CN116579669A

CN116579669A - Reliability evaluation method, reliability evaluation device, computer equipment and storage medium thereof

Info

Publication number: CN116579669A
Application number: CN202310849131.6A
Authority: CN
Inventors: 谢丽梅; 乔丽娜; 吴志刚; 黄铎佳; 张蕊; 黄海东; 高春雨; 蔡玉红
Original assignee: China Electronic Product Reliability and Environmental Testing Research Institute
Current assignee: China Electronic Product Reliability and Environmental Testing Research Institute
Priority date: 2023-07-12
Filing date: 2023-07-12
Publication date: 2023-08-11
Anticipated expiration: 2043-07-12
Also published as: CN116579669B

Abstract

The present application relates to the field of device diagnosis technologies, and in particular, to a reliability evaluation method, apparatus, computer device, and storage medium thereof. The method comprises the following steps: determining the failure probability of at least one key function failure state in the device to be evaluated based on the task reliability quantitative index of the device to be evaluated; and determining the occurrence probability of at least one failure state of each system to be evaluated and the corresponding failure probability of each system to be evaluated; probability comparison is carried out on the failure probability corresponding to each system to be evaluated and the ideal failure probability corresponding to each system to be evaluated to obtain a first comparison result, and probability comparison is carried out on the failure probability of each key function failure state and the ideal failure probability of each key function failure state to obtain a second comparison result; and determining a reliability evaluation result of the device to be evaluated according to the first comparison result, the second comparison result and the corresponding failure probability of each system to be evaluated.

Description

Reliability evaluation method, reliability evaluation device, computer equipment and storage medium thereof

Technical Field

The present application relates to the field of device diagnosis technologies, and in particular, to a reliability evaluation method, apparatus, computer device, and storage medium thereof.

Background

Along with the continuous development of the technology level, the reliability of the device is evaluated in the research, development, production and use processes of a plurality of devices, so that the device can have a stable running state, and the fault probability of the device in the running process is reduced;

in the prior art, the device reliability can be evaluated by constructing a digital model of the device so as to simulate the working principle and the running state of the device according to the digital model.

However, in the prior art, when reliability evaluation is performed on equipment, the reliability of the device is not evaluated with "failure of equipment" as a core, so that the reliability of the device cannot be accurately obtained according to the prior art.

Disclosure of Invention

Based on the foregoing, it is necessary to provide a reliability evaluation method, apparatus, computer device and storage medium thereof capable of accurately acquiring the reliability of a device under evaluation.

In a first aspect, the present application provides a reliability evaluation method. The method comprises the following steps:

acquiring a task reliability quantitative index of the device to be evaluated, and determining the failure probability of at least one key function failure state in the device to be evaluated based on the task reliability quantitative index of the device to be evaluated;

Determining the occurrence probability of at least one failure state of each system to be evaluated based on the failure probability of at least one failure state of the key function in the device to be evaluated and the attribution relation between at least one system to be evaluated in the device to be evaluated and each failure state of the key function, and determining the corresponding failure probability of each system to be evaluated based on the occurrence probability of at least one failure state of each system to be evaluated;

based on the performance parameter of at least one device to be evaluated in each system to be evaluated, determining the ideal failure probability corresponding to each system to be evaluated and the ideal failure probability of each key function failure state;

probability comparison is carried out on the failure probability corresponding to each system to be evaluated and the ideal failure probability corresponding to each system to be evaluated to obtain a first comparison result, and probability comparison is carried out on the failure probability of each key function failure state and the ideal failure probability of each key function failure state to obtain a second comparison result;

and determining a reliability evaluation result of the device to be evaluated according to the first comparison result, the second comparison result and the corresponding failure probability of each system to be evaluated.

In one of the embodiments of the present invention,

according to the first comparison result, the second comparison result and the corresponding failure probability of each system to be evaluated, the method comprises the following steps:

Determining occurrence probability corresponding to at least one failure state of each system to be evaluated according to the failure probability corresponding to each system to be evaluated;

determining the occurrence probability of at least one failure state of each device to be evaluated based on the attribution relation of each system to be evaluated and at least one device to be evaluated and the occurrence probability corresponding to the at least one failure state of each system to be evaluated;

determining the failure probability corresponding to each device to be evaluated based on the occurrence probability of at least one failure state of each device to be evaluated;

and determining a reliability evaluation result of the device to be evaluated according to the first comparison result, the second comparison result and the failure probability corresponding to each device to be evaluated.

In one embodiment, the method further comprises:

determining at least one candidate function contained in the device to be evaluated and the task influence type caused by the failure of each candidate function;

and screening at least one key function of the device to be evaluated from the candidate functions contained in the device to be evaluated based on the task influence type caused by the failure of the candidate functions.

In one embodiment, determining a failure probability corresponding to at least one critical functional failure state in the device under evaluation based on a task reliability quantitative indicator of the device under evaluation includes:

Judging whether to acquire the influence weight of each key function failure state in the device to be evaluated;

if yes, calculating the failure probability of each key function failure state in the device to be evaluated based on the influence weight of each key function failure state in the device to be evaluated and the task reliability quantitative index of the device to be evaluated, and determining the failure probability corresponding to each key function failure state in the device to be evaluated;

if not, performing equal division operation on the task reliability quantitative index of the device to be evaluated, and taking an equal division operation result as failure probability corresponding to each key function failure state in the device to be evaluated.

In one embodiment, the method further comprises:

acquiring a framework design principle and a historical function failure record of the device to be evaluated, and constructing a fault tree of a key function failure state of the device to be evaluated based on the framework design principle and the historical function failure record of the device to be evaluated;

and determining the attribution relation between at least one system to be evaluated and each key function failure state in the device to be evaluated and the attribution relation between each system to be evaluated and at least one device to be evaluated according to the fault tree of the key function failure state of the device to be evaluated.

In one embodiment, determining the occurrence probability of at least one failure state of each system to be evaluated based on the failure probability of at least one failure state of the key function in the device to be evaluated and the attribution relation between at least one system to be evaluated in the device to be evaluated and each failure state of the key function includes:

determining a calculation formula corresponding to the failure probability of each key function failure state based on the attribution relation between at least one system to be evaluated in the device to be evaluated and each key function failure state;

and determining the occurrence probability of at least one failure state of each system to be evaluated based on the failure probability of at least one key function failure state in the device to be evaluated and a calculation formula corresponding to the failure probability of each key function failure state.

