Fault Tree Analysis objectives

System reliability can be analyzed in a number of other ways. Objections to fault tree analysis are ... 

An early version of MET methodology was applied in the Interim Reliability Evaluation Program (IREP) that analyzed the ( ill vert Cliffs and Arkansas Nuclear lessons learned in IREP and other applications. Although MET is an extension of the fault tree analysis (Section 3.4,4), it warrants a. separate discussion (see NUREG/ CR 3268). Objectives of MET are ... 

A fault tree is a grapliic teclmique used to analyze complex systems. The objective is to spotlight conditions tliat cause a system to fail. Fault tree analysis attempts to describe how and why an accident or otlier undesirable event lias occurred. It may also be used to describe how and why an accident or otlier undesirable event could take place. Thus fault tree analysis finds wide application in hazard analysis and risk assessment of process and plant systems. ... 

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. 

The term near miss —which may better be called near hit —describes an incident that did not result in an actual loss but that had the potential to do so. For example, if an object is dropped from a crane but no one is hurt then the incident is a near miss. In terms of fault tree analysis, a near miss is an event in which one or more of the inputs to an AND gate was negative. 

The primary events of the fault tree may be further decomposed. For example, the failure of the pump motor Ml might be caused by a failure of its stator or rotor windings, cables or such like. This would make sense if the motor itself were the object of the fault tree analysis. In practice the degree of decomposition (degree of detail) is determined by the boundaries (deUmitation) of the reliability data for describing component behaviour, which are needed for quantifying a fault tree. 

As conflicts can be top events in fault tree analysis or generally constitute rather high level events, the probabilities and nature of conflicts is regarded an important issue within the literature. One way to assess conflicts in traffic is the so-called traffic conflict technique [35]. A traffic conflict may be characterized by considering approaching object trajectories which, extrapolated in time, would exhibit an increased probability for collision unless one of the participants changes his current state of motion [35]. This definition could be extended on non-observable situations and single vehicle conflicts. 

NFPA has developed a Fire Safety Concepts Tree At the top of the tree are fire safety objectives, followed by actions to achieve the objectives. Elements of the tree connect using AND and OR gates, similar to fault tree analysis (Figure 36-10). A Fire Safety Concepts Tree can help analyze buildings and designs using qualitative and quantitative procedures. 

Fuzzy multicriteria analysis is used for decision making in a network of procedures that describes a complete electrochemical finishing plant. The decision alternatives result by means of fault tree analysis and neuro-fuzzy reasoning the criteria are categorized as objective and subjective. The training of the technical staff is achieved in a cooperative environment by playing with what if scenarios based on real and simulated data. 

Fault tree analysis is also very effective in determining the root cause of accidents and near miss incidents. It helps evaluate equipment failure and predict potential hazards. Fault tree analysis is a useful safety audit tool that uses very simple statements of fact and is very objective and realistic. 

A fault tree analysis is not only an ideal method of hazard identification, but also of analyzing the risks contained in a process or a plant. The fault tree analysis encourages objective thinking and is effective in tracing possible causes of accidents, evaluating possible equipment failure, which leads to the prediction of an accident. 

The fault tree analysis was undertaken with the following objectives in mind ... 

This technique reverses the logic of fault tree analysis. In positive tree design, a system for successful operation is comprehensively and logically laid out. The positive tree is an excellent planning and assessment tool because it shows all that must be performed and the proper sequencing of events needed to accomplish an objective. 

What are the main objectives of performing fault-tree analysis ... 

The safety analysis tools currently available typically deal with specific techniques, such as fault-tree analysis. SAM is intended to build on the strengths of such tools, by providing a co-ordinating and integrating framework for complete safety cases. We know of no other work addressing these objectives. 

Fault-tree analysis This level of analysis concerns critical infrastructures, where multiple conditions are necessary for the systems to ensure its task. This type of approach aims to evaluate the remaining operating capacity (residual operation capacity) of objects such as health-care facilities. The system is broken down into structural, nonstructural, or human components, each one of them being connected with logic operators. 

In this figure, the seleeted initial event can be selected from the design environment, or ean be extracted by applying automated HAZOP, which highlight list of top events that may eause hazard. In this case, product flow rate (F ) is low has been selected as the initial event. The result of the fault tree analysis as generated by CARA shows total of six cut sets up to order four. The results of the fault tree are fed back to HE Results database as associated with each plant physical object. The relationships among proeess variable, fault, component, and failure are used in the automation of generating the fault tree results. The minimum eut sets represents the different seenarios for the occurrence of the top event (output product flow rate is low). 

The target probability is sometimes referred to as the derived safety objective , especially if flowed down to system components via the application of techniques such as fault tree analysis. 

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. 

In this way, the fault tree can be quantified, which makes this technique very powerful for the reliability analysis of protection systems. The prerequisite is the availability of statistical reliability data of the different devices and instruments that is often difficult to obtain for multi-purpose plants, where devices can be exposed to very different conditions when changing from one process to another. Nevertheless, if the objective is to compare different designs, semi-quantitative data are sufficient. 

The investigation has shown how the safety of the system can be improved. At the same time its availability is increased, although this was not the express objective of the analysis. Some of the results were already obtained in the qualitative part of the analysis. The quantification of the fault trees brought further insights and enabled one to identify areas of unbalanced safety measures. The latter are characterized by largely differing contributions of an individual initiating event to the expected frequency of an explosion (vid. Table 9.48). The proposals for... 

The achievement of the IDAL does not imply achievement of the allocated Failure Probability Objective, and thus a failure probability carmot be claimed (or used in higher-level analysis) for DAL items within fault trees. 

The objectives of this standardized observational technique are risk assessment as well as effectiveness evaluation of traffic facilities, not estimations regarding the quantity of accidents [35]. Thereby, conflicts have a probability to become accidents, which does not mean that accidents can be predicted with the method [35]. The transition probabilities between conflicts and accidents, as needed, for example, in the above-mentioned fault tree analyses, can be assessed [42]. Compared to accident analysis, investigating conflicts has the following advantages [35] ... 

General Fault tree description and structure, objectives, applications, and combinations with other reliability analysis techniques, for example, FTA-FMEA, FTA-ETA, etc. 

The SESAR safety assessment approach typically uses static risk modelling techniques safety criteria and objectives are identified based on accident incident models and further safety requirements are derived using Fault Trees, Failures Modes and Effects Analysis or similar techniques. This section presents criteria to identify specific cases where DRM application is required. 

The fault-tree method was developed in the early 1960s at the Bell Telephone Laboratories to conduct analysis of the Minuteman Launch Control System [3]. Some of the main objectives of performing FTA are as follows [3, 5] ... 

---