1 {0, 0, 1, 0, 1} 0
{1, 0, 1, 0, 0} 0 {0, 0, 1, 0, 0} 0
{1, 0, 0, 1, 1} 1 {0, 0, 0, 1, 1} 0
{1, 0, 0, 1, 0} 1 {0, 0, 0, 1, 0} 0
{1, 0, 0, 0, 1} 0 {0, 0, 0, 0, 1} 0
{1, 0, 0, 0, 0} 0 {0, 0, 0, 0, 0} 0
series, parallel, or k-out-of-n. Thus, the above algebraic rep-

resentations cannot be used directly to provide a statement
of the system status function.
We can obtain a system status function for the bridge in
several ways. One obvious approach is to enumerate all of the
component status vectors, to determine the system status for
each vector, and to construct a table of system status values.
For the five-component bridge structure, this is readily done,
and the result is the given in Table 2.1. On the other hand,
systems having a greater number of components cannot be
handled so easily.
The use of minimum paths will permit us to analyze the
bridge structure and other larger systems as well. Start with
some definitions:
Defn. 2.6: A path vector, x, is a component status vector
for which the corresponding system status function has
a value of 1.
Defn. 2.7: A minimum-path vector, x, is a path vector for
which any vector y < x has a corresponding system status
function with a value of 0.
Defn. 2.8: A minimum-path set, Pj , is the set of indices of

a minimum-path vector for which the component status
variable has a value of 1.
These definitions identify the component status vectors
that correspond to system function and those vectors that are
minimal in the sense that any reduction in the number of
functioning components implies system failure. For the bridge
structure, the minimum-path vectors and minimum-path sets
are
{1, 0, 0, 1, 0} P1 = {1, 4}
{0, 1, 0, 0, 1} P2 = {2, 5}
{1, 0, 1, 0, 1} P3 = {1, 3, 5}
{0, 1, 1, 1, 0} P4 = {2, 3, 4}
Next, consider the elements of a minimum path and
define a status function for each minimum path. That is,
represent the functional status of each path using the func-
tions ρ(x). Since all of the components in a minimum path
must function in order for the path to represent proper func-
tion, the components in a minimum path may be viewed as
a series system. Hence, in general,
ρ j ( x) = ∏x
i∈Pj
i (2.9)
and for the example bridge structure,
ρ1 ( x) = ∏x = x x
i∈P1
i 1 4
ρ2 ( x) = ∏x = x x
i∈P2
i 2 5
ρ3 ( x) = ∏x = x x x
i∈P3
i 1 3 5
18 Nachlas
ρ4 ( x) = ∏x = x x x
i∈P4
i 2 3 4
Now, observe that the original system will function if any

of the minimum paths is functioning. Therefore, we may view
the system as a parallel arrangement of the minimum paths.
Algebraically, this means
φ( x) = ρ ( x) = ∏ x
j i (2.10)
j j i∈Pj
For the bridge structure, this expression expands to
φ( x) = 1 − (1 − x1 x4 )(1 − x2 x5 )(1 − x1 x3 x5 )(1 − x2 x3 x4 )
The most important point here is that, for any component

status vector, the Expression 2.10 will always give the same
system status value as Table 2.1. That is, the parallel arrange-
ment of the minimum paths of a system with the components
of the respective minimum paths arranged in series constitutes
a system that is equivalent to the original system. Figure 2.4
shows the graphical realization of this equivalence for the
bridge structure.
It is appropriate to emphasize here the fact that the
equivalent structure has exactly the same status function
value as the original structure for all realizations of the com-
ponent status vector. Consequently, the minimum-path anal-
ysis permits us to identify a form for the system status
function that can be computed using only series and parallel
algebraic forms.
There is a comparable construction using the idea of cut
vectors rather than path vectors. The method based on cut
vectors may also be used for the bridge and other structures.
Again, start with some definitions:
Defn. 2.9: A cut vector, x, is a component status vector for
which the corresponding system status function has a
value of 0.
1 4
2 5
1 3 5
2 3 4
Figure 2.4 Minimum path equivalent structure for the Whetstone

bridge.
Defn. 2.10: A minimum-cut vector, x, is a cut vector for

which any vector y > x has a corresponding system status
function with a value of 1.
Defn. 2.11: A minimum-cut set, Ck, is the set of indices of
a minimum-cut vector for which the component status
variable has a value of 0.
These definitions identify the component status vectors
that correspond to system failure and those vectors that are
minimal in the sense that any increase in the number of
functioning components implies satisfactory system function.
For the bridge structure, the minimum-cut vectors and min-
imum-cut sets are
{0, 0, 1, 1, 1} C1 = {1, 2}
{1, 1, 1, 0, 0} C2 = {4, 5}
{0, 1, 0, 1, 0} C3 = {1, 3, 5}
{1, 0, 0, 0, 1} C4 = {2, 3, 4}
20 Nachlas
Based on the definition of the minimum cuts, we see that

