Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Methods of Analysis

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Vulnerable Systems

Abstract

Challenges to methods for vulnerability analysis have been distillated and approaches, framed into categories, have been explained briefly in the previous chapters. It has also been stated that no all-encompassing method exists but rather an interplay of methods is necessary to provide trustworthy information about vulnerabilities within and among critical infrastructures (CIs). Starting with the evaluation of statistical data this chapter introduces methods in detail which are regarded as most promising to deal with the complex behavior of these systems within screening and, in particular, in depth analysis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    There is no commonly accepted distinction between these two terms (Kaegi et al. 2009). However, according to D’Inverno and Luck (2004), an object can be regarded as an agent without goals.

  2. 2.

    In Schläpfer et al. (2008), the term object rather than the term agent is used.

  3. 3.

    It should be noted that the distributed simulation approach should not be considered as an option if only one system (without any subsystems) needs to be simulated.

  4. 4.

    Other simulation standards include distributed interactive simulation (DIS) and aggregate level simulation protocol (ALSP). However, their inherent weaknesses limit the capabilities as the standard for distributed simulation approach. For instance, ALSP is not able to support real-time communication and DIS fails to provide a time synchronization mechanism.

  5. 5.

    DMSO has been renamed as US Department of Defense (DOD) Modeling and Simulation Coordination Office (M&S CO).

  6. 6.

    HLA standard does not describe which class should be implemented during the simulation development, which is a developer's task to decide according to simulation requirements. It is possible that both classes are implemented or only one class is implemented, in one federate.

  7. 7.

    RTU is the remote device of SCADA, which is usually located away from the control centre and is responsible for acquiring physical data from the field and executing the control instruction(s) sent from the control centre.

  8. 8.

    An HFE is a basic event modeled in the logic models of a PRA (logic) and represents a failure of a function, system, or component that is the result of one or more unsafe actions. A human failure event reflects the PRA system’s modeling perspective (Kirwan 1994).

  9. 9.

    An unsafe action is an action inappropriately taken, or not taken when needed, by plant personnel that results in a degraded plant safety condition (Kirwan 1994).

References

  • Albert R, Barabási A-L (2002) Statistical mechanics of complex networks. Rev Mod Phys 74:47–97

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Albert R, Jeong H, Barabási A-L (2000) Error and attack tolerance of complex networks. Nature 406:378–382

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Apostolakis GE, Lemon DM (2005) A screening methodology for the identification and ranking of infrastructure vulnerabilities due to terrorism. Risk Anal 25:361–376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argonne National Laboratory (2008) The electricity market complex adaptive system (EMCAS), technical report. Argonne, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Batagelj V (1994) Semirings for social networks analysis. J Math Sociol 19(1):53–68

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Beeker ER, Page EH (2006) A case study of the development and use of a MANA-based federation for studying US border operations. In: Proceedings of the 38th conference on winter simulation, 3–6 Dec. 2006, pp 841–847

    Google Scholar 

  • Behdani B, Lukszo Z et al (2010) Performance analysis of a multi-plant specialty chemical manufacturing enterprise using an agent-based model. Comput Chem Eng 34(5):793–801

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell J, Holroyd J (2009) Review of human reliability assessment methods. Health & Safety Laboratory

    Google Scholar 

  • Billinton R, Li W (1994) Reliability assessment of electrical power systems using Monte Carlo methods. Plenum Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Birolini A (2007) Reliability engineering: theory and practice. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Boccaletti S, Latora V, Moreno Y, Chavez M, Hwang D-U (2006) Complex networks: structure and dynamics. Phys Rep 424:175–308

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Bonabeau E (2002) Agent-based modeling: methods and techniques for simulation human systems. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99:7280–7287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan M (2009) Meltdown modeling. Nature 460:680–682

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cadini F, Zio E, Petrescu C-A (2009) Using centrality measures to rank the importance of the components of a complex network infrastructure. In: Critical information infrastructure security, proceedings of the 3rd international workshop on critical information infrastructures security, CRITIS 2008, Rome, Italy, 13–15 October 2008, pp 155–167

