Redundancy in Designs

Ted W. Yellman

Risk Analysis, 2006, vol. 26, issue 1, 277-286

Abstract: The author contends that a previous Risk Analysis article overemphasized the pitfalls of incorporating redundancy into designs. Relevant aspects of that article are reviewed and commented upon, then the potentials and pitfalls of redundancy in systems and procedures are more broadly discussed. To provide a solid foundation for that discussion, some definitions for systems risk analysis terminology are presented. It is shown that pairs and larger sets of related failures (the physical causes of shortfalls in redundancy effectiveness) can be divided into two types: (1) cascading/induced failures and (2) common‐external‐cause failures. Each type has its own physical characteristics and implications for mathematical modeling. Service experience with large‐commercial‐airplane jet‐engine propulsion systems is used to illustrate the two types of related failures. Finally, an overview is provided of event‐sequence analysis, an alternative approach to systems risk analysis. When the possibility of related failures of mutually‐redundant system elements must be accounted for, event‐sequence analysis can usually do that better than fault‐tree analysis.

Date: 2006
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00712.x

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:wly:riskan:v:26:y:2006:i:1:p:277-286

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Risk Analysis from John Wiley & Sons
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Wiley Content Delivery ().