INTRODUCTION

1
 Roy Billinton, Ronald N. Allan, “Reliability Evaluation of Power
Systems”, Plenum Press, New York, 1996.
 Roy Billinton, Ronald N. Allan, “Reliability Evaluation of
Engineering”, Plenum Press, New York, 1996.
 T.A. Short, “Distribution Reliability and Power Quality”, Taylor and
Francis, 2006.
 Hoang Pham, “Handbook of Reliability Engineering”, Springer,
2003.
 Anthony J. Pansini, EE, PE, “ Transmission Line Reliability and
Security”, The Fairmont Press, Inc., 2004.
 Richard E. Brown, “ Electric Power Distribution Reliability”, Marcel
Dekker, Inc. New York, 2002
 Marvin Rausand, “ System Reliability Theory”, A John Wiley &
Sons, Inc., Publication, 2004.

References
2
 • Presence : 10%
• Assignments : 20%
• Mid-semester test : 30%
• End-semester test : 40%
• Total : 100%
 Mid-semester test is closed book(s).
 End-semester test is take home exam.

Assessment
3
Availability is a subset of reliability and reliability is a subset of power
quality. Power quality deals with any deviation from a perfect
sinusoidal voltage source. Reliability deals with interruptions and
availability deals with the probability of being in an interrupted state.
Reliability
Distribution reliability primarily relates to equipment outages and
customer interruptions. In normal operating conditions, all equipment
(except standby) is energized and all customers are energized. Scheduled
and unscheduled events disrupt normal operating conditions and can
lead to outages and interruptions.
Several key definitions relating to distribution reliability include:

Contingency
Open Circuit
Fault
Outage
Momentary Interruption
Momentary Interruption Event
Sustained Interruption
Availability
Availability is the probability of something being energized. It is the most
basic
aspect of reliability and is typically measured in percent or per-unit. The
complement of availability is unavailability.
Availability — the probability of being energized.
Unavailability — the probability of not being energized.
Annual interruption times associated with different levels of availability. A
developing nation may have "one nine" of availability while an internet data
center may have "nine nines" of availability for their servers.
Unavailability can be computed directly from
interruption duration information.
If a customers experiences 9 hours of interrupted
power in a year, unavailability
is equal to 9 +- 8760 = 0.1% (there are 8760 hours in
a year). Availability is equal to 100% - 0.1% = 99.9%.
The power system is functionally and technically
divided into three subsystems

The generation system (power stations).

The transmission system (high voltage lines and switching
stations).
The distribution systems (medium voltage lines and equipments)

8
Reliability
The ability of an item to perform a required function, under given
environmental and operational conditions and for a stated period
of time (ISO8402).
The term “item” is used here to denote any component,
subsystem, or system that can be considered as an entity.
A required function may be a single function or a combination
of functions that is necessary to provide a specified service.
All technical items (components, subsystems, systems) are
designed to perform one or more (required) functions.
For a hardware item to be reliable, it must do more than meet an
initial factory performance or quality specification-it must operate
satisfactorily for a specified period of time in the actual
application for which it is intended.

9
Quality
The totality of features and characteristics of a product or service that
bear on its ability to satisfy stated or implied needs (ISO8402).
Quality is also sometimes defined as conformance to specifications
The quality of a product is characterized not only by its conformity
to specifications at the time it is supplied to the user, but also by its
ability to meet these specifications over its entire lifetime .

However, according to common usage, quality

denotes the conformity of the product to its
specification as manufactured, while reliability
denotes its ability to continue to comply with its
specification over its useful life. Reliability is
therefore an extension of quality into the time
domain.
10
 RELIABILITY AND AVAILABILITY

Reliability is the probability of a component / device / system

staying in the operating state without failure.

Availability is interpreted as the probability of finding the

component / device / system in the operating state at some time
into the future.