In one embodiment, determining the ideal failure probability corresponding to each system to be evaluated and the ideal failure probability of each critical functional failure state based on the performance parameters of the device to be evaluated includes:

determining ideal failure probability of each device to be evaluated based on performance parameters of at least one device to be evaluated in each system to be evaluated;

determining the ideal failure probability corresponding to each system to be evaluated based on the ideal failure probability of each device to be evaluated and the attribution relation between each system to be evaluated and at least one device to be evaluated;

And determining the ideal failure probability of each key function failure state based on the ideal failure probability corresponding to each system to be evaluated and the attribution relation between at least one system to be evaluated in the device to be evaluated and each key function failure state.

In a second aspect, the present application also provides a reliability evaluation device. The device comprises:

the acquisition module is used for acquiring the task reliability quantitative index of the device to be evaluated and determining the failure probability of at least one key function failure state in the device to be evaluated based on the task reliability quantitative index of the device to be evaluated;

the first determining module is used for determining the occurrence probability of at least one failure state of each system to be evaluated based on the failure probability of at least one failure state of the key function in the device to be evaluated and the attribution relation between at least one system to be evaluated in the device to be evaluated and each failure state of the key function, and determining the corresponding failure probability of each system to be evaluated based on the occurrence probability of at least one failure state of each system to be evaluated;

the second determining module is used for determining ideal failure probability corresponding to each system to be evaluated and ideal failure probability of each key function failure state based on the performance parameters of the equipment to be evaluated;

The comparison module is used for carrying out probability comparison on the failure probability corresponding to each system to be evaluated and the ideal failure probability corresponding to each system to be evaluated to obtain a first comparison result, and carrying out probability comparison on the failure probability of each key function failure state and the ideal failure probability of each key function failure state to obtain a second comparison result;

and the third determining module is used for determining the reliability evaluation result of the device to be evaluated according to the first comparison result, the second comparison result and the failure probability corresponding to each system to be evaluated.

In a third aspect, the present application also provides a computer device. The computer device comprises a memory storing a computer program and a processor implementing a reliability assessment method of the first aspect described above when the processor executes the computer program.

In a fourth aspect, the present application also provides a computer-readable storage medium. A computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon a computer program which, when executed by a processor, implements a reliability evaluation method of the first aspect described above.

The reliability evaluation method, the reliability evaluation device, the computer equipment, the storage medium and the computer program product are used for determining the failure probability of the failure state of each key function through task reliability quantitative indexes, and determining the failure probability corresponding to each system to be evaluated based on the attribution relation between at least one system to be evaluated in the device to be evaluated and each key function failure state; in the process of determining the failure probability corresponding to each system to be evaluated, not only the failure probability of each key function failure state is used, but also the attribution relation of each system to be evaluated and each key function failure state is used, so that the accuracy of determining the failure probability of each system to be evaluated is ensured, the reliability of the device is evaluated by taking the failure of equipment as a core, and the reliability evaluation result of the subsequent device to be evaluated accords with the actual condition of the device to be evaluated. In addition, by determining the ideal failure probability corresponding to each system to be evaluated and the ideal failure probability of each key function failure state, the first comparison result and the second comparison result of the device to be evaluated are determined, so that the reliability evaluation result can be obtained based on the first comparison result and the second comparison result, and the reliability evaluation result is ensured to fully reflect the real state of the device to be evaluated.

Drawings

FIG. 1 is an application environment diagram of a reliability evaluation method according to an embodiment of the present application;

FIG. 2 is a flowchart of a reliability evaluation method according to an embodiment of the present application;

FIG. 3 is a schematic diagram of a first functional structure tree according to an embodiment of the present application;

FIG. 4 is a schematic diagram of a second functional structure tree according to an embodiment of the present application;

FIG. 5 is a schematic diagram of a third functional structure tree according to an embodiment of the present application;

FIG. 6 is a flowchart of determining a reliability evaluation result according to an embodiment of the present application;

FIG. 7 is a flowchart of determining failure probability of a critical functional failure state according to an embodiment of the present application;

FIG. 8 is a flowchart of another reliability evaluation method according to an embodiment of the present application;

fig. 9 is a block diagram of a first reliability evaluation apparatus according to an embodiment of the present application;

fig. 10 is a block diagram of a second reliability evaluation apparatus according to an embodiment of the present application;

FIG. 11 is a block diagram of a third reliability evaluation apparatus according to an embodiment of the present application;

fig. 12 is a block diagram of a fourth reliability evaluation apparatus according to an embodiment of the present application;

fig. 13 is a block diagram of a fifth reliability evaluation apparatus according to an embodiment of the present application;

Fig. 14 is a block diagram of a sixth reliability evaluation device according to an embodiment of the present application;

fig. 15 is a block diagram of a seventh reliability evaluation apparatus according to an embodiment of the present application;

fig. 16 is an internal structural view of a computer device in one embodiment.

Detailed Description

The present application will be described in further detail with reference to the drawings and examples, in order to make the objects, technical solutions and advantages of the present application more apparent. It should be understood that the specific embodiments described herein are for purposes of illustration only and are not intended to limit the scope of the application.

It should be understood that the specific embodiments described herein are for purposes of illustration only and are not intended to limit the scope of the application. In the description of the present application, a description of the terms "one embodiment," "some embodiments," "examples," "specific examples," or "some examples," etc., means that a particular feature, structure, material, or characteristic described in connection with the embodiment or example is included in at least one embodiment or example of the present application. In this specification, schematic representations of the above terms are not necessarily directed to the same embodiment or example. Furthermore, the particular features, structures, materials, or characteristics described may be combined in any suitable manner in any one or more embodiments or examples. Furthermore, the different embodiments or examples described in this specification and the features of the different embodiments or examples may be combined and combined by those skilled in the art without contradiction.

Based on the above situation, the reliability evaluation method provided by the embodiment of the present application may be applied to an application environment as shown in fig. 1. In one embodiment, a computer device is provided, which may be a server, the internal structure of which may be as shown in FIG. 1. The computer device includes a processor, a memory, and a network interface connected by a system bus. Wherein the processor of the computer device is configured to provide computing and control capabilities. The memory of the computer device includes a non-volatile storage medium and an internal memory. The non-volatile storage medium stores an operating system, computer programs, and a database. The internal memory provides an environment for the operation of the operating system and computer programs in the non-volatile storage media. The database of the computer device is used for storing acquired data of the reliability evaluation method. The network interface of the computer device is used for communicating with an external terminal through a network connection. The computer program is executed by a processor to implement a reliability evaluation method.