the system will function if any of the elements of the mini-
mum-cut function. Hence, we may define a structure function
for the minimum cuts as
κ k ( x) = x
i∈Ck
i (2.11)
In general and for the specific case of the bridge structure,

we have
κ 1 ( x) = x = 1 − (1 − x )(1 − x )
i∈C1
i 1 2
κ 2 ( x) = x = 1 − (1 − x )(1 − x )
i∈C2
i 4 5
κ 3 ( x) = x = 1 − (1 − x )(1 − x )(1 − x )
i∈C3
i 1 3 5
κ 4 ( x) = x = 1 − (1 − x )(1 − x )(1 − x )
i∈C4
i 2 3 4
We observe further that the system will function only if all

of the minimum cuts are inactive — if all are functioning. If
any minimum cut is active, the system is failed, so the min-
imum cuts act as a series system with respect to system
operation (Figure 2.5).
Here again, it is appropriate to emphasize the fact that
the equivalent structure and the original structure have the
same status function value for each component status vector.
Thus, the system status may be calculated using only the
simple series and parallel forms.
One further observation concerning the equivalent struc-
tures is that one may use either the minimum-cut or the
minimum-path method. Both yield equivalent expressions for
the system status so we may use the one that appears easier
or preferable for some other reason.
1 2
1 4
3 3
2 5
5 4
Figure 2.5 Minimum cut equivalent structure for the Whetstone

bridge.
2.3 MODULES OF SYSTEMS

Most modern equipment is fairly complicated and is com-
prised of relatively many components. For example, depend-
ing upon how one counts them, one might say that there are
about 100 components in a television, 300 components in a
personal computer, and 600 components in a medium-size
automobile. Even with minimum paths or minimum cuts,
evaluating the status function for systems of this scale is too
difficult. However, it is also common to find that a complicated
system such as a television is actually comprised of sub-
systems called modules. A television usually has a power
management module, a video signal reception module, an
audio signal reception module, a sound production module, a
video projection module, and some sort of system control mod-
ule. Thus, the system may be viewed as comprised of “super
components” called modules. System status may be defined
as a function of the status modules, and the status of each
module should be a function of the components that comprise it.
To formalize this idea algebraically, assume that the n
components that comprise a system can be partitioned into
22 Nachlas
m sets of components corresponding to m modules. Let ψl(x)

represent the module status function for module l, where l =
1, … , m. Then
ψ ( x) = {ψ 1 ( x), ψ 2 ( x),........, ψ m ( x)}
is a vector of binary module status values, and the system

status is defined as
φ( x) = φ(ψ ( x)) (2.12)

Naturally, the module status functions may be evaluated

using minimum paths or cuts, and the system status may be
analyzed by treating the modules as components and applying
the minimum-path or minimum-cut methods as appropriate.
Of course, the partition of the set of components may be
performed at several levels if that is appropriate. The princi-
ple remains the same. Any meaningful decomposition of the
system components may be used to simplify the representa-
tion and analysis of the system status.
A final point here is that systems generally have only
one of each module and usually require that all modules
function properly in order for the system to operate satisfac-
torily. Thus, while it is not always the case, the modules often
comprise a series structure. Consequently, the analysis of
system behavior in terms of modules can be quite efficient.
2.4 MULTISTATE COMPONENTS AND SYSTEMS

The treatment of component and system status throughout
most of this text is limited to the case in which system state
and component states are binary. Nevertheless, it should be
recognized that for some equipment multiple states may be
meaningful. It is reasonable to define derated or otherwise
incomplete levels of performance for some equipment. It may
even be appropriate for some devices to define a continuous
state variable on the interval [0, 1]. Algebraic models for
system state using multistate components and for multistate
systems with binary components have been studied. The key
references for this work are the papers by Natvig [12] and by
Barlow and Wu [13]. In each case, the key to the construction
is the algebraic representation of the effect of component state
on system state.
Both Natvig and Barlow and Wu start by defining the
state space for the components as {0, 1, … , m} where xi = j
represents the condition that component i is in state j, the
state 0 corresponds to component failure, and the state m
corresponds to perfect functioning. The interpretation of the
intermediate states depends upon the physical characteristics
of the specific component. Using this basic format, there are