11
Availability
The ability of an item (under combined aspects of its reliability,
maintainability and maintenance support) to perform its required
function at a stated instant of time or over a stated period of time
(BS4778).
We may distinguish between the availability A(t) at time t
and the average availability Aav.
The availability at time t is

A(t) = Pr(item is functioning at time t )

The term “functioning” means here that the item is either in active
operation or that it is able to operate if required.

12
The average availability Aav, denotes the mean
proportion of time the item is functioning.
If we have an item that is repaired to an “as good as new”
condition every time it fails, the average availability is

where MTTF (mean time to failure) denotes the mean

functioning time of the item, and MTTR (mean time to
repair) denotes the mean downtime after a failure.

13
The reliability may be measured in different ways
depending on the particular situation, for example as:
1. Mean time to failure (MTTF)
2. Number of failures per time unit (failure rate)
3. The probability that the item does not fail in a time
interval (0, t ] (survival probability)
4. The probability that the item is able to function at time t
(availability at time t )

14
Bathtub Hazard Rate Concept and Reliability

Bathtub hazard rate curve

15
The curve is divided into three distinct regions: burn-
in, useful life, and wear-out.
 During the burn-in region the item hazard rate decreases with
time.
During the useful life region the item hazard rate remains constant
with respect to time.
During the wear-out region the item hazard rate increases with
time.

16
Basic Probability Theory
Roy Billinton, “Reliability Evaluation of Engineering”.
17
 Basic Probability theory
number of success
P ( success) 
number of possible outcomes

number of failure
P( failure ) 
number of possible outcomes

s
P ( success)  p 
s f

P ( failure )  q 
f p  q 1
s f 18
Permutation
n!
n Pr 
n  r!
Combination

Pr n! n n  1... n  r  1
n Cr   
n
r! r! n  r  ! r!

19
Practical engineering concepts

time on outage or failed

unavailability 
time on outage  operating time

20
Venn Diagrams
S
S
A B A B

Event A is totally enclosed by

event B

S S
A B
A

Mutually exclusive events

Complementary
events
21
Complementary events
If the two outcomes A and B have probabilities P(A) and P(B) then

P A  P B   1 or  
P B   P A

Conditional Events
S

A B

Consider two events A and B and also consider the probability of

event A occurring under the condition that event B has occurred.
22
 number of ways A and B can occur
P A B  
number of ways B can occur

A B
P A B  
S
B
P B  
S

S .P  A  B  P  A  B 
P A B   
S .P  B  P B 
P A  B 
P  B A 
P  A

23
Simultaneous occurrence of events
The simultaneous occurrence of two events A and B is the occurrence
of BOTH A AND B.

 A  B  ,  A AND B  or  AB 
Events are independent
If Two events are independent, the probability of occurrence of each
event is not influenced by the probability of occurrence of the other.

P  A B   P  A P  B A  P  B 
P  A  B   P  A  P  B 
n
P A1  A2 ...  Ai ...  An    P Ai 
i 1

24
Occurrence at least one of two events
The occurrence of at least one of the two events A and B is the
occurrence of A OR B OR BOTH.

S
Union
A B

 A  B  ,  A OR B  or  A  B 
P A  B   P A OR B OR BOTH A AND B 
 1  P NOT A AND NOT B 
25
 
P A  B   1  P A  B 
 1  P  A  P  B 
 1   1  P  A    1  P  B  
 P  A   P  B   P  A  P  B 
 P  A  P  B   P  A  B 

Events are independent and mutually exclusive

P  A  B   P  A  P  B 
n
P A1  A2 ...  Ai ...  An    P Ai 
i 1

26
Application of Conditional Probability

B1
B2
P A  B   P A B   P B 
A

B3 B4

P A  B1   P  A B1   P B1 
P A  B2   P  A B2   P B2 
.
.
P A  Bn   P  A Bn   P Bn  27
 n n

 P A  B    P A B   P B 
i 1
i
i 1
i i

 P  A  B   P  A
i 1
i

n
P A   P  A Bi   P Bi 
i 1

Example
A certain item is manufactured at two plants. Plant 1 makes 70% of the
requirement and plant 2 makes 30%. From plant 1, 90% meet a
particular standard and from plant 2 only 80%. Evaluate, a). Out of
every 100 items purchased by a customer, how many will be up to
standard and, b). Given that an item is standard, what is the probability
that it was made in plant 2.
28
In Reliability Evaluation, the object of the analysis is
usually to estimate the probability of system failure
(or success).