The application discloses a reliability evaluation method, a reliability evaluation device, computer equipment and a storage medium thereof, wherein the computer equipment determines the corresponding failure probability of each system to be evaluated through the failure probability of at least one key function failure state in the device to be evaluated; and determining the ideal failure probability corresponding to each system to be evaluated and the ideal failure probability of each key function failure state based on the performance parameters of the equipment to be evaluated, and further determining the reliability evaluation result of the device to be evaluated according to the failure probability corresponding to each system to be evaluated, the ideal failure probability corresponding to each system to be evaluated and the ideal failure probability of each key function failure state.

In one embodiment, as shown in fig. 2, fig. 2 is a flowchart of a reliability evaluation method provided by an embodiment of the present application, and the reliability evaluation method performed by the computer device in fig. 1 may include the following steps:

step 201, acquiring a task reliability quantitative indicator of the device to be evaluated, and determining a failure probability of at least one critical functional failure state in the device to be evaluated based on the task reliability quantitative indicator of the device to be evaluated.

Wherein the task reliability quantitative indicator may include, but is not limited to: task failure/termination probability, task delay probability, task reduction probability, task reliability and mean time between severe failures (MTBCF), etc.

Wherein, the key functions refer to: among all functions contained in the device to be evaluated, the functions of three task influence types, namely task failure/termination, task delay and task reduction, are caused when the device to be evaluated fails; further, the present application provides a judging idea for defining the key functions, and the method for determining the failure state of the key functions is not limited, and is not repeated here.

In one embodiment of the present application, when determining the failure probability corresponding to the failure state of at least one key function in the device to be evaluated according to the task reliability quantitative indicator of the device to be evaluated, the method may include the following steps: acquiring operation information of a device to be evaluated, and determining influence weights of failure states of key functions in the device to be evaluated according to the operation information of the device to be evaluated; and according to the influence weights of the failure states of the key functions in the device to be evaluated, distributing task reliability quantitative indexes to the failure states of the key functions in the device to be evaluated, and determining the failure probability corresponding to the failure states of the key functions in the device to be evaluated.

The operation information of the device to be evaluated comprises failure influence caused by failure of each key function in the device to be evaluated and task influence caused by normal operation of the device to be evaluated.

The influence weight of each critical functional failure state in the device to be evaluated can be determined based on the task influence of each critical functional failure state, and the influence weight of the critical functional failure state and the task influence of the critical functional failure state are in a direct proportion relation; and further indicates that the critical functional failure state has a high possibility of affecting the normal operation of the device to be evaluated.

Further, when the device to be evaluated comprises operation information, determining a comprehensive score of each key function in failure states according to the operation states of each key function in the operation information; and determining the influence weight of each key function failure state according to the comprehensive score of each key function failure state.

Wherein, the comprehensive score of each key function failure state refers to the comprehensive score of each key function failure state determined based on a preset scoring rule and combined with the operation information of the device to be evaluated; if the comprehensive score of a certain key function failure state is higher, the influence caused by the key function failure state is larger; if the comprehensive score of a critical functional failure state is lower, the influence caused by the critical functional failure state is smaller.

For example, the pre-set scoring rules may include: functional technology maturity score criteria, and functional complexity score criteria, specifically functional technology maturity score criteria refer to: the more mature the technical level corresponding to the critical functional failure state is, the lower the corresponding score is; the more immature the level of technology that corresponds to the critical functional failure state, the higher the corresponding score. The functional complexity scoring criteria refers to: the higher the complexity corresponding to the critical functional failure state, the higher the corresponding score; the lower the corresponding complexity of the critical functional failure state, the lower the corresponding score.

Further, when determining the influence weights of the failure states of the key functions according to the comprehensive scores of the failure states of the key functions, the influence weights of the failure states of the key functions can be determined based on the influence weight calculation formula; wherein, the calculation formula (1) of the influence weight can be as follows:

……(1)

wherein C refers to the impact weight of the critical functional failure state, ω refers to the composite score at the critical functional failure state,refers to the sum of the composite scores at the time of J key functional failure states.

When the operation information of the device to be evaluated cannot be acquired, the method indicates that the influence weights of the failure states of the key functions in the device to be evaluated cannot be acquired, and further the failure probability corresponding to the failure states of the key functions cannot be determined according to the influence weights of the failure states of the key functions in the device to be evaluated; therefore, the quantitative index of the task reliability of the device to be evaluated can be subjected to equal division operation, and the equal division operation result is used as the failure probability corresponding to the failure state of each key function in the device to be evaluated.

Step 202, determining occurrence probability of at least one failure state of each system to be evaluated based on failure probability of at least one failure state of the key function in the device to be evaluated and attribution relation between at least one system to be evaluated in the device to be evaluated and each failure state of the key function, and determining corresponding failure probability of each system to be evaluated based on occurrence probability of at least one failure state of each system to be evaluated.

The device to be evaluated includes at least one system to be evaluated, for example, if the device to be evaluated is an aircraft, the system to be evaluated included in the device to be evaluated includes: hydraulic systems, flight control systems, avionics systems, and the like.

It should be noted that, different failure states of the key function may be associated with different failure states of the system under evaluation, for example, if the device under evaluation is an automobile device, the failure states of the key function may include, but are not limited to: the braking distance of the braking function is too long, the braking function cannot be used, and the braking is severely vibrated; it is understood that different failure states of the system under evaluation may cause different failure states and influence consequences of the key functions.

The failure probability of at least one failure state of the key function in the device to be evaluated comprises failure probabilities corresponding to different failure states of the key function.

It should be noted that, the architecture design principle and the historical function failure record of the device to be evaluated can be obtained, the key function failure state fault tree of the device to be evaluated is constructed based on the architecture design principle and the historical function failure record of the device to be evaluated, and the attribution relation between at least one system to be evaluated and each key function failure state in the device to be evaluated is determined according to the key function failure state fault tree of the device to be evaluated.

Further, when it is desired to determine the occurrence probability of at least one failure state of each system under evaluation, the following may be specifically included: constructing a fault tree of a critical functional failure state of the device to be evaluated, determining the attribution relation between at least one system to be evaluated in the device to be evaluated and each critical functional failure state according to the structure of the fault tree of the critical functional failure state, and determining a calculation formula corresponding to the failure probability of each critical functional failure state based on the attribution relation between at least one system to be evaluated in the device to be evaluated and each critical functional failure state; and determining the occurrence probability of at least one failure state of each system to be evaluated based on the failure probability of each key function failure state and a calculation formula corresponding to the failure probability of each key function failure state.

