# Frequently Asked Questions

In the new version of the software, we've had a problem related to the beta factor in the Final Element. Usually, when the Beta factor is increased, the PFD is increased too. But in this version, it happened the other way around. It only happens in the fi

Last Updated a year ago

Most likely you have a MooM configuration in your final elements. In that case, when common cause is considered in a MooM voting you will notice that the PFDavg will decrease with increasing beta. This seems counterintuitive, common cause is expected to have a negative effect on a redundant configuration. Consider a simplified PFDavg equation for a 1oo2 voting arrangement:

PFDavg = ((LambdaDN * TI)^2)/3 + LambdaDC * TI/2

In this equation we see a portion that represents the redundant architecture and a portion that represents a single architecture (i.e. the common cause portion). A similar equation can be defined for a 2oo2 voting arrangement:

PFDavg = LambdaDN * TI + LambdaDC * TI/2

This equation has a similar structure, however the redundant architecture portion of the equation has been replaced by the PFDavg formula for a 2oo2 configuration. Now substitute Lambda and Beta in this equation. LambdaDN = (1-beta) * LambdaD and LambdaDC = beta * LambdaD. This leads to:

PFDavg = (1-beta) * LambdaD * TI + beta * LambdaD * TI/2 = (1-beta/2) * LambdaD * TI. So from this equation it can be seen that if beta increases PFDavg will actually decrease. Though this is counterintuitive it makes sense when you consider that a 2oo2 configuration is typically used to reduce spurious trips. Beta will have a negative impact on the spurious trip rate for a 2oo2 configuration. Similarly beta has a negative impact on PFDavg for a 1oo2 configuration (a configuration to improve safety integrity) but will have a positive effect on the spurious trip rate.

PFDavg = ((LambdaDN * TI)^2)/3 + LambdaDC * TI/2

In this equation we see a portion that represents the redundant architecture and a portion that represents a single architecture (i.e. the common cause portion). A similar equation can be defined for a 2oo2 voting arrangement:

PFDavg = LambdaDN * TI + LambdaDC * TI/2

This equation has a similar structure, however the redundant architecture portion of the equation has been replaced by the PFDavg formula for a 2oo2 configuration. Now substitute Lambda and Beta in this equation. LambdaDN = (1-beta) * LambdaD and LambdaDC = beta * LambdaD. This leads to:

PFDavg = (1-beta) * LambdaD * TI + beta * LambdaD * TI/2 = (1-beta/2) * LambdaD * TI. So from this equation it can be seen that if beta increases PFDavg will actually decrease. Though this is counterintuitive it makes sense when you consider that a 2oo2 configuration is typically used to reduce spurious trips. Beta will have a negative impact on the spurious trip rate for a 2oo2 configuration. Similarly beta has a negative impact on PFDavg for a 1oo2 configuration (a configuration to improve safety integrity) but will have a positive effect on the spurious trip rate.