Fault tree analysis events

Historical Analysis, Fault Tree Analysis, Event Tree Analysis, Decision Chteria... 

Logic Diagram Methods (Fault Tree Analysis, Event Tree Analysis, Cause-Consequence Analysis, Human Reliability Analysis, Success and Failure Trees, etc,)... 

Process hazard analysis (PHA) Any of a number of techniques for understanding and managing the risk of a chemical process or plant. Examples of PHA techniques include HAZOP, checklists, what-if methods, fault tree analysis, event tree analysis, and others. 

The PHA procedure can be conducted using various methodologies. For example, the checklist analysis discussed earlier is an effective methodology. In addition, Pareto analysis, relative ranking, pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA), change analysis, failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA), fault tree analysis, event tree analysis, event and CF charting, PrHA, what-if analysis, and HAZOP can be used in conducting the PHA. 

HAZOP and What-If reviews are two of the most common petrochemical industry qualitative methods used to conduct process hazard analyses. Up to 80% of a company s process hazard analyses may consist of HAZOP and What-If reviews with the remainder 20% from Checklist, Fault Tree Analysis, Event Tree, Failure Mode and Effects Analysis, etc. An experienced review team can use the analysis to generate possible deviations from design, construction, modification, and operating intent that define potential consequences. These consequences can then be prevented or mitigated by the application of the appropriate safeguards. 

A systems hazards analysis (SHA) is a systematic and comprehensive search for and evaluation of all significant failure modes of facility systems components that can be identified by an experienced team. The hazards assessment often includes failure modes and effects analysis, fault tree analysis, event tree analysis, and hazards and operability studies. Generally, the SHA does not include external factors (e.g., natural disasters) or an integrated assessment of systems interactions. However, the tools of SHA are valuable for examining the causes and the effects of chemical events. They provide the basis for the integrated analysis known as quantitative risk assessment. For an example SHA see the TOCDF Functional Analysis Workbook (U.S. Army, 1993-1995). 

Three hazard analysis techniques are currently used widely Fault Tree Analysis, Event Tree Analysis, and HAZOP. Variants that combine aspects of these three techniques, such as Cause-Consequence Analysis (combining top-down fault trees and forward analysis Event Trees) and Bowtie Analysis (combining forward and backward chaining techniques) are also sometimes used. Safeware and other basic textbooks contain more information about these techniques for those unfamiliar with them. FMEA (Failure Modes and Effects Analysis) is sometimes used as a hazard analysis technique, but it is a bottom-up reliability analysis technique and has very limited applicability for safety analysis. 

Some traditional quantitative approaches such as fault tree analysis, event tree analysis, failure mode effects and criticahty analysis and bow tie, etc. have been widely used and contributed to the literature of risk analysis. However, most of them have described... 

The engineering methods and techniques used for demonstrating the satisfaction of equipment safety requirements (e.g Fault Tree Analysis, Event Tree Analysis, Zonal Hazard Analysis etc.) are relatively well understood by the wider safety engineering community compared with those for people and procedures and will therefore not be discussed further here. The remainder of this paper will discuss how the above approach to safety requirements specification and realisation can be developed in the case of human-based subsystems, using Human Factors methods and techniques. 

Several methods are available for identifying and assessing hazards (Kletz, 1990). Hazards can be identified through checklists, failure mode effect analysis (FMEA), fault tree analysis, event tree analysis, what-if analysis, and hazard and operability studies (HAZOP). Assessing hazards can be done through hazard analysis (HAZAN), codes of practice, the Dow Explosion Index, and prototype index of inherent safety (PIIS). 

Fault tree analysis Event tree analysis FMEA/FMECA SIL assessment — Risk assessment... 

In this section we give a brief description of three commonly used methods of safety analysis Fault Tree Analysis, Event Tree Analysis and Failure Mode and Effect Analysis. Those are the methods which, in our opinion, can mostly benefit fix)m being extended with more formal semantics. We do not cover here Hazard and Operability Study (HAZOP) which is a "structured brainstorm" - type method with the main stress on managerial aspects. However, as HAZOP may make use of FTA, ETA and/or FMEA, it can also benefit firom the proposed approach. 