In one embodiment of the present application, if the set critical functional failure states include three failure states, the three failure states are as follows: FC1, FC2 and FC3, wherein the failure probabilities corresponding to the three failure states are respectively lambda _FC1 、λ _FC2 And lambda (lambda) _FC3 The fault tree recorded in fig. 3 is used for representing the relationship between the failure state of FC1 and the failure state of each system to be evaluated; the fault tree recorded in fig. 4 is used to represent the relationship between the FC2 failure state and the failure state of each system under evaluation; the fault tree recorded in fig. 5 is used to represent the relationship between the FC3 failure state and the failure state of each system under evaluation; determining a calculation formula corresponding to the failure probability of the failure states of the three key functions according to the structural relation of the three failure trees in fig. 3 to 5; the calculation formulas corresponding to the failure probabilities of the three key functional failure states are respectively shown as follows:

the calculation formula (2) corresponding to the failure probability of the key function failure state corresponding to fig. 3 is as follows:

……（2）

wherein lambda is _FC1 Refers to failure probability corresponding to failure state FC1, T ₁ Refers to the failure duration, lambda, of the failure state FC1 _A1 Refers to the occurrence probability of the first failure state A1 of the system A to be evaluated;t _A1 refers to the duration of the first failure state A1 of the system a under evaluation; lambda (lambda) _B1 Refers to the occurrence probability of the first failure state B1 of the system B to be evaluated; t is t _B1 Refers to the duration of the first failure state B1 of the system under evaluation B.

The calculation formula (3) corresponding to the failure probability of the key function failure state corresponding to fig. 4 is:

……（3）

wherein lambda is _FC2 Refers to failure probability corresponding to failure state FC2, T ₂ Refers to the failure duration, lambda, of the failure state FC2 _A2 Refers to the occurrence probability of the second failure state A2 of the system A to be evaluated; t is t _A2 Refers to the duration of the second failure state A2 of the system a under evaluation; lambda (lambda) _B2 Refers to the occurrence probability of the second failure state B2 of the system B to be evaluated; t is t _B2 Refers to the duration of the second failure state B2 of the system under evaluation B; lambda (lambda) _C1 Refers to the occurrence probability of the second failure state C1 of the system C to be evaluated; t is t _C1 Refers to the duration of the second failure state C1 of the system C under evaluation.

The calculation formula (4) corresponding to the failure probability of the key function failure state corresponding to fig. 5 is:

……（4）

wherein lambda is _FC3 Refers to failure probability corresponding to failure state FC3, T ₃ Refers to the failure duration, lambda, of the failure state FC3 _A3 Refers to the occurrence probability of a third failure state A3 of the system A to be evaluated; λ _C3 Refers to the occurrence probability of a third failure state C2 of the system C to be evaluated; t is t _A3 Refers to the duration of the third failure state A3 of the system a under evaluation; t is t _C2 Refers to the duration of the second failure state C2 of the system C under evaluation.

Step 203, determining an ideal failure probability corresponding to each system to be evaluated and an ideal failure probability of each critical functional failure state based on the performance parameter of at least one device to be evaluated in each system to be evaluated.

Further, the ideal failure probability of each device to be evaluated under the ideal state can be determined through the performance parameters of the devices to be evaluated, and further the ideal failure probability corresponding to each system to be evaluated and the ideal failure probability of each key function failure state are reversely determined according to the ideal failure probability of each device to be evaluated. Furthermore, the reliability evaluation result of the device to be evaluated can be determined according to the ideal failure probability corresponding to each system to be evaluated and the ideal failure probability of each key function failure state.

In one embodiment of the application, comprehensive analysis is performed based on performance parameters of equipment to be evaluated, and the ideal failure probability of at least one equipment to be evaluated, which is respectively contained in each system to be evaluated, is determined; determining the ideal failure probability corresponding to each system to be evaluated based on the ideal failure probability of at least one device to be evaluated contained in each system to be evaluated and the attribution relation between each system to be evaluated and at least one device to be evaluated; and determining the ideal failure probability of each key function failure state based on the ideal failure probability corresponding to each system to be evaluated and the attribution relation between at least one system to be evaluated in the device to be evaluated and each key function failure state.

Wherein the performance parameters of the device under evaluation may include, but are not limited to: the method comprises the steps of designing requirements at the beginning of the design of equipment to be evaluated, historical analysis records of fault mode influence analysis of the equipment to be evaluated, and performance parameters of corresponding similar equipment of the equipment to be evaluated; the corresponding similar devices of the device to be evaluated can be devices with the same structure, the same function, the same use scene and the like as the device to be evaluated, and the performance parameters of the similar devices have reference values for the performance parameters of the device to be evaluated.

And 204, performing probability comparison on the failure probability corresponding to each system to be evaluated and the ideal failure probability corresponding to each system to be evaluated to obtain a first comparison result, and performing probability comparison on the failure probability of each key function failure state and the ideal failure probability of each key function failure state to obtain a second comparison result.

The first comparison result is used for determining the magnitude relation between the failure probability corresponding to each system to be evaluated and the ideal failure probability corresponding to each system to be evaluated, and the second comparison result is used for determining the magnitude relation between the failure probability of each critical function failure state and the ideal failure probability of each critical function failure state.

Step 205, determining a reliability evaluation result of the device to be evaluated according to the first comparison result, the second comparison result and the failure probability corresponding to each system to be evaluated.

It should be noted that, the failure probability corresponding to each device to be evaluated may be determined according to the failure probability corresponding to each system to be evaluated, and then the reliability evaluation result of the device to be evaluated may be determined according to the first comparison result, the second comparison result and the failure probability corresponding to each device to be evaluated.

Further, when the reliability evaluation result of the device to be evaluated needs to be determined, whether each system to be evaluated is qualified, whether each key function is qualified, and whether each device to be evaluated is qualified can be determined based on a predetermined result judgment rule, a first comparison result, a second comparison result and a failure probability corresponding to each device to be evaluated, wherein the qualification condition of each system to be evaluated, each key function and each device to be evaluated is the reliability evaluation result of the device to be evaluated.

In one embodiment of the present application, the reliability evaluation result of the device to be evaluated includes the qualification status of each device to be evaluated, and specifically, when the qualification status of each device to be evaluated needs to be determined, the method may specifically include the following: by determining the failure probability corresponding to each device to be evaluated, whether each device to be evaluated is reliable or not can be judged based on a preset probability threshold value corresponding to each device to be evaluated; specifically, if the failure probability corresponding to a certain device to be evaluated is smaller than or equal to the probability threshold corresponding to the device to be evaluated, the device to be evaluated is determined to be reliable, and similarly, if the failure probability corresponding to the certain device to be evaluated is larger than the probability threshold corresponding to the device to be evaluated, the device to be evaluated is determined to be unreliable.