    Google Scholar 

  • Cardellini V, Casalicchio E, Galli E (2007) Agent-based modelling of interdependencies in critical infrastructures through UML. In: Proceedings of the 2007 spring simulation multiconference, Norfolk, Virginia, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen J, Thorp S-J, Dobson I (2005) Cascading dynamics and mitigation assessment in power system disturbances via a hidden failure model. Int J Electr Power Energ Syst 27:318–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chien SH, Dykes AA, Stetkar JW, Bley DC (1988) Quantification of human error rates using a SLIM-based approach. In: IEEE fourth conference on human factors and power plants, June 5–9, 1988, Monterey, California

    Google Scholar 

  • Coffman EG, Ge Z, Misra V, Towsley D (2002) Network resilience: exploring cascading failures within BGP. In: Proceedings of the 40th annual Allerton conference on communications, computing and control

    Google Scholar 

  • Crucitti P, Latora V, Marchiori M, Rapisarda A (2003) Efficiency of scale-free networks: error and attack tolerance. Physica A 320:622–642

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • D’Inverno M, Luck M (2004) Understanding agent systems. Springer, Berlin

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Dahmann JS, Fujjimoto RM, Weatherly RM (1997) The department of defense high level architecture. In: Proceedings of the 29th conference on winter simulation, Atlanta, Georgia, United States: IEEE Computer Society

    Google Scholar 

  • Darby J (2006) Evaluation of terrorist risk using belief and plausibility. PSAM8, New Orleans, USA

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Department of Energy (2005) From OE-417, electric emergency incident and disturbance report. US Department of Energy, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability. http://www.eia.doe.gove/oss/forms.html. Accessed date/month/year

  • Dobson I, Carreras AB, Lynch VE, Newman DE (2004) Complex systems analysis of series of blackouts: cascading failure, criticality, and self-organization. In: Bulk power system dynamics and control—VI. Cortina d’Ampezzo, 22–27 August 2004

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobson I, Carreras BA, Newman DE (2005) A loading-dependent model of probabilistic cascading failure. Probab Eng Inform Sci 19(15):32

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobson I, Carreras BA, et al (2007) Complex systems analysis of series of blackouts: cascading failure, critical points, and self-organization. Chaos 17(2): 026103 (13 pages), 2007

    Google Scholar 

  • Duflos S, Diallo A, Grand AGL (2007) An overlay simulator for interdependent critical information infrastructures. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on dependability of computer systems, IEEE computer society

    Google Scholar 

  • Embrey DE, Kirwan B (1983) A comparative evaluation of three subjective human reliability quantification techniques. In: Proceedings of the annual ergonomics society conference

    Google Scholar 

  • Embrey DE, Humphreys PC, Rosa EA, Kirwan B, Rea K (1984) SLIM-MAUD: An approach to assessing human error probabilities using structured expert judgement. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

    Google Scholar 

  • Erdős P, Rényi A (1960) On the evolution of random graphs. Publ Math Inst Hung Acad Sci A 5:17–61

    Google Scholar 

  • Eurocontrol (2007) Overview of HRA methods. Farandole project

    Google Scholar 

  • Eusgeld I, Nan C (2009) Creating a simulation environment for critical infrastructure interdependencies study. In: Industrial engineering and engineering management, 2009. IEEM 2009. IEEE international conference on, 8–11 December 2009, pp 2104–2108

    Google Scholar 

  • Eusgeld I, Kröger W, Sansavini G, Schläpfer M, Zio E (2009) The role of network theory and object-oriented modeling within a framework for the vulnerability analysis of critical infrastructures. Reliab Eng Syst Safe 94(5):954–963

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ezel BC (2007) Infrastructure vulnerability assessment model (I-VAM). Risk Anal 27:571–583

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Floyd RW (1962) Algorithm 97: shortest path. Commun ACM 5(6):345

