Fault tree analysis technique

IEC 61025 and ISA TR 84.00.02-3 illustrate the fault tree analysis technique for calculating the probabilities of failure for safety instrumented functions designed in accordance with IEC 61511-4 ANSI/ISA-84.00.01-2004 Parti (IEC 61511-1 Modi and this standard. 

---

This paper presents a new approach based on a combination of traditional predictive modelling and event/fault tree analysis techniques, which allows representing at the same time evolution of hazards and normal and abnormal (i.e. failures) performance of safety measures, e.g. variations of process parameters, analysis and inspections, through the food chain for a better estimation of the real impact of such deviations/failures on consumer health. 

Another benefit of performing the FHA in the early stages of design is the identification of fault tree analysis top events (the failure conditions). Once the top events are defined, an inductive fault tree can be developed for each failure condition or event associated with the system. Chapter 12 discusses the fault tree analysis technique. 

Once developed, the fault areas that are responsible for yielding an undesired (or desired) event can be evaluated on the micro rather than the macro level, and this is one of the primary utilities of the fault tree analysis technique. 

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. 

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. 

Frequency Estimation There are two primary sources for estimates of incident frequencies. These are historical records and the apphcation of fault tree analysis and related techniques, and they are not necessarily applied independently. Specific historical data can sometimes be usehiUy applied as a check on frequency estimates of various subevents of a fault tree, for example. 

How do you then design an effective system There are several techniques you can use. Failure Modes and Effect Analysis (FMEA), Fault Tree Analysis (FTA), and Theory of Constraints (TOC) are but three. The FMEA is a bottom-up approach, the FTA a top-down approach, and TOC a holistic approach. 

Failure sequence modeling techniques such as fault tree analysis or event tree analysis are used to estimate tlie likelihood of incidents in facilities where historical data is unai ailable, or is inadequate to accurately estimate tlie likelihood of the liazardous incidents of concern. Otlier modeling tecluiiques may be required to consider tlie impact of external events (eartliquakes, floods, etc.), common cause failures, and human factors and hmnan reliability. 

A fault tree is a graphic technique used to analyze complex systems. Fault tree analysis attempts to describe how and why an accident or other undesirable event lias occurred. It may also be used to describe how and why an accident or otlier undesirable event could take place. 

Failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) A hazard identification technique in which all known failure modes of components or features of a system are considered in turn and undesired outcomes are noted. It is often used in combination with hazard and operability (HAZOP) studies or fault tree analysis. 

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. 

Identification and quantitative estimation of common-cause failures are general problems in fault tree analysis. Boolean approaches are generally better suited to mathematically handle common-cause failures. The basic assumption is that failures are completely independent events, but in reality dependencies will exist and these are categorized as common cause failures (CCFs). Both qualitative and quantitative techniques can be applied to identify and assess CCFs. An excellent overview of CCF is available (AIChE-CCPS, 2000). 

Under certain circumstances, it may be appropriate to examine the sequence of events that may lead to the initiating event. Techniques such as fault tree analysis or event trees may be used to estimate the frequency of these events. 

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

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... 

HAZAN, on the other hand, is a process to assess the probability of occurrence of such accidents and to evaluate quantitatively the consequences of such happenings, together with value judgments, in order to decide the level of acceptable risk. HAZAN is also sometimes referred to as Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) and its study uses the well-established techniques of Fault Tree Analysis and/or Event Tree Analysis ... 

The rest of this section outlines the core sub-processes to support safety analyses (compare [F. Redmill, (2004)], [N. G. Leveson, (2004)], [Ch. Blechinger, (2004)], [J. Zalewski and all, (2003)]). The processes place techniques, such as Hazard And Operability Studies (HAZOP), Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) and Fault Tree Analysis (FTA), into context. 

Rohm and Haas uses Multiple-Cause, Systems-Oriented Incident Investigation techniques (MCSOII), or mac-soy. It is a direct adaptation of the Fault Tree Analysis logic and the Deming Principles of Systems and Quality. [10] The method was developed to improve the overall quality of investigations, to increase the uniformity of investigation made by various teams, and improve the usefulness of the proposed corrective actions. The quality of the mac-soy or MCSOII investigation is improved because the method [10]... 

Allowing time in the early stages of design for critical reviews and evaluation of alternatives would involve studies such as an early hazard and operability (HAZOP) study, using flowsheets, before final design begins,4 Fault tree analysis, quantitative risk assessment (QRA), checklists, audits, and other review and checking techniques can also be very helpful. These techniques are extensively discussed in the technical literature and will not be discussed in detail here. 

Identification can be as simple as asking what-iP questions at design reviews. It can also involve the use of a checklist outlining the normal process hazards associated with a specific piece of equipment. The major weakness of the latter approach is that items not on the checklist can easily be overlooked. The more formalized hazard-assessment techniques include, but are not limited to, hazard and operability study (HAZOP), fault-tree analysis (FTA), failure mode-and-effect analysis (FMEA), safety indexes, and safety audits. 

---