In one embodiment of the present application, if the predetermined result judging rule is that only the failure probability corresponding to each system to be evaluated in the first comparison result is smaller than the ideal failure probability corresponding to each system to be evaluated, each system to be evaluated is qualified; if the failure probability is larger than or equal to the corresponding ideal failure probability, each system to be evaluated is unqualified.

In one embodiment of the present application, if the predetermined result judgment rule is that only the failure probability of the failure state of each key function is smaller than the corresponding ideal failure probability, then each key function is qualified; if the key functions with failure probability larger than or equal to the corresponding ideal failure probability exist, each key function is unqualified.

As the functions of the equipment are increased, the complexity of the equipment is increased, so that the difficulty of acquiring the reliability of the equipment is increased, and the accuracy of acquiring the reliability of the equipment is also reduced; in order to solve the above-mentioned problem, the computer device of the present embodiment may determine, by a manner as shown in fig. 6, a reliability evaluation result of the device under evaluation according to the first comparison result, the second comparison result, and the failure probability corresponding to each system under evaluation, and specifically includes the following steps:

and step 601, determining occurrence probability corresponding to at least one failure state of each system to be evaluated according to the failure probability corresponding to each system to be evaluated.

It should be noted that, when determining the occurrence probability corresponding to at least one failure state of each system to be evaluated according to the failure probability corresponding to the system to be evaluated, the method may include the following steps: acquiring operation information of a system to be evaluated, and determining influence weights of failure states in the system to be evaluated according to the operation information of the system to be evaluated; and distributing the failure probability corresponding to the system to be evaluated according to the influence weight of each failure state in the system to be evaluated, and determining the occurrence probability corresponding to at least one failure state of each system to be evaluated.

Further, if the influence weight of each failure state in the system to be evaluated cannot be obtained, performing equal division operation on the failure probability corresponding to each system to be evaluated, and taking the equal division operation result as the occurrence probability corresponding to at least one failure state of the corresponding system to be evaluated.

Step 602, determining the occurrence probability of at least one failure state of each device under evaluation based on the attribution relation between each system under evaluation and at least one device under evaluation and the occurrence probability corresponding to at least one failure state of each system under evaluation.

It should be noted that, the method for determining the home relation between at least one system to be evaluated and at least one device to be evaluated in the device to be evaluated may be as follows: acquiring a framework design principle and a historical function failure record of a system to be evaluated, and constructing a fault tree of at least one failure state of the system to be evaluated based on the framework design principle and the historical function failure record of the device to be evaluated; determining the attribution relation between at least one failure state in the system to be evaluated and each device to be evaluated according to the failure tree of at least one failure state of the system to be evaluated; and splitting the occurrence probability corresponding to the at least one failure state of each system to be evaluated according to the attribution relation of the at least one failure state of each system to be evaluated and each device to be evaluated, so as to obtain the occurrence probability of the at least one failure state of each device to be evaluated.

Further, if the historical function failure record of the equipment to be evaluated cannot be obtained, the failure mode frequency ratio of the equipment to be evaluated can be obtained, and the occurrence probability of failure states of all the equipment to be evaluated in the failure tree of at least one failure state of the system to be evaluated is determined according to the failure mode frequency ratio of the equipment to be evaluated.

The fault mode frequency ratio of the equipment to be evaluated is used for representing the probability that different failure states of the equipment to be evaluated respectively correspond to each other. For example, if the device to be evaluated has three failure states of open circuit, short circuit and parameter drift, the probability of each failure state is 45%, 35% and 20%, respectively, the frequency ratio of the three failure states of open circuit, short circuit and parameter drift is 45%, 35% and 20%, respectively.

Further, if the historical function failure record of the equipment to be evaluated cannot be obtained, and the failure mode frequency ratio of the equipment to be evaluated cannot be obtained, assigning the occurrence probability corresponding to at least one failure state of each system to be evaluated to the occurrence probability of at least one failure state of each equipment to be evaluated by adopting a scoring assignment method; or based on the cut-set method, the occurrence probability corresponding to at least one failure state of each system to be evaluated is distributed to the occurrence probability of at least one failure state of each device to be evaluated.

Step 603, determining a failure probability corresponding to each device to be evaluated based on the occurrence probability of at least one failure state of each device to be evaluated.

When the failure probability corresponding to each device to be evaluated needs to be determined, the failure state corresponding to each device to be evaluated can be determined, and then the occurrence probability of the failure state corresponding to each device to be evaluated is summed, and the obtained result is the failure probability corresponding to each device to be evaluated.

Step 604, determining a reliability evaluation result of the device to be evaluated according to the first comparison result, the second comparison result and the failure probability corresponding to each device to be evaluated.

It should be noted that, through the first comparison result, the second comparison result and the failure probability corresponding to each device to be evaluated, determining whether each system to be evaluated is qualified, whether each key function is qualified, and whether each device to be evaluated is qualified, where each system to be evaluated, each key function and the qualification condition of each device to be evaluated are reliability evaluation results of the device to be evaluated.

According to the reliability evaluation method, by determining the corresponding failure probability of each device to be evaluated, the reliability of each device to be evaluated can be considered when the reliability evaluation result of the device to be evaluated is determined, and the reliability evaluation result of the device to be evaluated is ensured to be in accordance with the actual situation of the device to be evaluated.

It should be noted that, the method for determining the key function may include: determining at least one candidate function contained in the device to be evaluated and the task influence type caused by the failure of each candidate function; and screening at least one key function of the equipment to be evaluated from the candidate functions contained in the equipment to be evaluated based on the task influence type caused by the failure of the candidate functions.

Wherein, the candidate function refers to any one of all functions of the device to be evaluated which is not subjected to key function screening.

For example, if the device to be evaluated includes three candidate functions, the three candidate functions are respectively: candidate function 1, candidate function 2, and candidate function 3, and the task impact types of the three candidate functions are respectively: task delay, task reduction and no impact. Therefore, according to the definition of the above-described critical function, it is determined that only the candidate function 3 whose task influence type is "no influence" is not a critical function, and thus, the candidate function 1 and the candidate function 2 are critical functions of the device to be evaluated.

According to the reliability evaluation method, the key functions are screened from the candidate functions, so that the efficiency of determining the reliability evaluation result of the device to be evaluated is guaranteed, and the influence of the candidate functions without influence on the efficiency and accuracy of determining the reliability evaluation result of the device to be evaluated is prevented.

