Fault Propagation and Effects Analysis for Designing an Online Monitoring System for the Secondary Loop of the Nuclear Power Plant Portion of a Hybrid Energy System

Survey of combined hardware–software reliability prediction approaches from architectural and system failure viewpoint

“…The software-driven hardware interaction failure based models (Tumer and Smidts 2011;Jensen et al 2008;Diao et al 2018;Mutha et al 2013;Papakonstantinou et al 2012Papakonstantinou et al , 2015Sierla et al 2012) used a high-level system modeling approach. Most of them used functional failure identification and propagation (FFIP) or its extension for this purpose.…”

“…Based on the result of a case study, they presented an analysis on efficiency of the ISFA approach to analyze faults in a combined hardware-software system. Diao et al (2018) used integrated system failure analysis (ISFA) method for combined study of hardware-software faults. ISFA originally proposed by Mutha et al (2013) to detect faults in cross-domain functionalities.…”

“…During early design phase, actual component of system may not available. So, design engineer decomposed the system based on unique functional requirements of the system (Tumer and Smidts 2011;Jensen et al 2008;Diao et al 2018;Mutha et al 2013;Papakonstantinou et al 2012Papakonstantinou et al , 2015Sierla et al 2012).…”

“…It is also observed that none of these methods has considered hardware-driven software and software-driven hardware interactions failures together in the same model. First three methods (Sumita and Masuda 1986;Teng et al 2006;Costes et al 1978;Kanoun and Ortalo-Borrel 2000;Roy et al 2015) of Table 3 have considered hardwaredriven software interaction failure models whereas rests (Tumer and Smidts 2011;Jensen et al 2008;Diao et al 2018;Mutha et al 2013;Papakonstantinou et al 2012Papakonstantinou et al , 2015Sierla et al 2012) have considered softwaredriven hardware interaction failure models. However, in such cases predicted reliability would not match with the actual reliability of the system as we failed to consider all types of interaction failures.…”

“…Any standard Markovian modeling tools can be used in this purpose. Divergently, all software-driven hardware failure interaction failure based models has adopted FFIP framework or extension of FFIP for system modeling (Tumer and Smidts 2011;Jensen et al 2008;Diao et al 2018;Mutha et al 2013;Papakonstantinou et al 2012Papakonstantinou et al , 2015Sierla et al 2012). In this context, Simulink/Stateflow environment is largely preferred to implement FFIP (Papakonstantinou et al 2012;Sierla et al 2012).…”