Optimal inspection intervals for safety systems with partial inspections
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The introduction of International Standard IEC 61508 and its industry-specific derivatives sets demanding requirements for the definition and implementation of life-cycle strategies for safety systems. Compliance with the Standard is important for human safety and environmental perspectives as well as for potential adverse economic effects (eg, damage to critical downstream equipment or a clause for an insurance or warranty contract). This situation encourages the use of reliability models to attain the recommended safety integrity levels using credible assumptions. During the operation phase of the safety system life cycle, a key decision is the definition of an inspection programme, namely its frequency and the maintenance activities to be performed. These may vary from minimal checks to complete renewals. This work presents a model (which we called ρβ model) to find optimal inspection intervals for a safety system, considering that it degrades in time, even when it is inspected at regular intervals. Such situation occurs because most inspections are partial, that is, not all potential failure modes are observable through inspections. Possible reasons for this are the nature and the extent of the inspection, or potential risks generated by the inspection itself. The optimization criterion considered here is the mean overall availability Ao, but also taking into account the requirements for the safety availability As. We consider several conditions that ensure coherent modelling for these systems: sub-systems decomposition, k-out-of-n architectures, diagnostics coverage (observable/total amount of failure modes), dependent and independent failures, and non-negligible inspection times. The model requires an estimation for the coverage and dependent-failure ratios for each component, global failure rates, and inspection times. We illustrate its use through case studies and compare results with those obtained by applying previously published methodologies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it