As an embodiment, to ensure the accuracy of determining the failure probability corresponding to each critical functional failure state in the device to be evaluated, the method for calculating the failure probability corresponding to each critical functional failure state in the device to be evaluated may be determined by judging whether to obtain the impact weight of each critical functional failure state in the device to be evaluated, so as to obtain the failure probability corresponding to each critical functional failure state in the device to be evaluated with higher accuracy, where the computer apparatus of the embodiment may determine the failure probability corresponding to at least one critical functional failure state in the device to be evaluated based on the task reliability quantitative indicator of the device to be evaluated in a manner as shown in fig. 7, and specifically includes the following steps:

step 701, judging whether to acquire the influence weight of each key function failure state in the device to be evaluated; if yes, go to step 702; if not, go to step 703.

Step 702, performing failure probability calculation on each critical function failure state in the device to be evaluated based on the influence weight of each critical function failure state in the device to be evaluated and the task reliability quantitative index of the device to be evaluated, and determining the failure probability corresponding to each critical function failure state in the device to be evaluated.

As an implementation manner, based on the impact weight of each critical functional failure state in the device to be evaluated and the task reliability quantitative index of the device to be evaluated, performing failure probability calculation on each critical functional failure state in the device to be evaluated includes the following contents:

determining the reliability of each critical function failure state influence on the task based on a calculation formula (5)Is a function of (1); the calculation formula (5) is as follows:

……（5）

wherein P is _FCi (t) refers to the critical functional failure state i versus task reliabilityIs a probability of influence of (1); c (C) _i Refers to the impact weight of the critical functional failure state i,the task reliability in the task reliability quantitative index of the device to be evaluated is referred to, and t refers to task execution time.

Since the calculation formula (6) of the failure probability corresponding to the critical functional failure state is as follows:

……（6）

wherein, the liquid crystal display device comprises a liquid crystal display device,refers to failure rate, P corresponding to the critical functional failure state i _FCi (t) refers to the critical functional failure state i versus task reliabilityIs a probability of influence of (1); c (C) _i Refers to the impact weight of the critical functional failure state i,the task reliability in the task reliability quantitative index of the device to be evaluated is referred to, and t refers to task execution time.

Further, due to And, at the same time,will beAndsubstituting the formula (6) and combining the formula (5) to obtain a formula (7), wherein the formula (7) is as follows:

……（7）

wherein, the liquid crystal display device comprises a liquid crystal display device,refers to failure probability corresponding to key function failure state i, P _FCi (t) refers to the critical functional failure state i versus task reliabilityIs a probability of influence of (1); c (C) _i Refers to the impact weight of the critical functional failure state i,the task reliability in the task reliability quantitative index of the device to be evaluated is referred to, and t refers to task execution time.

Step 703, performing an equal division operation on the task reliability quantitative indicator of the device to be evaluated, and taking the equal division operation result as the failure probability corresponding to each key function failure state in the device to be evaluated.

As one implementation, performing the equal division operation on the task reliability quantitative indicator of the device to be evaluated includes the following:

the calculation formula (8) for performing halving operation on the task reliability quantitative index of the device to be evaluated is as follows:

……（8）

wherein, the liquid crystal display device comprises a liquid crystal display device,refers to the failure probability corresponding to the critical functional failure state i, n refers to the total number of critical functional failure states,mtbf refers to the average critical inter-fault time in the quantitative indicator of the task reliability of the device under evaluation.

According to the reliability evaluation method, whether the influence weight of each key function failure state in the device to be evaluated is acquired is judged, so that different methods for calculating the failure probability corresponding to each key function failure state in the device to be evaluated are selected, the determination accuracy of the failure probability corresponding to each key function failure state in the device to be evaluated is ensured, and a data basis is provided for the subsequent determination of the reliability evaluation result of the device to be evaluated.

In this embodiment, as shown in fig. 8, fig. 8 is a flowchart of another reliability evaluation method provided in the embodiment of the present application, when it is required to determine a reliability evaluation result of a device to be evaluated, the method may specifically include the following steps:

step 801, determining at least one candidate function included in the device to be evaluated, and a task impact type caused when each candidate function fails.

Step 802, at least one key function of the device to be evaluated is selected from the candidate functions included in the device to be evaluated based on the task impact type caused by the failure of each candidate function.

Step 803, obtaining the architecture design principle and the historical function failure record of the device to be evaluated, and constructing a fault tree of the key function failure state of the device to be evaluated based on the architecture design principle and the historical function failure record of the device to be evaluated.

Step 804, determining the attribution relation between at least one system to be evaluated and each key function failure state in the device to be evaluated and the attribution relation between each system to be evaluated and at least one device to be evaluated according to the fault tree of the key function failure state of the device to be evaluated.

Step 805, determining a failure probability corresponding to at least one critical functional failure state in the device under evaluation based on the task reliability quantitative indicator of the device under evaluation.

Step 806, determining occurrence probability of at least one failure state of each system to be evaluated based on the failure probability of at least one failure state of the key function in the device to be evaluated and the attribution relation between at least one system to be evaluated in the device to be evaluated and each failure state of the key function, and determining the corresponding failure probability of each system to be evaluated based on the occurrence probability of at least one failure state of each system to be evaluated.

Step 807, determining an ideal failure probability of at least one device under evaluation respectively included in each system under evaluation based on the performance parameters of the device under evaluation.

Step 808, determining the ideal failure probability corresponding to each system to be evaluated based on the ideal failure probability of at least one device to be evaluated contained in each system to be evaluated respectively and the attribution relation between each system to be evaluated and at least one device to be evaluated.

Step 809, determining the ideal failure probability of each key function failure state based on the ideal failure probability corresponding to each system to be evaluated and the attribution relation between at least one system to be evaluated and each key function failure state in the device to be evaluated.

And step 810, performing probability comparison on the failure probability corresponding to each system to be evaluated and the ideal failure probability corresponding to each system to be evaluated to obtain a first comparison result, and performing probability comparison on the failure probability of each key function failure state and the ideal failure probability of each key function failure state to obtain a second comparison result.

Step 811, determining occurrence probability corresponding to at least one failure state of each system to be evaluated according to the failure probability corresponding to each system to be evaluated.

Step 812, determining the occurrence probability of at least one failure state of each device under evaluation based on the attribution relation between each system under evaluation and at least one device under evaluation and the occurrence probability corresponding to at least one failure state of each system under evaluation.

Step 813, determining the failure probability corresponding to each device to be evaluated based on the occurrence probability of at least one failure state of each device to be evaluated.

Step 814, determining a reliability evaluation result of the device to be evaluated according to the first comparison result, the second comparison result and the failure probability corresponding to each device to be evaluated.