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forester J, Ramey-Smith A, Bley D, Kolaczkowski A, Cooper S (1998) Discussion of comments from a peer review of a technique for human event analysis (ATHEANA)

    Google Scholar 

  • Forester J, Kolaczkowski A, Lois E, Kelly D (2006) Evaluation of human reliability analysis methods against good practices. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

    Google Scholar 

  • Forester J, Kolaczkowski A, Cooper S, Bley D, Lois E (2007) ATHEANA user’s guide. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman LC (1979) Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Soc Networks 1(3):215–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garrick BJ, Hall JE, Kilger M, McDonald JC, McGroddy JC, O’Toole T, Probst PS, Rindskopf Parker E, Rosenthal R, Trivelpiece AW, Van Arsdale L, Zebroski E (2004) Confronting the risks of terrorism: making the right decisions. Reliab Eng Syst Safe 86:129–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garrido JM (2009) Object-oriented simulation. Springer, Berlin

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson HW, Kirwan B (2008a) Application of the CARA HRA tool to air traffic management safety cases. In: Proceedings of the 9th international conference on probabilistic safety assessment and management (PSAM9)

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson HW, Kirwan B (2008b) Current trends in human reliability assessment. In: Proceedings of the international conference on contemporary ergonomics (CE2008), Nottingham, UK, April 1–3, 2008

    Google Scholar 

  • Gorbil G, Gelenbe E (2009) Design of a mobile agent-based adaptive communication middleware for federations of critical infrastructure simulations. In: Proceedings of CRITIS 2009

    Google Scholar 

  • Grigg NS (2003) Water utility security: multiple hazards and multiple barriers. J Infrastruct Syst 9(2):81–88

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Grigg C, Wong P et al (1996) The IEEE reliability test system 1996, 1996 IEEE/PES winter meeting, Baltimore, Maryland, IEEE-Inst Electrical Electronics Engineers Inc

    Google Scholar 

  • Haimes YY, Horowitz BM (2004) Modeling interdependent infrastructures for sustainable counterterrorism. J Infrastruct Syst 10:33–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen JV, Lowry PB, Meservy RD, McDonald DM (2007) Genetic programming for prevention of cyber terrorism through dynamic and evolving intrusion detection. Decis Supp Syst 43(4):1362–1374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hines P, Blumsack S (2008) A centrality measure for electrical networks. In: Proceedings of the 41st Hawaii international conference on system science

    Google Scholar 

  • Hines P, Apt J, Talukdar S (2008) Trends in the history of large blackouts in the United States. IEEE, Authorized licensed use limited to ETH Bibliothek Zurich

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollangel E (1998) Cognitive reliability and error analysis method. Elsevier, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Hopkinson KM, Giovanini R, Wang XR (2003) Integrated commercial off-the-shelf software for agent-based electric power and communication simulation. In: Proceedings of the 2003 winter simulation conference, pp 1158–1166

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang K (1987) Statistical mechanics, 2nd edn. John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp 31–35 206–210

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Hudson LD, Ware BS, Laskey KB, Mahoney SM (2002) An application of Bayesian networks to antiterrorism risk management for military planners, Rapport technique. George Mason University

    Google Scholar 

  • IEEE (1999) IEEE RTS Task Force of APM Subcommittee. The IEEE reliability test system 1996. IEEE Trans Power Syst 14, 1010–1020

    Google Scholar 

  • IEEE (2000) IEEE standard for modeling and simulation, high level architecture (HLA): framework and rules, IEEE Std. 1516–2000, i–22

    Google Scholar 

  • IEEE (2009) IEEE draft standard for modeling and simulation (M&S) high level architecture (HLA): framework and rules, IEEE unapproved draft std P1516/D5

    Google Scholar 

  • IRGC (2006) Managing and reducing social vulnerabilities from coupled critical infrastructures, White Paper No. 3, International Risk Governance Council, Geneva, p. 68

    Google Scholar 

  • Jennings RN (2000) On agent-based software engineering. Artif Intell 117:277–296