P system failure   P system failure given B is good   P Bs 

 P system failure given B is bad   P B f 

The complementary situation

P system success   P system success given B is good   P Bs 
 P system success given B is bad   P  B f 

29
Example
Consider a system containing two components A and B
and assume that the system fails only if both A and B
fail. Deduce the probability of system failure if Q A and
QB are the probabilities of failure of the respective
components.

30
Density and Distribution functions

Probability
Cumulative Probability
Cumulative

Length,
Length, m
m

Probability Distribution functions

31
 1.0

0 x

Continuous random variable (a) Probability Distribution function

dF  x 
x1

f  x  or F  x   f  x  dx
dx  32
 x

Continuous random variable (a) Probability Density function

b a

P a  x  b    f  x  dx P x  a    f  x  dx  0
a a
33
Mathematical Expectation

n
A discrete random
variable
E  x    xi pi
i 1
n

p
i 1
i 1

A continuous random E x   x f  x  dx
variable 


 f  x  dx  1


34
Variance and Standard deviation
In general the k th central moment of a distribution is

M k  E x  E  x  
k

V  x   E x  E  x  
2


 E x  2 xE  x   E  x 
2 2

 E  x   E  2 xE  x    E  E  x  
2 2

 E  x   2E x E  x  E  x
2 2

 E x   E  x
2 2

35
 n
V  x     xi  E  x   Pi
2

i 1

 
n
V  x    xi2 Pi  E 2  x 
i 1

Standard Deviation

   V  x

36
Aplication of Binomial Distribution
37
Properties of The Binomial distribution
n n  1 n  2 2
 p  q   p  np q 
n n n 1
p q  ...
2!
n n  1... n  r  1 n  r r
 p q  ...  q n

r!
n! r nr
Pr  pq
r! n  r  !
nr
 n Cr p q
r

 n C r p 1  p 
r nr
38
 n
 p  q n
  n Cr p q
r nr
1
r 0

Pascal’s Triangle

39
 Example
Consider the case in which the probability of success in a single
trial is ¼ and four trial are to be made. Evaluate the individual and
cumulative probabilities of success in this case and draw the two
respective probability functions.
n=4, p=1/4, q=3/4. The results are :

Number of Individual probability Cumulative

successes failures Probability

0 4 (3/4)4=81/256 81/256
1 3 4(1/4)(3/4)3=108/256 189/256
2 2 6(1/4)2(3/4)2=54/256 243/256
3 1 4(1/4)3(3/4) =12/256 255/256
4 0 (1/4)4=1/256 256/256
40
∑=1
Effect of partial output (derated) states
Example
A small generating plant is to be designed to satisfy a constant 10
MW load. Four alternatives are being considered
a). 1x10MW unit
b). 2x10 MW units
c). 3x5MW units
d). 4x3 1/3 MW units

Assume that the probability of a unit failing is the same for all units
and equal to 0.02. The availability is therefore 0.98.

41
Capacity Outage probability table
Units out Capacity, MW Individual
probability
Out Available
(a) 1x10MW unit

0 0 10 0.98
1 10 0 0.02
1.00

(b) 2x10MW units

0 0 20 0.982=0.9604
1 10 10 2x0.98x0.02=0.0392
2 20 0 0.022=0.0004
1.0000

(c) 3x5MW units

0 0 15 0.941192
1 5 10 0.057624
2 10 5 0.001176
42
3 15 0 0.000008
1.000000
(d) 4x3 1/3 MW
units

0 0 13 1/3 0.92236816
1 3 1/3 10 0.07529536
2 6 2/3 6 2/3 0.00230496
3 10 3 1/3 0.0003136
4 13 1/3 0 0.00000016
1.00000000