Methods for performing hazard analysis and risk assessment include safety review, checkhsts, Dow Fire and Explosion Index, what-if analysis, hazard and operabihty analysis (HAZOP), failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA), fault tree analysis, and event tree analysis. Other methods are also available, but those given are used most often. 

Fault Tree Analysis. Fault trees represent a deductive approach to determining the causes contributing to a designated failure. The approach begins with the definition of a top or undesired event, and branches backward through intermediate events until the top event is defined in terms of basic events. A basic event is an event for which further development would not be useful for the purpose at hand. For example, for a quantitative fault tree, if a frequency or probabiUty for a failure can be deterrnined without further development of the failure logic, then there is no point to further development, and the event is regarded as basic. 

It is important in fault tree analysis to consider only the nearest contributing event. There is always a tendency to jump immediately to the details, skipping all of the intermediate events. Some practice is required to gain experience in this technique. 

Fault Tree Analysis Faiilt tree analysis permits the hazardous incident (called the top event) frequency to be estimated from a logic model of the failure mechanisms of a system. The top event is traced downward to more basic failures using logic gates to determine its causes and hkelihood. The model is based on the combinations of fail-... 

Layer of protection analysis (LOPA) is a simplified form of event tree analysis. Instead of analyzing all accident scenarios, LOPA selects a few specific scenarios as representative, or boundary, cases. LOPA uses order-of-magnitLide estimates, rather than specific data, for the frequency of initiating events and for the probability the various layers of protection will fail on demand. In many cases, the simplified results of a LOPA provide sufficient input for deciding whether additional protection is necessary to reduce the likelihood of a given accident type. LOPAs typically require only a small fraction of the effort required for detailed event tree or fault tree analysis. 

Recognized systematic approaches include hazard operability study (HAZOP) event tree analysis fault tree analysis. 

A simple example of fault tree analysis applied to an internal combustion engine (Figure 3.4.4-2) is the Figure 3.4.4-3 fault tree diagram of how the undesired event "Low Cylinder Compression" may occur. The Boolean equation of this fault tree is in the caption of Figure 3.4.4-3. Let the occurrence of these events be represented by a 7, non-occurrence by 0, and consider that there may he a long history of occurrences with this engine. Several sets of occunrence.s (trials) are... 

A failure modes and effects analysis delineates components, their interaction.s ith each other, and the effects of their failures on their system. A key element of fault tree analysis is the identification of related fault events that can contribute to the top event. For a quantitative evaluation, the failure modes must be clearly defined and related to a numerical database. Component failure modes should be realistically and consistently postulated within the context of system operational requirements and environmental factors. 

The branching probability at a node is determined by either fault tree analysis of the event system or by data from operating experience. 

The assembly process (Figure 10-1) brings together all of the assessment tasks to provide the risk, its significance, how it was found, its sensitivity to uncertainties, confidence limits, and how it may be reduced by system improvements. Not all PSAs use fault trees and event trees. This is especially true of chemical PSAs that may rely on HAZOP or FMEA/FMECAs. Nevertheless the objectives are the same accident identification, analysis and evaluation. Figure 10-1 assumes fault tree and event tree techniques which should be replaced by the equivalent methods that are used. 

The QRA was conducted by risk sts and design innel to determine the probability of explosive releases of the chemical. Fault tree analysis identified several combinations of equipment failures and operator errors that could cause the top event (reactor explosion), Failure data were obtained from plant ex ice and industry da%.ui,/uoes to quantify the fault trees to estimate the frequency of reactor explosions. The fault trees suggested several safety improv-... 

INTEGRATION WITH HARDWARE ANALYSIS. The error probabilities obtained from the quantification procedure are incorporated in the overall system fault trees and event trees. 

Fault Tree Analysis Report for CoaF Coal Gasitication Failure rales (per year basts) for over 400 events Coal-gasification Process Development unit 50. 

Cause-consequence risk evaluation combines event tree and fault tree analysis to relate specific accident consequences to causes. Tlie process of cause-consequence evaluation usually proceeds as follows ... 

---