Fault Tree Analysis method

Table 4.26. Time Estimates for Using the Fault Tree Analysis Method...

The earliest logic trees were based on engineering fault tree analysis methods. Today, companies use a number of variations or combinations of logic trees and call them by different names, such as Why Tree,< 9) Causal Tree,(20,21) Cause and Effect Logic Diagram (CELD),<22) and Multiple-Cause, Systems-Oriented Incident Investigation (MCS011).<23,24) tools have more similarities than differences. 

Failure rates for both equipment and peoples responses are assigned and the frequency and severity of a TOP Event can be calculated. Should the risk be found to be unacceptable, additional process safety hardware or additional procedures can be recommended. Then, calculations can be made to determine the benefits of the additional hardware or procedures. The Fault Tree Analysis method of evaluation is very sophisticated and a detailed explanation is beyond the scope of this book. 

The experience is that for I C systems approval the probabilistic goals are set and needs to be fulfilled. Reasonable consideration of software reliabihty is desired. This could lead to sometimes senseless way of involvement of software faults into Fault Trees and their quantification. The sensitivity analysis of system tolerance to software faults and their common cause aspects is much more meaningful and could reveal the weak points of the I C design. Even if this analysis is mostly quahtative unless we have applicable methodology to estimate particular basic events prob-abftistic parameters, the Fault Tree Analysis Method represents a good base to demonstrate a sound fault tolerant design. 

Example The following is a demonstration of the fault tree analysis method using the example of an emergency cooling system of a water-boiler nuclear reactor. For the sake of clarity, only the mechanical components will be considered. 

Finally we should note here that fault tree analysis methods provide an alternative to reliability block diagrams, particularly for detailed failure rate analysis of sub systems. Hence electronic and PES manufacturers will use these methods to evaluate the reliability of their specific products. 

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. 

Process Hazards Analysis. Analysis of processes for unrecogni2ed or inadequately controUed ha2ards (see Hazard analysis and risk assessment) is required by OSHA (36). The principal methods of analysis, in an approximate ascending order of intensity, are what-if checklist failure modes and effects ha2ard and operabiHty (HAZOP) and fault-tree analysis. Other complementary methods include human error prediction and cost/benefit analysis. The HAZOP method is the most popular as of 1995 because it can be used to identify ha2ards, pinpoint their causes and consequences, and disclose the need for protective systems. Fault-tree analysis is the method to be used if a quantitative evaluation of operational safety is needed to justify the implementation of process improvements. 

Failure Mode and Ejfect Analysis (FMEA) This is a systematic study of the causes of failures and their effects. All causes or modes of failure are considered for each element of a system, and then all possible outcomes or effects are recorded. This method is usually used in combination with fault tree analysis, a quantitative technique. FMEA is a comphcated procedure, usually carried out by experienced risk analysts. 

Today there are many tools available to aid in problem solving or f ure analysis. These include the Weibull Analysis, Failure Mode i Effect Analysis, and Fault Tree Analysis, to name a few. One of the m widely accepted is the Weibull analysis. This method can provide accurate engineering analysis based on extraordinary small samples [1]. 

This section describes the most commonly used method for complex systems analysis - fault tree analysis. The previous section introduced cutsets as physically cutting through an RED, here, cuiscis. ire presented mathematically. The symbols of fault trees are introduced and a heuristic... 

Fault Tree Analysis (FTA) A method for logical development of the many contributing failures that might result in an incident. 

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

All team members should be familiar with PrHA objectives, the PrHA method to be used, and their roles in performing the PrHA. A 1- or 2-hour overview at the beginning of the first team review session is generally sufficient for this purpose. However, the more demanding PrHA methods, such as fault tree analysis (FTA), require more training and/or a greater depth of experience than less-rigorous methods, such as what-if and checklist analyses. 

Although risk analysis of new facilities is required by Ref. 39, the method of conducting the analysis is left quite open. The reference suggests fault hazard analysis, fault tree analysis, or sneak circuit analysis. Ref. 41 is an example of a thorough hazards evaluation and risk analysis for a new facility at Radford Army... 

Fault tree (analysis) a method for the logical estimation of the many contributing failures that might lead to a particular outcome (top event). 

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. 

Fault tree analysis (FTA) and event tree analysis (ETA) are the methods most commonly applied quantitatively. Since they only address the likelihood of undesired events, these methods are often combined with consequence severity calculations in a quantitative risk analysis, as described by CCPS (1999b). Layer of protection analysis (LOPA) uses a semiquantitative, order-of-magnitude approach. It is documented with worked examples in CCPS (2001b). 

Fault Tree Analysis (ETA) provides a structured method for determining the causes of an incident.< 25,26,27) fault tree itself is a graphic model that displays the various comhinations of equipment failures and human errors that can result in an incident. 

Many deductive investigation techniques use logic tree diagrams. A partial list of these methods includes fault tree analysis (FTA), causal tree... 

This investigation/systems analysis/fault tree analysis of this incident provided an excellent opportunity to demonstrate the power of the investigation method and the ease with which it may be adapted to a systems analysis for facilitating improvements and corrective actions. 

Hazard and risk analysis is a vast subject by itself and is extensively covered in the literature [22]. In order to plan to avoid accidental hazards, the hazard potential must be evaluated. Many new methods and techniques have been developed to assess and evaluate potential hazards, employing chemical technology and reliability engineering. These can be deduced from Fault Tree Analysis or Failure Mode Analysis [23], In these techniques, the plant and process hazard potentials are foreseen and rectified as far as possible. Some techniques such as Hazards and operability (HAZOP) studies and Hazard Analysis (HAZAN) have recently been developed to deal with the assessment of hazard potentials [24]. It must be borne in mind that HAZOP and HAZAN studies should be properly viewed not as ends in themselves but as valuable contributors to the overall task of risk management... 

The overall concept of all of the following tools is that of risk analysis or risk assessment. Risk analysis helps to decide whether an aspect is GMP-critical or not. The risk analysis can be performed in a formal or more informal way. Following are two popular and import types of risk analysis. Another method, the fault tree analysis (FTA), has recently been used in the area of computer validation. This method is not described here, as it is a complex form of risk analysis. 

Deductive methods, such as the Fault Tree Analysis (FTA) that proceeds by starting from the top event and looking for failures that may cause it to happen. These methods are based on questions of the type How can it happen ... 

---