Expected load losses

Capacity out MW Probability Load Loss Expected load loss

MW MW

(a) 1x10MW unit

0 0.98 0 -

1 0.02 10 0.2

0.2 MW
43
(b) 2x10MW units

0 0.9604 0 -
1 0.0392 0 -
2 0.0004 10 0.004
0.004 MW

(c) 3x5MW units

0 0.941192 0 -
1 0.057624 0 -
2 0.001176 5 0.00588
3 0.000008 10 0.00008
0.00596 MW

(d) 4x3 1/3 MW units

0 0.92236816 0 -
1 0.07529536 0 -
2 0.00230496 3 1/3 0.00768320
3 0.0003136 6 2/3 0.00020927
4 0.00000016 10 0.00000160
44
0.00789387 MW
Investment cost of plant

System Expected load Investment cost

loss MW p.u.

1x10 MW 0.2 1.0

2x10 MW 0.004 2.0
3x5 MW 0.00596 1.5
4x3 1/3 MW 0.00789387 1.33

Expected load curtailment

System Probability of Expected load

loss of load curtailment, hr/yr

1x10 MW 0.02 175.2

2x10 MW 0.0004 3.504
3x5 MW 0.001184 10.37814
4x3 1/3 MW 0.00233648 20.46756
45
Non-identical capacity
Example
A pumping station has 2x20 t/hr units and 1x30 t/hr unit. Each unit
has an unavailability of 0.1. Calculate the capacity outage
probability table for this plant and compare this with the unit
outage probability table.
a). Unit outage probability table
This data can be evaluated directly using the binomial distribution.
Unit out of service Individual probability

0 0.93=0.729

1 3x0.92x0.1=0.243

2 3x0.9x0.12=0.027

3 0.13=0.001

1.000
46
b). Capacity outage probability table

Capacity outage table for 2x20 Capacity outage table for

t/hr units 1x30 t/hr unit
Capacity out Individual Capacity out Individual
of service, probability of service, probability
t/hr t/hr
0 0.92=0.81 0 0.9
20 2x0.9x0.1=0.18 30 0.1
40 0.12=0.01

1.00 1.0

47
Combined capacity outage

Capacity out Individual probability

of service, t/hr
0 0.81x0.9=0.729
20 0.18x0.9=0.162
30 0.81x0.1=0.081
40 0.01x0.9=0.009
50 0.18x0.1=0.018
60 -
70 0.01x0.1=0.001
1.000

48
Network modelling and evaluation of simple systems
Series systems

A B

RA  QA  1 RB  QB  1
RA , RB = probability of successful operation of components A
and B respectively
QA , QB = probability of failure operation of components A and B
respectively
The probability of system
success or reliability is :
RS  RA  RB 49
Richard E. Brown, “Electric Power Distribution Reliability”.
50
 n
RS   Ri
There are n components in series :

The unreliability is :
i 1
QS  1  RA RB
 1 - 1 - Q A  1  QB 
 QA  QB  QA  QB
n
For an n component system QS  1   Ri
Example i 1
A system consists of 10 identical components, all of which must
work for system success. What is the system reliability if each
component has a reliability of 0.95 ?
RS  0.9510  0.5987 51
A two component series system contains identical components
each having a reliability of 0.99. Evaluate the unreliability of the
system.
QS  1  0.99  0.0199 2

QS  0.01  0.01  (0.01x0.01)  0.0199

A system design requires 200 identical components in series. If the
overall reliability must not be less than 0.99, what is the minimum
reliability of each component?

0.99  R 200

R  0.99 1 200
 0.99995
52
Parallel systems
A

B
RP  1  QA  QB
 RA  RB  RA  RB
n

For an n component system RP  1   Qi

i 1

Also QP  QA  QB n
QP   Qi
i 1
53
Richard E. Brown, “Electric Power Distribution Reliability”.
54
Example
A system consists of four components in parallel having
reliabilities of 0.99, 0.95, 0.98 and 0.97. What is the reliability and
unreliability of the system ?