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Kaegi M, Mock R, Kröger W (2009) Analyzing maintenance strategies by agent-based simulations: a feasibility study. Reliab Eng Syst Safe 94:1416–1421

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan S, Garrick BJ (1981) On the quantitative definition of risk. Risk Anal 1:11–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim IK, Ma YB, Lee JS (2006a) Adaptive quantization-based communication data management for high-performance geo-computation in grid computing. In: Proceedings of the grid and cooperative computing workshops, 2006. GCCW ‘06, fifth international conference on, Oct 2006, pp 470–476

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim J, Jung W, Jang S, Wang J (2006b) A case study for the selection of a railway human reliability analysis method. In: International railway safety conference, 22–27 October 2006, Belfast

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirwan B (1994) A guide to practical human reliability assessment. Taylor & Francis, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirwan B, Gibson HW (2007) CARA: a human reliability assessment tool for air traffic safety management: technical basis and preliminary architecture. In: Proceedings of the fifteenth safety-critical systems symposium

    Google Scholar 

  • Koonce AM, Apostolakis GE, Cook BK (2008) Bulk power risk analysis: ranking infrastructure elements according to their risk significance. Int J Electr Power Energ Syst 30:169–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kröger W (2005) Risk analyses and protection strategies for operation of nuclear power plants, in Landolt-Börnstein New Series Vol. VIII/3B (advanced materials and technologies/energy). Springer-Verlag, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Kröger W (2008) Critical infrastructures at risk: a need for a new conceptual approach and extended analytical tools. Reliab Eng Syst Safe 93:1781–1787

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kyriakidis MA (2009a) A scoping method for human performance integrity and reliability assessment in process industries. Laboratory for Safety Analysis, Institute for Energy Technology, D-MAVT, ETH Zurich

    Google Scholar 

  • Kyriakidis MA (2009b) A study regarding human reliability within power system control rooms. Laboratory for Safety Analysis, D-MAVT, ETH Zurich

    Google Scholar 

  • Lane R, Stanton NA, Harrison D (2006) Applying hierarchical task analysis to medication administration errors. Appl Ergon 37:669–679

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latora V, Marchiori M (2001) Efficient behavior of small-world networks. Phys Rev Lett 87(19):198701 (1–4)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latora V, Marchiori M (2005) Vulnerability and protection of infrastructure networks. Phys Rev E 71:015103 (1–4)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latora V, Marchiori M (2007) A measure of centrality based on the network efficiency. New J Phys 9:188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lees M, Logan B, Theodoropoulos G (2007) Distributed simulation of agent-based systems with HLA. ACM Trans Model Comput Simul 17(3):11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lemmers AJJ, Kuiper PJ, Verhage FR (2002) Performance of a component-based flight simulator architecture using the HLA paradigm. In: Proceedings of the AIAA modeling and simulation technologies conference and exhibit. California, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Lempert R (2004) Robust decision making. HDGC Seminar, February 2004

    Google Scholar 

  • Lieshout FV, Cornelissen F, Neuteboom J (2008) Simulating rail traffic safety systems using HLA 1516, Atos origin technical automation

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyons M, Adams S, Woloshynowych M (2004) Ch. Vincent, human reliability analysis in healthcare: a review of techniques. Int J Risk Saf Med 16:223–237

    Google Scholar 

  • Macal CM, North MJ (2005) Tutorial on agent-based modeling and simulations. In: Proceedings of the 2005 winter simulation conference. Orlando FL, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Macwan A (2004) Approach for identification and analysis of human vulnerabilities in protecting telecommunications infrastructure. Bell Labs Tech J 2:85–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michaud D, Apostolakis GE (2006) Screening vulnerabilities in water supply networks. J Infrastruct Syst 12:230–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Möller B, Löfstrand B, Lindqvist J, Backlund A, Waller B, Virding R (2005) Gaming and HLA 1516 interoperability within the Swedish defense. In: Proceedings of the 2005 fall simulation interoperability workshop

