A Study of Common-Mode Failures

Edwards, G. T., & Watson, I. A. (1979). A Study of Common-Mode Failures. UKAEA Systems Reliability Service, Report SRD R146.

Type

Report

Intellectual base

Grey literature

Year

1979

Link

https://inis.iaea.org/records/cdh5f-nxy58

Cited from

statistics_experimental_design, systems_cybernetics

Cited by

2 citations across 2 artifacts.

Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.

Primes

• Apparent Variety Masks Shared Driver
  • In engineering reliability, redundant components from the same supplier, firmware, lot, or room exhibit common-mode failure behind apparent N-way redundancy.

    This sourceDefines and classifies common-mode (common-cause) failure: redundant components sharing a supplier, lot, design, or environment fail together, so N-way redundancy provides far less protection than the count implies.

• Dependency Distribution Concentration
  • From these several reusable inferences follow. Concentration is a system property, not a provider property: diversifying without checking common-mode upstream correlations yields apparent diversification with concentrated true dependency. Tail risk dominates expected loss: when losses are convex in provider unavailability, the concentration measure dominates the average reliability measure in determining tail outcomes. The "two of everything" heuristic is wrong by default: naive duplication does not deconcentrate if both copies share upstream common modes, since effective deconcentration requires independence of failure, a property of the joint distribution rather than the count.

    This sourceFoundational reliability-engineering treatment of common-cause/common-mode failure, establishing that redundant copies sharing a common mode fail together — effective deconcentration requires independence of failure, not mere duplication.

Verification

Does it exist? Not checked yet. This entry carries no identifier to resolve. It was extracted from the citation as written in the article, normalized, and deduplicated against the rest of the registry.

Does it back the claim? Not recorded. Neither this nor any other of the 2 citations of this work carries a recorded support check.

Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.

See how references were verified.

Links previously used in the corpus

Before the registry existed this work was also linked 1 other way.

• https://www.osti.gov/biblio/5236300 ×1

Registry ID ref:ea371601088a · see in the full table