QP  1  0.99 1  0.951  0.981  0.97 

7
 3x10

RP  .9999997

55
Example
A system component has a reliability of 0.8. Evaluate the effect on
the overall system reliability of increasing the number of these
components connected in parallel.

Number of System Incremental % comparative

components Reliability Reliability Reliability
1 0.800000 - -

2 0.960000 0.160000 20.00

3 0.992000 0.032000 24.00

4 0.998400 0.006400 24.80

5 0.999680 0.001280 24.96

6 0.999936 0.000256 24.99

56
Example
A system is to be designed with an overall reliability of 0.999 using
components having individual reliabilities of 0.7. What is the
minimum number of components that must be connected in parallel.

1  0.999  1  0.7  n

0.001  0.3 n

n  5.74

Since the number of components must be an integer, the minimum

number of components is 6.

57
Richard E. Brown, “Electric Power Distribution Reliability”.

58
Sistem seri dan
paralel

Richard E. Brown, “Electric Power Distribution Reliability”.

59
Series-parallel systems

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8

11

10

60
If R1, R2,….., R8 are the reliabilities of components 1, 2,
….., 8 respectively then
R9  R1 R2 R3 R4
R10  R5 R6 R7 R8
R11  1  1  R9 1  R10 
 R9  R10  R9 R10
 R1 R2 R3 R4  R5 R6 R7 R8  R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8
R11  0.9 4  0.9 4  0.98  0.8817
Example
Derive a general expression for the unreliability of the model shown
below and hence evaluate the unreliability of the system if all
components have a reliability of 0.8. 61
 3
1 2
4

5
1 2 6

5
7

8
5
62
If R1 ,....., R5 and Q1 ,....., Q5 are the reliabilities and
unreliabilities of components 1,….., 5 respectively, then

Q6  Q3Q4
Q7  1  1  Q1 1  Q2 1  Q6 
 Q1  Q2  Q6  Q1Q2  Q2Q6  Q6Q1  Q1Q2Q6

Q8  Q5Q7
 Q1  Q2  Q3Q4  Q1Q2 
 Q5  
  Q2Q3Q4  Q3Q4Q1  Q1Q2Q3Q4 
Ri  0.8, Qi  0.2, and Q8  0.07712.
63
R6  R3  R4  R3 R4
R7  R1 R2 R6
R8  R5  R7  R5 R7
 R5  R1 R2  R3  R4  R3 R4 
 R5 R1 R2  R3  R4  R3 R4 

which, for Ri  0.8, gives :

R8  0.92288 or
Q8  1  0.92288  0.07712
64
Partially redundant systems
4
2
1 5

3
6

7
1 8 9

10 7

11
7
65
If R1 ,....., R7 and Q1 ,....., Q7 are the reliabilities and
unreliabilities of components 1,….., 7 respectively, then

Q8  Q2Q3
R10  R1 R8 R9
Q11  Q10Q7  Q7 1  R1 R8 R9 
 Q7 1  R1 1  Q2Q3  R9 
 Q7 1  R1 R9  R1 R9Q2Q3 
R9 is evaluated by applying the binomial distribution to
components 4, 5 and 6

if R4  R5  R6  R and Q4  Q5  Q6  Q
then R9  R 3  3R 2Q & Q9  3RQ 2  Q 3 66
if R4  R5  R6 and Q 4  Q5  Q6 , then
R9  R4 R5 R6  R4 R5Q6  R5 R6Q4  R4 R6Q5
and Q9  R4Q5Q6  R5Q4Q6  R6Q4Q5  Q4Q5Q6

All components have a reliability of 0.8

R9  0.8960, Q9  0.1040
Q11  0.06237

67
Standby redundant systems
A A

B B

Perfect Switching
If it is assumed that B does not fail when in the standby
position, then it can only fail given that A has already failed,
i.e. B is operating.
The probability of system failure is :