    Google Scholar 

  • Möller B, Morse KL, Lightner M, Little R, Lutz R (2008) HLA evolved: a summary of major technical improvements

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore AD (2006) Application of the API/NPRA SVA methodology to transportation security issues. J Hazard Mater 130:107–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morse KL, Lightner M, Little R, Lutz B, Scrudder R (2006) Enabling simulation interoperability. Computer 39:115–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Motter AE (2004) Cascade control and defense in complex networks. Phys Rev Lett 93(9):098701 (1–4)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Motter AE, Lai YC (2002) Cascade-based attacks on complex networks. Phys Rev E 66:065102 (1–4)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nan C, Eusgeld I (2011) Adopting HLA standard for interdependency study. Reliab Eng Syst Safe 96(1):149–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman MEJ, Girvan M (2004) Finding and evaluating community structure in networks. Phys Rev E 69(2):026113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman DE, Nkei B, Carreras BA, Dobson I, Lynch VE, Gradney P (2005) Risk assessment in complex interacting infrastructure systems. In: Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii international conference on system sciences

    Google Scholar 

  • Nieminen J (1974) On the centrality in a graph. Scand J Psychol 15(1):332–336

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paté-Cornell ME, Guikema S (2002) Probabilistic modeling of terrorist threats: a systems analysis approach to setting priorities among countermeasures. Mil Oper Res 7:5–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Patterson SA, Apostolakis GE (2007) Identification of critical locations across multiple infrastructures for terrorist actions. Reliab Eng Syst Safe 92:1183–1203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pederson P, Dudenhoeffer D, Hartly S, Permann M (2006) Critical infrastructure interdependency modeling: a survey of US and international research. Idaho National Laboratory

    Google Scholar 

  • Piwowar J, Chatelet E, Laclemence P (2009) An efficient process to reduce infrastructure vulnerabilities facing malevolence. Reliab Eng Syst Safe 94:1869–1877

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rehtanz C (2003) Autonomous systems and intelligent agents in power system control and operation. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Robles RJ, Choi M-K, Coh E-S, Kim S-S, Park G-C, Lee J-H (2008) Common threats and vulnerabilities of critical infrastructures. International Journal of Control and Automation (1) 17–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosato V, Bologna S, Tiriticco F (2007) Topological properties of high-voltage electrical transmission networks. Electr Pow Syst Res 77:99–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosato V et al (2008) A complex system’s view of critical infrastructures. In: Helbing D (ed) Understanding complex systems. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 241–260

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross TJ (2004) Fuzzy logic with engineering applications, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Sabidussi G (1966) The centrality index of graphs. Psychometrika 31(4):581–603

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Schläpfer M, Kessler T, Kröger W (2008) Reliability analysis of electric power systems using an object-oriented hybrid modeling approach. In: Proceedings of the 16th power systems computation conference, Glasgow

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanton N, Hedge A, Brookhuis K, Salas E, Hendrick H (eds) (2005) Handbook of human factors and ergonomics methods. CPC Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Strogatz SH (2001) Exploring complex networks. Nature 410:268–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swain AD, Guttmann HE (1983) Handbook of human reliability analysis with emphasis on nuclear power plant applications. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

    Google Scholar 

  • TERNA (2002) Dati statistici sull’energia elettrica in Italia. Technical report. Terna S.p.A.—Rete Elettrica Nazionale (in Italian) http://www.terna.it/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=PUvAU57MlBY%3d&tabid=418&mid=2501. Accessed 08/06/2011

  • US Department of Defense (1998) High level architecture interface specification. DOD

    Google Scholar 

  • US Department of Defense (2000) High level architecture run-time interface programmers guide. DOD

    Google Scholar 

  • US Department of Defense (2007) DOD Directive 4603.05: interoperability and supportability of information technology (IT) and national security systems. DOD

    Google Scholar 

  • Vespignani A (2009) Predicting the behaviour of techno-social systems. Science 325:425–428