According to the reliability evaluation method, the failure probability of the failure state of each key function is determined through the task reliability quantitative index, and the failure probability corresponding to each system to be evaluated is determined based on the attribution relation between at least one system to be evaluated in the device to be evaluated and the failure state of each key function; in the process of determining the failure probability corresponding to each system to be evaluated, not only the failure probability of each key function failure state is used, but also the attribution relation of each system to be evaluated and each key function failure state is used, so that the accuracy of determining the failure probability of each system to be evaluated is ensured, the reliability of the device is evaluated by taking the failure of equipment as a core, and the reliability evaluation result of the subsequent device to be evaluated accords with the actual condition of the device to be evaluated. In addition, by determining the ideal failure probability corresponding to each system to be evaluated and the ideal failure probability of each key function failure state, the first comparison result and the second comparison result of the device to be evaluated are determined, so that the reliability evaluation result can be obtained based on the first comparison result and the second comparison result, and the reliability evaluation result is ensured to fully reflect the real state of the device to be evaluated.

It should be understood that, although the steps in the flowcharts related to the above embodiments are sequentially shown as indicated by arrows, these steps are not necessarily sequentially performed in the order indicated by the arrows. The steps are not strictly limited to the order of execution unless explicitly recited herein, and the steps may be executed in other orders. Moreover, at least some of the steps in the flowcharts described in the above embodiments may include a plurality of steps or a plurality of stages, which are not necessarily performed at the same time, but may be performed at different times, and the order of the steps or stages is not necessarily performed sequentially, but may be performed alternately or alternately with at least some of the other steps or stages.

Based on the same inventive concept, the embodiment of the application also provides a reliability evaluation device for realizing the reliability evaluation method. The implementation of the solution provided by the device is similar to the implementation described in the above method, so the specific limitation in the embodiments of the reliability evaluation device or devices provided below may be referred to the limitation of the reliability evaluation method hereinabove, and will not be repeated here.

In one embodiment, as shown in fig. 9, there is provided a reliability evaluation apparatus including: the acquisition module 10, the first determination module 20, the second determination module 30, the comparison module 40, and the third determination module 50, wherein:

the acquiring module 10 is configured to acquire a task reliability quantitative indicator of the device under evaluation, and determine a failure probability of at least one critical functional failure state in the device under evaluation based on the task reliability quantitative indicator of the device under evaluation.

The first determining module 20 is configured to determine an occurrence probability of at least one failure state of each system to be evaluated based on a failure probability of at least one failure state of the key function in the device to be evaluated and a home relation between at least one system to be evaluated in the device to be evaluated and each failure state of the key function, and determine a corresponding failure probability of each system to be evaluated based on the occurrence probability of at least one failure state of each system to be evaluated.

The second determining module 30 is configured to determine, based on the performance parameters of the device under evaluation, an ideal failure probability corresponding to each system under evaluation, and an ideal failure probability of each critical functional failure state.

The comparison module 40 is configured to perform probability comparison on the failure probability corresponding to each system to be evaluated and the ideal failure probability corresponding to each system to be evaluated, obtain a first comparison result, and perform probability comparison on the failure probability of each critical functional failure state and the ideal failure probability of each critical functional failure state, so as to obtain a second comparison result.

And the third determining module 50 is configured to determine a reliability evaluation result of the device under evaluation according to the first comparison result, the second comparison result, and the failure probability corresponding to each system under evaluation.

In one embodiment, as shown in fig. 10, there is provided a reliability evaluation apparatus in which the third determination module 50 includes: a first determination unit 51, a second determination unit 52, a third determination unit 53, and a fourth determination unit 54, wherein:

the first determining unit 51 is configured to determine an occurrence probability corresponding to at least one failure state of each system to be evaluated according to the failure probability corresponding to each system to be evaluated.

The second determining unit 52 is configured to determine an occurrence probability of at least one failure state of each device under evaluation based on a home relation between each system under evaluation and at least one device under evaluation and an occurrence probability corresponding to at least one failure state of each system under evaluation.

And a third determining unit 53, configured to determine a failure probability corresponding to each device to be evaluated based on the occurrence probability of at least one failure state of each device to be evaluated.

And a fourth determining unit 54, configured to determine a reliability evaluation result of the device under evaluation according to the first comparison result, the second comparison result, and the failure probability corresponding to each device under evaluation.

In one embodiment, as shown in fig. 11, there is provided a reliability evaluation apparatus, further comprising: a fifth determination module 60 and a sixth determination module 70, wherein:

a fourth determining module 60, configured to determine at least one candidate function included in the device to be evaluated, and a task impact type caused when each candidate function fails;

and a fifth determining module 70, configured to screen at least one key function of the device under evaluation from the candidate functions included in the device under evaluation based on the task impact type caused by the failure of each candidate function.

In one embodiment, as shown in fig. 12, there is provided a reliability evaluation apparatus in which the acquisition module 10 includes: a judgment unit 11, a fifth determination unit 12, and a sixth determination unit 13, wherein:

a judging unit 11, configured to judge whether to obtain an impact weight of each critical function failure state in the device to be evaluated;

a fifth determining unit 12, configured to, if yes, perform failure probability calculation on each critical functional failure state in the device to be evaluated based on the impact weight of each critical functional failure state in the device to be evaluated and the quantitative indicator of task reliability of the device to be evaluated, and determine failure probabilities corresponding to each critical functional failure state in the device to be evaluated;

And a sixth determining unit 13, configured to perform an equal division operation on the quantitative indicator of the task reliability of the device to be evaluated if not, and use the result of the equal division operation as the failure probability corresponding to each critical functional failure state in the device to be evaluated.

In one embodiment, as shown in fig. 13, there is provided a reliability evaluation apparatus, further comprising:

the construction module 80 is configured to obtain a structural design principle and a historical function failure record of the device to be evaluated, and construct a fault tree of a critical function failure state of the device to be evaluated based on the structural design principle and the historical function failure record of the device to be evaluated.

The sixth determining module 90 is configured to determine, according to the fault tree of the failure states of the key functions of the devices under evaluation, a home relationship between at least one system under evaluation and each failure state of the key functions in the devices under evaluation, and a home relationship between each system under evaluation and at least one device under evaluation.

In one embodiment, as shown in fig. 14, there is provided a reliability evaluation apparatus, in which the first determining module 20 further includes: a third determination unit 21 and a fourth determination unit 22, wherein:

a seventh determining unit 21, configured to determine a calculation formula corresponding to the failure probability of each critical functional failure state based on the attribution relationship between at least one system to be evaluated and each critical functional failure state in the device to be evaluated.