Q  Q  A  Q B | A 
If it is assumed that A and B are independent
Q  QA  QB 68
Imperfect switching
PS is the probability of a successful changeover

PS is the probability of an unsuccessful changeover

PS  1  PS

Therefore Q  QA  QB  PS  QA  PS
 QAQB PS  QA 1  PS  69
  QAQB PS  QA  QA PS
 QA  QA PS 1  QB 
Since the failure of the switch in its operating position

A PS RS

S S

Q   QA  QA PS 1  QB    QS   QA  QA PS 1  QB  QS
or R  RS 1   QA  QA PS 1  QB   
70
Evaluate the reliability of the system shown above if A has
a reliability of 0.9, B has a reliability given A has failed of
0.96 and,
(a) The switch is perfect
(b) The switch has a probability of failing to changeover of
0.08, and (c) as (b) but the switch has an operating
reliability of 0.98

 a  R  1  0.1x0.04  0.996
 b  R  1   0.1  0.1x0.921  0.04 
 0.988
 c  R  0.98 x0.988  0.969
71
Consider the system model shown in Fig. below and assume
that A has a reliability of 0.9, B has a reliability given A has
failed of 0.96. The switch has a probability of failing to
changeover of 0.08, and the switch has an operating
reliability of 0.98. If component C and D have reliabilities of
0.99 and 0.98 respectively, evaluate the reliability of the
system.

A
S S

C B

R  0.969 72
The reliabilit y of the system is therefore given by
R  RC 1  QD 1  0.969 
 0.991  0.21  0.969   0.984

73
 1 2 8
7 out
in
3 4 9

5 6 10

subsystem1 subsystem2

74
Modelling and evaluation concepts

Richard E. Brown, “Electric Power Distribution Reliability”.

75
Modelling and evaluation concepts
Conditional
Probability A C
Method
E

B D

P(system success or failure) = P(system success or

failure if component X is good) . P(X is good) + P(system
success or failure if component X is bad) . P(X is bad)
Example
Consider the system shown above in which success requires
that at least one of the paths, AC, BD, AED, BEC is good.
Evaluate a general expression for system success and the
reliability of the system if each component has a reliability of
0.99. 76
 A C

B D

E good E bad

A C A C

B D B D

77
RS = RS(if E is good) RE + RS(if E is bad) QE
(a) condition: GIVEN E is good
RS = (1- QAQB)(1 - QCQD)
(b) condition: GIVEN E is bad
RS = 1-(1-RARC)(1-RBRD)

Therefore, the system reliability is

RS = (1- QAQB)(l - QCQD)RE +(1 -(1- RARC)(1 - RBRD))QE
= RARC + RBRD + RARDRE + RBRCRE – RARBRCRD
- RARCRDRE - RARBRCRE - RBRCRDRE - RARBRDRE
+ 2RARBRCRDRE

if RA = RB = RC =RD = RE = R,

RS = 2R2 + 2R3 – 5R4 + 2R5

78
and, if R = 0.99, gives:
RS = 0.99979805
= 0.999798 (to six decimal places)

Cut Set method

The cut set method is a powerful one for evaluating the
reliability of a system for two main reasons:
(i) It can be easily programmed on a digital computer for the
fast and efficient solution of any general network.
(ii) The cut sets are directly related to the modes of system
failure and therefore identify the distinct and discrete ways in
which a system may fail.

A cut set can be defined as follows: A cut set is a set of

system components which, when failed, causes failure
of the system.
79
The minimum subset of any given set of components which
causes system failure is known as a minimal cut set. It can
be defined as follows: A minimal cut set is a set of system
components which, when failed, causes failure of the system
but when any one component of the set has not failed, does
not cause system failure.