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • VSE-AES Statistik (2005) Statistik 2500 über die Verfügbarkeit der Elektrizitätsversorgung der Schweiz

    Google Scholar 

  • Wasserman S, Faust K (1994) Social networks analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Watts DJ (1999) Networks, dynamics, and the small‐world phenomenon. Am J Sociol 105(2):493–527

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watts DJ (2002) A simple model of global cascades on random networks. PNAS 99(9):5766–5771

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Watts DJ, Strogatz SH (1998) Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks. Nature 393:440–442

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wreathall J, Nemeth C (2004) Assessing risk: the role of probabilistic assessment (PRA) in patient safety improvement. Qual Saf Health Care 13:206–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wreathall J, Roth E, Bley D, Multer J (2003) Human reliability analysis in support of risk assessment for positive train control. United States Department of Transportation

    Google Scholar 

  • Zacharewicz G, Alix T, Vallespir B (2009) Services modeling and distributed simulation DEVS/HLA supported. In: Proceedings of the 2009 winter simulation conference (WSC), 13–16 December 2009, pp 3023–3035

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhao Z, Albada DV, Sloot P (2005) Agent-based flow control for HLA components. Simulation 81:487–501

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann R (2001) Social implications of infrastructure network interactions. J Urban Technol 8(3):97–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann R (2004) Decision-making and the vulnerability of interdependent critical infrastructure. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on systems, man, and cybernetics, the Hague, Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  • Zio E (2007a) From complexity science to reliability efficiency: a new way of looking at complex network systems and critical infrastructures. Int J Critical Infrastructures 3:488–508

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zio E (2007b) An introduction to the basics of reliability and risk analysis, vol 13., Series on quality, reliability and engineering statisticsWorld Scientific, Singapore

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Zio E, Golea LR (2010) Analyzing the topological, electrical and reliability characteristics of a power transmission system for identifying its critical elements. Reliab Eng Syst Safe(submitted)

    Google Scholar 

  • Zio E, Sansavini G (2007) A systematic procedure for analyzing network systems. Int J Critical Infrastructures 4(1–2):172–184

    Google Scholar 

  • Zio E, Sansavini G (2008) Modeling failure cascades in networks systems due to distributed random disturbances and targeted intentional attacks. In: Martorell et al. (eds) Safety, reliability and risk analysis: theory, methods and applications. Proceedings of ESREL 2008 and 17th SRA Europe annual conference, Valencia, Spain, Taylor & Francis Group, London, 22–25 September 2008

    Google Scholar 

  • Zio E, Sansavini G (2011a) Component criticality in failure cascade processes of network systems. Risk Anal. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01584.x

  • Zio E, Sansavini G (2011b) Modeling interdependent network systems for identifying cascade-safe operating margins. IEEE Trans Reliab 60(1):94–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zio E, Sansavini G, Maja R, Marchionni G (2008) An analytical approach to the safety of road networks. Int J Reliab Qual Saf Eng 15(1):67–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kardes E (2005) Robust Stochastic Games and Applications to Counter-Terrorism Strategies. Center for Risk and Economic Analysis of Terrorism Events, University of Southern California, Los Angeles CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Subotic B (2007) Framework for the analysis of controller recovery from equipment failures in air traffic control, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Imperial College, London

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. ETH Zurich Mechanical and Process Engineering Department, Sonneggstrasse 3, 8092, Zurich, Switzerland

    Wolfgang Kröger

  2. Ecole Centrale Paris Laboratoire Génie Industriel, Grande Voie des Vignes, 92295, Chatenay-Malabry Cedex, France

    Enrico Zio

Authors
  1. Wolfgang Kröger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Enrico Zio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wolfgang Kröger .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer-Verlag London Limited

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Kröger, W., Zio, E. (2011). Methods of Analysis. In: Vulnerable Systems. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-85729-655-9_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-85729-655-9_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-0-85729-654-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-0-85729-655-9

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation