Structural safety analysis

It is practical to conduct a structured safety analysis, e.g., in accordance with Figure 2, for a reaction with a given process in a given facility. 

Structural safety analysis from design to manufacture... 

The scheme of structural safety analysis addressed in this paper is resmned by the chart below. 

Freudentlial, A. M., Garrelts, J. M. and Sliinozuka, M. 1966 The Analysis of Structural Safety. Journal of the Structural Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, 92, STl, 261-MS. 

Safety evaluation is usually done by safety analyses methods. Safety analysis is a systematic examination of the structure and functions of a process system aimed at identifying potential accident contributors, evaluating the risk presented by them and finding risk-reducing measures (Koivisto, 1996). 

Keywords System Safety Complexity Safety Analysis Software Engineering Formal Methods OF-FMEA Safety Claim Structure Safety Case Safety Assessment... 

DOE 0 420.1 Facility Safety Requires fire hazard analysis and natural phenomena analysis for all facilities. For Hazard Category 2 or 3 nuclear facilities only, requires a criticality safety evaluation. Criticality Safety Analysis Fire Hazard Analysis Effects of natural phenomena hazards on facility systems, structures, or components (SSCs) included as part of safety analysis documented in the Safety Analysis Report (SAR), Basis for Interim Operation (BIO), or Auditable Safety Analysis (ASA). 

ABSTRACT The safety of oil depot is threatened by many factors and the results of safety evaluation are limited by the evaluation method, the accuracy of evaluation results also has been largely affected by personnel subjective factors. To overcome these defects, based on the analysis of influence factors of oil depot safety hierarchical structure safety evaluation model of oil depot is built by BP neural network method in this paper, and the evaluation model of neural network is trained by sample data. Evaluation results proved that BP neural network method is very suitable to evaluate the safety status of oil depot. 

The approach used to identify hazards will depend on the application being considered. For certain simple processes where there is extensive operating experience of a standard design, such as simple off-shore wellhead towers, it may be sufficient to use industry developed check lists (for example, the safety analysis checklists in ISO 10418 and API RP 14C). Where the design is more complex or a new process is being considered, a more structured approach may be necessary (for example, lEC 60300-3-9 1995). 

The auditor may be asked by the client to use the findings to identify management problems that lie behind the issues that were reported on. To do this, the approach used in Chapter 11 for Incident Investigation can be followed. That is, the elements of process safety are used to structure the analysis of the management systems. 

This chapter provides a broad introduction to the state of the art in general causal inference methods with an eye toward safety analysis. In brief, the estimation roadmap begins with the construction of a formal structural causal model of the data that allows the definition of intervention-specific counterfactual outcomes and causal effects defined as functionals of the distributions of these counterfactuals. The establishment of an identifiability result allows the causal parameter to be recast as an esti-mand within a statistical model for the observed data, thus translating the causal question of interest into an exercise in statistical estimation and inference. This exercise is nontrivial in (typically nonparametric) statistical models that are large enough to contain the true data-generating distribution. 

A review of the important aspects of current reliability theory has been published by the British Construction Industry Research and Information Association [61]. Only an outline of the basic ideas will be reviewed here. Methods of safety analysis grouped under the general heading of reliability theory have been categorised into three levels as follows level 1, includes methods in which appropriate levels of structural reliability are provided on a structural element (member) basis, by the specification of partial safety factors and characteristic values of basic variables level 2, includes methods which check probabilities of failure at selected points on a failure boundary defined by a given limit state equation this is distinct from level 3 which includes methods of exact probabilistic analysis for a whole structural system, using full probability distributions with probabilities of failure interpreted as relative frequencies. 

It is significant that both the methods considered in the previous sections are derived directly from tlie available methods of structural response analysis. The permissible stress method results from the use of elasticity, the load factor method from the use of ultimate load theory and plasticity. In both of them, the specification of the loads is not a direct part of the method, and the way in which the safety is assessed, results very simply from the structural response analysis. In comparision to the effect Involved in developing the theories of response analysis, the effort put in to the safety assessment is trivial. 

Safety Class SSCs - Systems, Structures or Components including primary environmental monitors and portions of process systems, whose failure could adversely affect the environment, or safety and health of the public as identified by safety analysis. 

Accurate and Consistent Results of a combination of analysis techniques and reviews/inspections, including safety analysis, S/W safety analysis, modelhng and simulation, formal method proofs that show internal consistency and completeness, structured requirements walkthroughs and inspections. 

Although in many eountries it is not eompulsory to perform a probabihstie safety analysis (PSA), in practiee it has beeome common practice for new plants and for existing ones. Moreover, international requirements include that safety analysis reports include a summary of the PSA study of the plant. A PSA is a complete and well-structured method for identifying accident scenarios and to obtain numerical risk estimates. 

The PBMR is very interesting from the safety point of view even if the design of the system appears rather complex. The intrinsic safety characteristics declared seem to be feasible, under the condition that the detaU system design is submitted to an attentive safety analysis, and this inelndes surveillance systems for structures and components. 

DOE Order 5480.23, Chg. I, Nuclear Safety Analysis Reports, Paragraph 8.b.(3)(d), as amplified in paragraph 4.f.(3)(d)4 of Attachment 1 to the Order, requires a description of the facility and operations conducted in the facility, including design of principal structures, components, systems, engineered safety features, and processes. (DOE 1994a). 

In accordance with DOE-STD-3009-94, (DOE 1994) safety SSCs are divided Into two categories (1) safety-class and (2) safety-significant. DOE-STD-3009-94 defines safety-class SSCs (SCSSCs) as those SSCs, including environmental monitors and portions of process systems, whose failure could adversely affect the environment or safety and health of the public as identified by safety analysis. The phrase adversely affect refers to exceeding offsite EGs (i.e., a whole-body dose of 25 rem to the nearest located member of the public). SCSSCs are systems, structures, or components whose preventive or mitigative function is necessary to keep hazardous material exposure to the public below the EGs. 

Safety-analysis capabilities are contained within the Nuclear Facility Operations and Nuclear Technology Programs organizations. These organizations produce Safety Analysis Reports for both reactor and nonreactor nuclear facilities, primarily in TA-V. Other organizations provide specialized safety-analysis support in the form of mechanistic accident-progression analysis, heat transfer, structural analysis, neutron transport, nuclear criticality safety, and other areas upon request. 

The base scenarios are classified by initiating events or safety system availability which may impact on an accident progression. Left hand side of Fig. 2 represents sample database structure of analysis results for a loss of offsite power initiating event which can be applied to the OPR-1000 plant. There are 12 base scenarios depending on the operation status ofplant safety features. The operation status of safety systems are ... 

Jung W.D, Yoon W.C., Kim J.W. Structured Information Analysis for Human Reliability Analysis of Emergency Task in Nuclear Power Plants. Reliability Engineering and system Safety Vol. 71, 21-32. Elsevier Science 2001. 

Instrumentation and Control (I C) systems are very often subject of probabilistic examination either within separate structural reliability analysis or Probabilistic Safety Assessment of a whole technological complex (e.g. Nuclear Power Plant). Use of programmable components in the design of these systems represents a challenge and utilizes the methods, which have been developed for components with a different behaviour. The typical method used for above mentioned examination is Fault Tree Analysis (FTA) (Vesely et al., 1981). The way of software faults modelling within Fault Trees vary a lot between particular models and there is no generally accepted modelling technique. 

---