Number of minimal Components of the

cut set cut set
1 AB

2 CD

3 AED

4 BEC
80
 A B
A C

D C

B D
E E

C1 C2 C3 C4

Although these cut sets are in series, the concept of series systems
cannot be used because the same component can appear in two or
more of the cut sets. e.g., component A appears in cuts C 1 and C3. The
concept of union does apply however and if the ith cut is designated as
Ci, and its probability of occurrence is designated as P(C i) then the
unreliability of the system is given by 81
QS  P(C1 C2 C3 ....... Ci ........ Cn )
therefore
= QAQB + QCQD + QAQDQE + QBQCQE- QAQBQCQD
- QAQBQDQE - QAQBQCQE – QAQCQDQE - QBQCQDQE
+2QAQBQCQDQE
if QA = QB = QC = QD = QE = Q, then

QS = 2Q2 + 2Q3 – 5Q4 + 2Q5

If R =0.99, Q=1- 0.99= 0.01, and

Qs = 0.00020195
and RS = 1-0.00020195 = 0.99979805 (as
before). 82
Approximate evaluation
QS  P C1   P C2   .....  P Ci  
n
.....  P Cn    Ci
i 1

the unreliability of the system is now

Qs = QAQB + QCQD + QAQDQE + QBQCQE

which, if QA = QB = QC = QD = QE = Q, gives
Qs = 2Q2 + 2Q3
if Q = 0.01: QS = 0.000202
and RS = 0.999798
83
 Deducing the minimal cut sets
The methods for deducing cuts are based on a knowledge of
the minimal paths between input and output. A minimal path
can be defined as: A path between the input and output is
minimal if, in that path, no node or intersection between
branches is traversed more than once.
From this definition, the minimal paths are AC, BD, AED,
BEC.
Component
Path A B C D E
1 1 0 1 0 0
2 0 1 0 1 0
3 1 0 0 1 1
4 0 1 1 0 1 84
No single column exists in which all elements are non-zero.
Therefore there are no first order cuts;
All elements of the following combinations of two columns
are non-zero and therefore form second order cuts: AB, CD.
Since there are no first order cuts, AB and CD both form
second order minimal cuts;
All elements of the following combinations of three columns
are non-zero and therefore form third order cuts: ABC, ABD,
ABE, ACD, ADE, BCD, BCE, CDE. Eliminating from these
those cuts containing AB and CD gives ADE and BCE as the
third order minimal cuts; and
An examination of higher order combinations shows that
there are no further minimal cuts.

The minimal cut sets are AB, CD, ADE and BCE, as
obtained previously.
85
 Application and comparison
of previous techniques

Evaluate the reliability of the

B system shown using conditional
probability and cut Set methods if
A
each component has a reliability
of 0.99.
D
F

86
The reliability of the system can now be deduced as
follows:
RS = RS( if F is good) RF+ RS( if F is bad) QF
RS( if F is bad) = 1-(1-RBRDRE)(1-RARC)
RS( if F is good) = RS(if A is good) RA+ RS(if A is
bad)QA
RS( if A is good) = 1 - QCQE
RS( if A is bad) = RBRDRE
substituting gives
RS = [(1 - QCQE)RA+ RBRDREQA]RF+ [1 - (1 - RBRDRE)
(1 - RARC)]QF

substituting numerical values gives

RS = 0.999602 and QS = 0.000398

87
(b) Cut set method
The minimal cut sets of the network are (AB), (AD), (AE),
(CE), (BCF) and (CDF).

Consider first the result that will be obtained if only second

order events are used and the evaluation is reduced to one
of summating the cut probabilities. In this case:
QS = QAQB+ QAQD+ QAQE+ QCQE
= 0.000400
RS = 0.999600
Consider now the result that will be obtained if all of the cuts
are used and the evaluation is again limited to one of
summating the cut probabilities. In this case
QS= QAQB + QAQD + QAQE + QCQE + QBQCQF+ QCQDQF
= 0.000402 (upper bound to system unreliability)
RS=0.999598 88
Tie set method
The tie set method is essentially the complement of the cut
set method.
A tie set is a minimal path of the system and is therefore a
set of system components connected in series.
Consequently, a tie set fails if any one of the components in it
fails and this probability can be evaluated using the principle
of series systems. For the system to fail however, all of the
tie sets must fail and therefore all tie sets are effectively
connected in parallel.