two immediately apparent approaches to defining the system
state as a function of the states of the components of a system.
One approach is to define a binary system state by par-
titioning all of the possible component status vectors into two
subsets, one for which system performance is acceptable and
the other for the case that system level performance is unac-
ceptable. Naturally, this cannot be done in general, because
the selection of members of the two subsets depends upon the
particular system.
An alternate, and more general, approach is to define the
system state to also be an element of the set {0, 1, … , m} and
to define the value of the system state using minimum-path
and minimum-cut concepts. To do this, we first specify that,
as in the case of the binary state space, the state of a series
system of multistate components is the minimum of the com-
ponent state values. Thus, Equation 2.3 applies:
φ( x) = min xi
i
{ } (2.13)
In the same manner, the state of a parallel system is the

maximum of the component state values as stated in Equation
2.5:
φ( x) = max xi
i
{ } (2.14)
Then for more general structures, we use the min paths or

min cuts to define
24 Nachlas
j

 j
i ∈P


{ }
k {
φ( x) = max min xi  = min max xi
i∈Ck
{ } } (2.15)
This general formulation may be tailored to nearly any

application. For example, one can restrict some of the compo-
nents to only a subset of the m+1 states. One may also incor-
porate the multistate status measure within a modular
decomposition in whatever manner is meaningful. Finally,
this formulation has the appealing feature that it subsumes
the binary case.
2.5 EXERCISES
1. Construct the minimum-path and minimum-cut
equivalent structures for a 2-out-of-3 system.
equivalent structures for a three-component series
system.
equivalent structures for a three-component parallel
system.
4. Identify the primary modules of an automobile.
equivalent structures for the following system:
1 2 3
4 5
6 7

5 7
2
3 4 6
9

1 3 5
4
26 Nachlas
8. Construct and compare the minimum-path and min-

imum-cut equivalent structures for the following sys-
tems:
1 3
1 3
2 4 2 4

System Structures: Defn. 2.1 Reliability

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

System Structures: Defn. 2.1 Reliability

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DK598X_book.

fm Page 7 Monday, January 24, 2005 11:11 PM

The point of departure for the study of reliability and main-

2.1 STATUS FUNCTIONS

to the equipment. Rather than attempt to suggest a general

 1 if the device functions properly

either satisfactory or failed. There are many types of equip-

the dependence of the system state upon the states of the

2.2 SYSTEM STRUCTURES AND STATUS FUNCTIONS

2.2.1 Series Systems

of components is the series system. The formal deﬁnition of

Figure 2.1 Reliability block diagram for a series system.

For the series structure, the requirement that all com-

but an equivalent and more useful form is

As examples, consider a three-component series system

2.2.2 Parallel System

Figure 2.2 Reliability block diagram for a three-component par-

It is a worthwhile debate to discuss when this is and when it

An alternate form that is more amenable to analytical

The inverted product symbol, ∏, is called “ip” and is deﬁned as

Once mastered, this shorthand is very convenient. Example

Conceptually, a parallel system is failed only when all

2.2.3 k-out-of-n Systems

gram and to provide an additional indication that the system

Example cases for a 3 out of 4 system are

of-n system. Thus, the k-out-of-n form provides a generaliza-

tion and is illustrated with a classic example.

2.2.4 Equivalent Structures

Figure 2.3 Reliability block diagram for a Whetstone bridge.

Table 2.1 System Status Values for

series, parallel, or k-out-of-n. Thus, the above algebraic rep-

Defn. 2.8: A minimum-path set, Pj , is the set of indices of

and for the example bridge structure,

Now, observe that the original system will function if any

For the bridge structure, this expression expands to

φ( x) = 1 − (1 − x1 x4 )(1 − x2 x5 )(1 − x1 x3 x5 )(1 − x2 x3 x4 )

The most important point here is that, for any component

Figure 2.4 Minimum path equivalent structure for the Whetstone

Defn. 2.10: A minimum-cut vector, x, is a cut vector for

Based on the deﬁnition of the minimum cuts, we see that

In general and for the speciﬁc case of the bridge structure,

We observe further that the system will function only if all

Figure 2.5 Minimum cut equivalent structure for the Whetstone

2.3 MODULES OF SYSTEMS

m sets of components corresponding to m modules. Let ψl(x)

ψ ( x) = {ψ 1 ( x), ψ 2 ( x),........, ψ m ( x)}

is a vector of binary module status values, and the system

φ( x) = φ(ψ ( x)) (2.12)

Naturally, the module status functions may be evaluated

2.4 MULTISTATE COMPONENTS AND SYSTEMS

of the speciﬁc component. Using this basic format, there are

In the same manner, the state of a parallel system is the

Then for more general structures, we use the min paths or

This general formulation may be tailored to nearly any

6. Construct the minimum-path and minimum-cut

7. Construct the minimum-path and minimum-cut

8. Construct and compare the minimum-path and min-

You might also like