Component criticality in failure cascade processes of network systems

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim http://www.loc.gov/standards/marcxml/schema/MARC21slim.xsd">
  <record>
    <leader>00000cab a2200000   4500</leader>
    <controlfield tag="001">MAP20110054779</controlfield>
    <controlfield tag="003">MAP</controlfield>
    <controlfield tag="005">20111004103230.0</controlfield>
    <controlfield tag="008">110920e20110801esp|||p      |0|||b|spa d</controlfield>
    <datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
      <subfield code="a">MAP</subfield>
      <subfield code="b">spa</subfield>
      <subfield code="d">MAP</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
      <subfield code="a">7</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="100" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
      <subfield code="0">MAPA20080651213</subfield>
      <subfield code="a">Zio, Enrico</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="245" ind1="0" ind2="0">
      <subfield code="a">Component criticality in failure cascade processes of network systems</subfield>
      <subfield code="c">Enrico Zio, Giovanni Sansavini</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
      <subfield code="a">In this work, specific indicators are used to characterize the criticality of components in a network system with respect to their contribution to failure cascade processes. A realistic-size network is considered as reference case study. Three different models of cascading failures are analyzed, differing both on the failure load distribution logic and on the cascade triggering event. The criticality indicators are compared to classical measures of topological centrality to identify the one most characteristic of the cascade processes considered. </subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="1">
      <subfield code="0">MAPA20080591182</subfield>
      <subfield code="a">Gerencia de riesgos</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="1">
      <subfield code="0">MAPA20110024864</subfield>
      <subfield code="a">Modelos de negocio</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="1">
      <subfield code="0">MAPA20080601904</subfield>
      <subfield code="a">Indicadores de riesgo</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="1">
      <subfield code="0">MAPA20080583514</subfield>
      <subfield code="a">Análisis de fallos</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="1">
      <subfield code="0">MAPA20080589844</subfield>
      <subfield code="a">Control de procesos</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="1">
      <subfield code="0">MAPA20080604035</subfield>
      <subfield code="a">Sistemas informáticos</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="1">
      <subfield code="0">MAPA20110026080</subfield>
      <subfield code="a">Procesos en cascada</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" ">
      <subfield code="0">MAPA20110025991</subfield>
      <subfield code="a">Sansavini, Giovanni</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2=" ">
      <subfield code="w">MAP20077000345</subfield>
      <subfield code="t">Risk analysis : an international journal</subfield>
      <subfield code="d">McLean, Virginia : Society for Risk Analysis, 1987-2015</subfield>
      <subfield code="x">0272-4332</subfield>
      <subfield code="g">01/08/2011 Tomo 31 Número 8  - 2011 , p. 1196-1210</subfield>
    </datafield>
  </record>
</collection>