A C

B D
89
 A C
T1

B D
T2

A E D
T3

B E C
T4

RS  P T1 T2 T3 T4 

in which Ti is the ith tie set and its probability of
occurrence is P(Ti).
90
RS  P T1   P T2   P T3   P T4   P T1 T2 
 P T1 T3   P T1 T4   P T2 T3   P T2 T4 
 P T3 T4   P T1 T2 T3   P T1 T2 T4 
 P T1 T3 T4   P T2 T3 T4 
- P T1 T2 T3 T4 

where
P T1   RA RC
P T2   RB RD
P T3   RA RE RD
P T4   RB RE RC

91
 P T1 T2   P T1  P T2   RA RB RC RD
P T1 T3   P T1  P T3   RA RC RD RE
P T1 T4   P T1  P T4   RA RB RC RE
P T2 T3   P T2  P T3   RA RB RD RE
P T2 T4   P T2  P T4   RB RC RD RE
P T3 T4   P T3  P T4   RA RB RC RD RE

P T1 T2 T3   P T1 T2 T4 

 P T1 T3 T4 
 P T2 T3 T4 
 P T1 T2 T3 T4   RA RB RC RD RE
92
If RA  RB  RC  RD  RE  R,
RS  2 R  2 R  5R  2 R
2 3 4 5

and if, R =0.99, then

RS = 0.99979805 and QS = 0.00020195 (as before)
= 0.999798 and = 0.000202 (to 6 decimal places)
Connection matrix techniques

2
A C

1 E 4

B D
3
93
 to
node 1 2 3 4
1 1 A B 0 
2 0 1 E C 
from
3 0 E 1 D 
 
4 0 0 0 1 
In this example, unidirectional branches (flow is permitted
in one direction only) and bidirectional branches (flow is
permitted in either direction) are both included. The
essence of this method of solution is to transform this basic
connection matrix into one which defines the transmission
of flow between the input and the output, i.e., between the
two nodes of interest. This can be achieved in one of two
ways, node removal or matrix multiplication.
94
(a) Node removal
In this method, all nodes of the network that are not input or
output are removed by sequential reduction of the basic
connection matrix until it is reduced to a 2 x 2 matrix
involving only the input and output nodes. In the present
example the matrix must be reduced to one involving only
nodes 1 and 4.
To remove a node k from a matrix, each element
must be replaced according to

N  N ij   N ik N kj 
'
ij
Where Nij’ replaces the old Nij

95
 1 3 4
1 1 B  AE AC 

3 0 1 
D  EC 
4 0 0 1 
1 4
1 1 AC  BD  BEC  AED 

4 0 1 

From this final reduced matrix, the element N14 gives the
transmission from node 1 (input) to node 4 (output) and, in
this case is
AC + BD +BEC + AED 96
(b) Matrix multiplication
1 2 3 4
1 1 A B 0 
 
2 0 1 E C 
M
3 0 E 1 D 
 
4 0 0 0 1 
1 2 3 4
1 1 A  BE B  AE AC  BD 

2 0 1 E C  DE 
M 
2

3 0 E 1 EC  D 
 
4 0 0 0 1  97
 1 2 3 4
1 1 A  BE B  AE AC  BD  BEC  AED 

2 0 1 E C  DE 
M 
2 
3 0 E 1 EC  D 
 
4 0 0 0 1 

Further powers of M do not change the resulting matrix and

the process can be stopped at this point.
It can be seen from the elements of M that the transmission
from node 1 to node 4 is again the same as in the case of the
node removal method and the tie set method.
98
Event trees
An event tree is a pictorial representation of all the
events which can occur in a system. It is defined as a
tree because the pictorial representation gradually fans
out like the branches of a tree as an increasing number
of events are considered.

The method can be used either for systems in which all

components are continuously operating or for systems
in which some or all of the components are in a
standby mode that involve sequential operational logic
and switching.
Continuously operated systems
(a) Complete event tree

From the previous example

99