Advertisement

Mathematical Methods of Operations Research

, Volume 87, Issue 2, pp 229–250 | Cite as

Component importance based on dependence measures

  • Mario Hellmich
Original Article
  • 101 Downloads

Abstract

We discuss the construction of component importance measures for binary coherent reliability systems from known stochastic dependence measures by measuring the dependence between system and component failures. We treat both the time-dependent case in which the system and its components are described by binary random variables at a fixed instant as well as the continuous time case where the system and component life times are random variables. As dependence measures we discuss covariance and mutual information, the latter being based on Shannon entropy. We prove some basic properties of the resulting importance measures and obtain results on importance ordering of components.

Keywords

Reliability theory Component importance measure Binary coherent system Stochastic dependence Entropy 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Thanks are due to the referees whose comments led to a significant improvement of the paper.

References

  1. Ash R (1965) Information theory. Wiley, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Barlow RE, Proschan F (1975a) Statistical theory of reliability and life testing. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Barlow RE, Proschan F (1975b) Importance of system components and fault tree events. Stoch Proc Appl 3:153–173MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Beichelt F, Tittmann P (2012) Reliability and maintenance. Networks and systems. CRC Press, Boca RatonzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Birnbaum ZW (1969) On the importance of different components in a multicomponent system. In: Krishnaiah PR (ed) Multivariate analysis II. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Boland PJ, Proschan F (1983) The reliability of \(k\) out of \(n\) systems. Ann Probab 11:760–764MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Boland PJ, El-Neweihi E (1995) Measures of component importance in reliability theory. Comput Oper Res 22:455–463CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Cheok MC, Parry GW, Sherry RR (1998) Use of importance measures in risk-informed regulatory applications. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 72:213–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ebrahimi N, Soofi ES, Soyer R (2010) Information measures in perspective. Int Stat Rev 78:383–412CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. Ebrahimi N, Jalali NY, Soofi ES, Soyer R (2014a) Importance of components for a system. Econom Rev 33:395–420MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ebrahimi N, Jalali NY, Soofi ES (2014b) Comparison, utility, and partition of dependence under absolutely continuous and singular distributions. J Multivar Anal 254:427–442MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. Ebrahimi N, Soofi ES, Soyer R (2015) Information theory and Bayesian reliability : recent advances. In: Paganoni AM, Secchi P (eds) Advances in complex data modeling and computational methods in statistics (contributions to statistics). Springer, Cham, pp 87–102Google Scholar
  13. Esary JD, Proschan F, Walkup DW (1967) Association of random variables, with applications. Ann Math Stat 38:1466–1474MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. Kimeldorf G, Sampson AR (1989) A framework for positive dependence. Ann Inst Statist Math 41:31–45MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. Kuo W, Zhu X (2012a) Some recent advances on importance measures in reliability. IEEE Trans Reliab 61:344–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kuo W, Zhu X (2012b) Relations and generalizations of importance measures in reliability. IEEE Trans Reliab 61:659–674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kuo W, Zhu X (2012c) Importance measures in reliability, risk, and optimization. Wiley, ChichesterCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lehmann EL (1966) Some concepts of dependence. Ann Math Statist 5:1137–1153MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. Natvig B (1979) A suggestion of a new measure of importance of system components. Stoch Proc Appl 9:319–330MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. Natvig B (1982) On the reduction of the remaining system lifetime due to the failure of a specific component. J Appl Probab 19:642–652 (Correction: J Appl Probab 20:713 (1983))Google Scholar
  21. Natvig B (1985) New light on measures of importance of system components. J Scand Statist 12:43–54MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. Natvig B (2011) Measures of component importance in nonrepairable and repairable multistate strongly coherent systems. Methodol Comput Appl Probab 13:523–547MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. Natvig B, Gåsemyr J (2009) New results on the Barlow–Proschan and Natvig measures of component importance in nonrepairable and repairable systems. Methodol Comput Appl Probab 11:603–620MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. Norros I (1986) Notes on Natvig’s measure of importance of system components. J Appl Probab 23:736–747MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. Rényi A (1959) On measures of dependence. Acta Math Acad Sci Hung 10:441–451MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. Scarsini M (1984) On measures of concordance. Stochastica 8:201–218MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. Schweizer B, Wolf EF (1981) On nonparametric measures of dependence for random variables. Ann Statist 9:879–885MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. Shaked M, Shanthikumar G (2007) Stochastic orders. Springer, New YorkCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. Shannon CE (1948) A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst Tech J 27:379–423MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. van der Borst M, Schoonakker H (2001) An overview of PSA importance measures. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 72:241–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bundesamt für kerntechnische Entsorgungssicherheit (Federal Office for the Safety of Nuclear Waste Management)SalzgitterGermany

Personalised recommendations