Author |
Topic: Circuit Failure Analysis (Read 4207 times) |
|
Yournamehere
Guest
|
Let w_k = 1-p_k ; w_k is the probability of a component working at time T. (a) P_{failure} = 1-P_{working} = 1-(P_{upper_path_works} + P_{lower_path_works} - P_{both_paths_work}) = 1-(w_4 w_1 + w_4 w_3 w_2 - w_4 w_3 w_2 w_1) You can trivially expand this out to an expression in p_k, if you wish. (b) If component C_k fails, substitute 0 for w_k in the above expression; don't forget that you're now asked for P_{working}, so use 1-P_{failure}: C_1 fails: P_{working} = w_4 w_3 C_2 fails: P_{working} = w_4 w_1 C_3 fails: P_{working} = w_4 w_1 C_4 fails: P_{working} = 0 I'm not sure what the "subtlety" is in the problem is, unless you're referring to the use of the principle of inclusion-exclusion.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
william wu
wu::riddles Administrator
Gender:
Posts: 1291
|
|
Re: Circuit Failure Analysis
« Reply #1 on: Sep 22nd, 2002, 6:08pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Your answer to (a) is correct -- that's pretty straightforward -- but the answer to (b) is slightly incorrect. Can't just substitute zero ... Problem statement reprinted here for convenience: Consider the circuit shown below. If all components along a path from In to Out are working, then the whole system is considered to be working. Through appropriate experimentation and modelling, it has been determined that at time T, component Ck fails with probability pk. Also assume that component failure are independent. (a) What is the probability the system has failed at time T? (b) Your maintenance technician reports that at time T, component Ck has failed, but she hasn't been able to check any other components yet. What is the probability the system is working? Repeat for k = 1, 2, 3, 4.
|
« Last Edit: Sep 23rd, 2002, 12:10am by william wu » |
IP Logged |
[ wu ] : http://wuriddles.com / http://forums.wuriddles.com
|
|
|
Yournamehere
Guest
|
|
Re: Circuit Failure Analysis
« Reply #2 on: Sep 23rd, 2002, 2:17pm » |
Quote Modify
Remove
|
on Sep 22nd, 2002, 6:08pm, william wu wrote: but the answer to (b) is slightly incorrect. Can't just substitute zero ... |
| I see I made a typo: For C1 failure, P_{working} = w_4 w_3 w_2. This is what one would get by substituting 0 for w_1 in the original equation. I don't see why substituting 0 for w_k doesn't work.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
william wu
wu::riddles Administrator
Gender:
Posts: 1291
|
|
Re: Circuit Failure Analysis
« Reply #3 on: Sep 23rd, 2002, 10:59pm » |
Quote Modify
|
You're right. Sorry. Well, regarding this subtlety I referred to, my solution used the following definition of conditional probability: P(A|C) = P(A intersection C) / P(C) So in the context of the problem, let A = event that the system works C2 = event that C2 failed For P(A|C2), I first computed P(A intersection C2) as follows: P(A intersection C2) = (1-p1)(1-p4) Then since P(C2) = p2, my final answer was: P(A|C2) = (1-p1)(1-p4) / p2 which is different from your answer. So I thought most people would not remember to divide by p2. However, there is another subtlety in this problem which cancels out the other subtlety, and makes my answer wrong and everyone else's right. The formula for P(A intersection C2) actually should be: P(A intersection C2) = (1-p1)(1-p4)p2 because A intersection C2 is the probability that C1 and C4 are working, AND C2 has failed. So after multiplying the numerator of P(A|C2) by p2, we cancel out the p2 in the denominator, and you just get (1-p1)(1-p4), an expression you could arrive at by both forgetting about dividing by p2, and incorrectly computing (A intersection C). Most disturbingly, my GSI was trying to convince me that my answers were right. One student who didn't like my answers pointed out that it didn't make sense that I had different expressions for P(A|C2) and P(A|C3): (wrong answers) P(A intersection C2) = (1-p1)(1-p4)p2 P(A intersection C3) = (1-p1)(1-p4)p3 Intuitively, you'd think that the probability the system still works given that C2 failed should be the same as if C3 failed. In both cases, the only potential path from In to Out is the top branch, which does not depend on C2 nor C3. So it turns out that this intuition is right. However my GSI then offered the following argument. Consider the components to be light bulbs. Let's say C2 is known to be an extremely reliable bulb -- more reliable than C1, C3, and C4 -- so the probability of its failure is very small. And let's say C3 is a very unreliable bulb. Then the probability that the system works, given that C2 failed, is very low since if your most reliable bulb has gone out, it is likely that the less reliable bulbs C1 and C4 have gone out too. Likewise, if C3 has gone out, the probability the system has failed is lower than it would be had C2 gone out, since it was expected that C3 would go out eventually anyways. I didn't like this argument because it implied that the bulbs were dependent, even though the problem explicitly says that the components are independent. But then he said that the bulbs become dependent when they are linked as a system. Whatever. Guess I made things too complicated.
|
« Last Edit: Sep 23rd, 2002, 11:03pm by william wu » |
IP Logged |
[ wu ] : http://wuriddles.com / http://forums.wuriddles.com
|
|
|
|