The eighth determining unit 22 is configured to determine an occurrence probability of at least one failure state of each system to be evaluated based on a failure probability of at least one failure state of the key function in the device to be evaluated and a calculation formula corresponding to the failure probability of each failure state of the key function.

In one embodiment, as shown in fig. 15, there is provided a reliability evaluation device, in which the second determining module 30 further includes: a ninth determination unit 31, a tenth determination unit 32, and an eleventh determination unit 33, wherein:

a ninth determining unit 31 is configured to determine an ideal failure probability of each device under evaluation based on the performance parameter of at least one device under evaluation in each system under evaluation.

A tenth determining unit 32, configured to determine an ideal failure probability corresponding to each system to be evaluated based on the ideal failure probability of each device to be evaluated and the attribution relationship between each system to be evaluated and at least one device to be evaluated.

An eleventh determining unit 33, configured to determine an ideal failure probability of each critical functional failure state based on the ideal failure probability corresponding to each system to be evaluated and the attribution relationship between at least one system to be evaluated and each critical functional failure state in the device to be evaluated.

The respective modules in the above-described reliability evaluation apparatus may be implemented in whole or in part by software, hardware, or a combination thereof. The above modules may be embedded in hardware or may be independent of a processor in the computer device, or may be stored in software in a memory in the computer device, so that the processor may call and execute operations corresponding to the above modules.

In one embodiment, a computer device is provided, which may be a terminal, and the internal structure thereof may be as shown in fig. 16. The computer device includes a processor, a memory, an input/output interface, a communication interface, a display unit, and an input means. The processor, the memory and the input/output interface are connected through a system bus, and the communication interface, the display unit and the input device are connected to the system bus through the input/output interface. Wherein the processor of the computer device is configured to provide computing and control capabilities. The memory of the computer device includes a non-volatile storage medium and an internal memory. The non-volatile storage medium stores an operating system and a computer program. The internal memory provides an environment for the operation of the operating system and computer programs in the non-volatile storage media. The input/output interface of the computer device is used to exchange information between the processor and the external device. The communication interface of the computer device is used for carrying out wired or wireless communication with an external terminal, and the wireless mode can be realized through WIFI, a mobile cellular network, NFC (near field communication) or other technologies. The computer program is executed by a processor to implement a reliability evaluation method. The display unit of the computer device is used for forming a visual picture, and can be a display screen, a projection device or a virtual reality imaging device. The display screen can be a liquid crystal display screen or an electronic ink display screen, and the input device of the computer equipment can be a touch layer covered on the display screen, can also be a key, a track ball or a touch pad arranged on the shell of the computer equipment, and can also be an external keyboard, a touch pad or a mouse and the like.

It will be appreciated by those skilled in the art that the structure shown in FIG. 16 is merely a block diagram of some of the structures associated with the present inventive arrangements and is not limiting of the computer device to which the present inventive arrangements may be applied, and that a particular computer device may include more or fewer components than shown, or may combine some of the components, or have a different arrangement of components.

It should be noted that, the user information (including but not limited to user equipment information, user personal information, etc.) and the data (including but not limited to data for analysis, stored data, presented data, etc.) related to the present application are information and data authorized by the user or sufficiently authorized by each party, and the collection, use and processing of the related data need to comply with the related laws and regulations and standards of the related country and region.

Those skilled in the art will appreciate that implementing all or part of the above-described methods in accordance with the embodiments may be accomplished by way of a computer program stored on a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, which when executed may comprise the steps of the embodiments of the methods described above. Any reference to memory, database, or other medium used in embodiments provided herein may include at least one of non-volatile and volatile memory. The nonvolatile Memory may include Read-Only Memory (ROM), magnetic tape, floppy disk, flash Memory, optical Memory, high density embedded nonvolatile Memory, resistive random access Memory (ReRAM), magnetic random access Memory (Magnetoresistive Random Access Memory, MRAM), ferroelectric Memory (Ferroelectric Random Access Memory, FRAM), graphene Memory, and the like. Volatile memory can include random access memory (Random Access Memory, RAM) or external cache memory, and the like. By way of illustration, and not limitation, RAM can be in the form of a variety of forms, such as Static Random access memory (Static Random access memory AccessMemory, SRAM) or dynamic Random access memory (Dynamic Random Access Memory, DRAM), and the like. The databases referred to in the embodiments provided herein may include at least one of a relational database and a non-relational database. The non-relational database may include, but is not limited to, a blockchain-based distributed database, and the like. The processor referred to in the embodiments provided in the present application may be a general-purpose processor, a central processing unit, a graphics processor, a digital signal processor, a programmable logic unit, a data processing logic unit based on quantum computing, or the like, but is not limited thereto.

The technical features of the above embodiments may be arbitrarily combined, and all possible combinations of the technical features in the above embodiments are not described for brevity of description, however, as long as there is no contradiction between the combinations of the technical features, they should be considered as the scope of the description.

The foregoing examples illustrate only a few embodiments of the application, which are described in detail and are not to be construed as limiting the scope of the application. It should be noted that it will be apparent to those skilled in the art that several variations and modifications can be made without departing from the spirit of the application, which are all within the scope of the application. Accordingly, the scope of the application should be assessed as that of the appended claims.

Claims

1. A reliability evaluation method, the method comprising:

and determining a reliability evaluation result of the device to be evaluated according to the first comparison result, the second comparison result and the failure probability corresponding to each system to be evaluated.

2. The method according to claim 1, wherein determining the reliability evaluation result of the device under evaluation according to the first comparison result, the second comparison result, and the failure probability corresponding to each system under evaluation, comprises:

3. The method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises:

4. The method according to claim 1, wherein determining the failure probability corresponding to the failure state of at least one key function in the device under evaluation based on the quantitative indicator of the task reliability of the device under evaluation comprises:

5. The method according to claim 2, wherein the method further comprises:

6. The method of claim 1, wherein determining the probability of occurrence of the at least one failure state for each system under evaluation based on the probability of failure of the at least one critical functional failure state in the device under evaluation and the affiliation of the at least one system under evaluation with each critical functional failure state in the device under evaluation, comprises:

7. The method of claim 1, wherein determining the ideal failure probability corresponding to each system under evaluation and the ideal failure probability of each critical functional failure state based on the performance parameter of at least one device under evaluation in each system under evaluation comprises:

8. A reliability evaluation device, characterized in that the device comprises:

9. A computer device comprising a memory and a processor, the memory storing a computer program, characterized in that the processor implements the steps of the method of any of claims 1 to 7 when the computer program is executed.

10. A computer readable storage medium, on which a computer program is stored, characterized in that the computer program, when being executed by a processor, implements the steps of the method of any of claims 1 to 7.